Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Article clean up

Just doing my due diligence here in that I have been recently cleaning up this article from things that are WP:OR or WP:SYN including multiple uncited claims. Everything must be properly sourced here . I am just continuing to clean up this article because by looking at the sources, or lack thereof, of my removals, one can see that 1) some of the statements are clearly are not criticisms, for instance the claims that Islam permits rape when the report mentioned condemnation because of Wahabism. Many of the reports are simply reports, not criticisms. Reporting events is not the same as condemning or criticizing them so one should be careful. Most of the removals were simply due to WP:SYN. I will revert to my version and if somethings should be kept then people are free to talk if the sources clear and not WP:OR or WP:SYN. I did do some clean up on this page a while ago and its time to do a little more. I am usually lenient, but article additions have to have some clear statements about criticizing or rebutting. There is also the risk of WP:COATRACK here. I am only trying to make the article better and more reliable as many have simply dumped content here that is badly sourced or making statements that sources clearly do not make with respect to criticism. Which is why I made a clean up the first time months ago. This is just another polishing now that I have some time to do it. --Mayan1990 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If Islam permits rape and reports are saying something else, then insert better source.

Which report is just report not criticism?
The sources who you are claiming that they "do not criticize", are actually criticizing in the sense, that they are citing about the religion which is typically assumed to be bad in common world.. For Example "child marriage", you don't have to certainly say that "it is bad bad thing", because it's common sense that it's bad.

Problems is that's there's a lot of content, So Mayan1990 its better if you simply revert, since you already made 3 reverts here now. And all of them seems to be removal of Sourced content. Your removal of "Many religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral," Philosopher Auguste Comte's comment, "Indoctrination of children", "child marriages", "Issues related to sexuality", "... is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members," "Suppression of scientific progress", "morality", "Racism", "animals", "cruelty to animals", "Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society", and removal of one newly added religion/critic from bar, seem to be just horrible. Since it's obvious that you haven't provided a valid reason. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at a few of your edits:

This removed a sentence that simply said "beliefs sometimes conflict with scientific models or findings (i.e. evolution, origin of the universe, miracles)" claiming OR. Did you mean to cite WP:V or is it likely to be disputed?
Here you removed the first part of the homosexuality section, "Many religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral," awkwardly starting the section with Elton John. Again, are you disputing these?
Here you removed a section on Comte's view of religion in his stages of society with an edit summary of "removing unsourced content WP:OR." OR does not say "remove any content you wish if there's no citation after it." A simple click over to the Comte article would confirm the accuracy of the statements and would likely even have a source there you could grab to improve the article.
Here the SYN you refer to seems to be the use of the "on one hand...on the other" structure of the paragraphs, which may be seen to link the ideas in a way that makes it sound like a single subject. I agree. But why delete it rather than simply remove the "hands?"
Here you remove the witchcraft section saying "sources do not explicitly criticize or rebut." It's clear you're not even looking at the sources. The Eller book is available as a Google Books preview and the cited pages launch a very explicit attack on Christianity.
Here you removed a block of text with the edit summary "source emphasized wahabism, not rape; removed pic leave as more neutral)." The source title is "Rape victim gets 200 lashes." If it talks extensively about Wahhabism, that makes the connection even more (why would an extremist religious group not be relevant?). In what way does removing the picture make this "criticism of religion" article more "neutral?"

I'll stop there. Now, granted, the article needs/needed a lot of work (including citations, indeed), and many of the things you removed were clearly OR (criticizing based on quotes from the Bible, for example), but the abundance of "just"s and "only"s in your eventual post here downplays the mass removal of content followed by two un-reverts without use of the talk page. Per all of the above, I'm reverting again. I hope that you will continue to improve the page, but please let's talk about some of these before removing them again.--Rhododendrites (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (update: I see Bladesmulti mentioned some of the same things while I was typing -- apologies for redundancy)

Actually, not reverting yet. No time to salvage the potentially useful reorganization efforts that were carried out in the meantime. Will do so tomorrow if someone else doesn't before then. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhododendrites is definitely correct. I am myself counting, if Ramos1990 can provide explanation under few hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for your comments. I know we are all trying to improve this article and know that you have acknowledged some of the things I found. So lets go over some of the points made in your bullet point order:

Pretty self explanatory. The point that beliefs conflict with science must be supported by citations that make such claims. I agree that this is a common objection but everything in wikipedia needs sources.
Pretty self explanatory. Many religions (Judaism, Christinaity, Islam) consider homosexuality as immorral. These statements need to be supported by sources or one overlying source making such a claim. They cannot be just floating around as these are clear statements about specific religions. The specific statements about religious groups who support homosexuality also needs sources or an overlying source making such a claim also.
Pretty self explanatory. Comte's comments need sourcing for those specific claims. No source provided. Since Comte was only thing in section, then without it there is no section. if source exists, then we can insert it and issue is solved.
ABC News ref does not mention prohibitions or sodomy laws, only guilt. Guardian source made accusation on marital rape, but the Islamic channel did not make that claim in the first place. Criticism is more on the channel than on Islam since nothing linked the Quran or Islam directly to allow rape. BBC news ref, criticized Islamic cleric, but it does not talk about Islam (Quran or Islamic law something like that) actively promoting rape.
Witch thing can be brought back. I misread that because it cited Exodus. Exodus would need to be removed.
The rape source is not about Islam allowing rape. She was punished for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape" "Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public." also the increase to 200 lashes was due to "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media". Also the men got higher sentences to 9 years in prison. The article does not say that Islam authorizes punishment for being raped. The punishments were not for that at all. Per

Here are some more of my deletions to consider:

Here [1] it is self explanatory to be additions with primary sources. Original research.
Here [2] it is self explanatory to be additions with primary sources. Original research. Zina wikilink removed becuase available source is better. Wikilink leads to another extensive section which does not have proper sourcing (most of it looks like OR). Religious response to aids is OR and SYN. FDA does not make such claims.
Here [3] extensive claim does not have a source since 2008! The two sources that are added in the next sentence(one is forbidden and the other leads to a home page of a news source)
Here [4] not sure if this is even a criticism at all. Pew Center Source does not seem to make criticisms, only observations on trends. Its SYN.
Here [5] the section on criticism of atheism looks like it doesn't belong here. So I just removed to let criticism of religion be there first.

None of this is perfect of course. And I have had to clean this article up before (it used to be way more ugly than this), but I was trying to purge the article of things violating either wikipedia protocol or making statement that the sources did not make. Its a lot of work. Since there are so many topics and subtle distinctions involved here, it is not easy for a single editor to go and somehow replace or add sources for all the claims that are wrongly attributed or unsourced.

Also many of the criticisms in the article are religion-specific not about religion in general. When someone says Islam corrupts, it not necessarily a criticism of religion, its a criticism of one religion which odes not necessarily transfer over to all religions either. The first half of the article is probably the best and most consistent part with the scope of the article. Because of so many issues it is sometimes best to delete things. If someone does not see something maybe the lack of it will motivate people to add it back with a proper citation. The claim on religion conflicting with science, for instance, has been there for many years and no one has bothered to provide a citation for it. All claims need to be properly sourced. I hope you can see my reasoning. I am not perfect, but at least I am trying to make this article better on top of all of this. If something looks like it can be fixed properly, then please re-add.--Mayan1990 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Getting ready for work so only a minute to respond, but I want to point out, based on your bulleted items, that I think you're missing the biggest point. Repeatedly you say e.g. "I agree that this is a common objection but everything in wikipedia needs sources." "Comte's comments need sourcing for those specific claims. No source provided." and the like. No, everything in Wikipedia does not need a source. Right there in WP:V:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

Verifiable means you can verify it elsewhere (i.e. it isn't made up); it doesn't mean everything has a citation next to it. "If the verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" is when something needs a citation. You're agreeing with these statements you removed, and can easily verify them, often with a simple click of a wikilink. --Rhododendrites (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if i look like a critic now.

Because you believe that it needs sources(even though they are sourced), you can insert them yourself, instead of removing the whole.

If Islam, Christianity, Judaism considers homosexuality as a sin, what's wrong in adding that? May i know, how many homosexuals are killed by christians, muslims in the name of religion, compared to Hindus(probably killed none)? Thus hinduism is specifically mentioned too.

[6] is the source for comte's comment.

Islam condemns rape, but the way girls are punished for throwing the point that they were raped is religiously linked by the scholars. A lot can be added there. [7] is needed, because Masturbation has been proved in many researches that it's beneficial for health, yet it's highly forbidden in Islam, and christianity.

Yes it should be added back.

Being in car, with an unrelated male, either it was her intention or it was completely coincidence, you have to re-word that one.

[8], pope benedict rejected the use of Condom too. So?

[9] not a original search, it sites the exact verse, and it's meaning can be grasped by anyone, which is coherent to subject.

[10].......[11] will work.

[12] is indirectly talking about the defeat of this whole thing called "religion", that's why added.

[13] <<-- Agreed, "Atheism" is never proved to be ideal psychology anyway, so it can be removed.

Bladesmulti (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites and Bladesmulti. Thanks so much for your responses. Having some extra input is always appreciated. First to Rhododendrites, well if you look at the WP:V you mentioned the first paragraph clearly says In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Furthermore, in terms of the inline citations WP:IC it is always referencing a source. Here is a quote On Wikipedia, inline citation means any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion.

The issue of challenging is very important for any criticism page because criticisms are often challenged and countered. This is one main reason to include sources for all statements here. In order to avoid challenging of any sort, statements must be accompanied by a source. It locks the criticism or rebuttal into the article - after all not everyone agrees with any specific criticism in the first place. Due to the volatility of this article, if something is commonly believed by some group then there should be sources specifying that because criticisms and rebuttals are NOT universally accepted by all groups. Some see Islam as abusive to women, others see it a liberating to women, others see no difference between treatment of women in Islam and non-Islamic cultures. Not to mention that all religions seem to have liberal and conservative branches that see certain statements as criticism and others as not criticism. Criticism and rebuttals are always challenged here. If a rebuttal is offered, it should also be accompanied by a source. For every problem one person sees, others see no problems, and others see those problems as solved.

In terms of Bladesmulti, I will comment later today as I am still at work. However, please know that I will re-insert some of what I deleted that actually has sources.--Mayan1990 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I am back. Bladesmulti I have re added two things witch hunts and comte. However, I tried to find a reliable source for the Dr Shirin Ebadi on morality and Islam. We need a better source than "crystal cave". Found another source mentioning similar thing but it is was also a spotty site. If the original source can be found we can re-add. But I also looked her up in other statements and she seems to be more of a critic of governments than of Islam as she is a Muslims herself. Clearly, in her view, a "correct" understanding of Islam solves issues, not the other way around. She complains on how Islam is abused to serve the purposes of others, not that Islam is a source of moral decay. In terms of the claim on condoms and the FDA, its SYN and OR since what source is saying that this is a problem or making a criticism of the catholic church? If you can find reliable source explicitly criticizing for that, it can be added. In terms of the OR in the forced marriages and other citations from sacred texts, one must have a secondary source that makes a connection between a primary source (sacred text) and a specific claim (see WP:PRIMARY. People interpret primary sources in different ways so no primary sources speak for themselves. Seconday and teriatry sources can be used to interpret the primary sources (they have to make the connections, not us), but not us or any editor in wikipedia.

The Pew center report is not "indirectly" calling defeat since there are clear winners and losers in affiliation. By reading it you can say that it is "indrectly" supporting wins because people are always switching to better faiths as they see fit. The fact that the source does not make direct criticism or direct nice comments is enough to remove it. There is no point in trying to make the source say what it does not plus it violates Wikipedia protocol. One has to find a source that makes a clear claim. I hope I addressed some of the issues here. Any addition is welcome, but we have to make sure that we are not putting words in the mouths of sources that don't make those specific claims.--Mayan1990 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you okay with the criticism that they have made about Islamic traditions? Well, here we are citing what amount of criticism they had as per the basic nature, that prevails in so many countries, that are muslim by majority of it's population. We can add some more facts here, such as "4 witnesses"? Considering that many of the islamic countries have banned the medical tests for proving any sexual offense, and prescribes to the 4 witnesses theory.

Pewforum's stat can be removed, agreed there.

Why you removed the "cruelty to animals"? You must discuss that issue here as well. It can be easily confirmed that non-veg has been proved so many times to be harmful for health,[14], [15], 2 sources confirming the research submitted at oxford. In Islam, you are not allowed to be a vegetarian, unless there's some medical reason..

Dayanand Saraswati,(mentioned him before), writes about christianity that there god is "unjust", "a flesh-eater", and also mentions the "accounts of animal sacrifice and beef-eating", points like these are yet to be added, they are fitting with the "cruelty to animals." You didn't talked about masturbation, homosexuality too, you should really present what type of page you want. On morality, i may insert the lecture of Richard Dawkins instead, if you are interested. [16] Confirms what Pope Benedict said, he rejects the use of Condoms as best protection against AIDS.. Haven't even added the sources where muslims condemns Polio vaccination, yet.[17], [18], [19]. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti, there should be no issue on criticism of Islamic traditionsl, but the criticism here should be linked to religion in general, not just one religion. Shirin Ebadi is herself a Muslim and is talking about abuses of Islam in countries, more than saying Islam or religion are inherently problematic. Also, if criticisms are only Islamic specific, then it probably belongs in the Criticism of Islam page. For this article, the sources should be criticizing religion in general, not focusing on one religion only. That may include mentioning specifics about one or more religions, but in such cases, the specific religions should be mentioned to attribute in context of religion in general. If a source mentions only one religion it could be considered WP:SYN for extrapolating to religion in general (which the source does not do).

In terms of the cruelty to animals, the two sources you mentioned in your latest post on vegeterianism do not mentions Kosher or Halal practices or religion at all. So they cannot be added here since you cannot put words into the mouth of the sources. That would be SYN. One of the reasons why I removed the Dutch parlament bill paragraph is because the sources are very much focused on a bill in dutch politics rather than on the benefits or dangers of Kosher or Halal practices. Also in those 4 sources there are lots of mixed opinions (good and bad) about Halal and Kosher slaughter. What is currently on the "Animals" section has more sources that specifically focus on the cruelty of animals and if you like you can elaborate more on what they say. Or add some reliable sources that focus substantially on criticizing the actual practices of Halal and Kosher slaughter. Adding things on the vanity of animal sacrifice in religious ritual would be ok as long as the source focuses on this substantially. If the criticism is just a quick remark and no elaboration, then that source should be excluded.

On homosexuality, the solution is the same. Find reliable sources that make such a claim. And for counters sources should also be cited from reliable sources. On masturbation, I will re-add Hitchens only since he is the only one that makes this point and actually critisizes religion for it. On the Pope and condoms, the Faith and Reason source you cited does not criticize the Pope at all. It details what he actually said on the issue, and it is clear that his focus for a better solution is in the "humanization of sexuality". He does not oppose the use of condoms completely (the source mentions how condoms can be seen as helping contain, but not prevent HIV which is based on human behaviors). He opposed the emphasis on condoms as if it were the only or best solution for the problem of HIV/AIDS and also mentioned that the Church has made the most effort in treating HIV victims. Also the source mentions More than 25 moral theologians have published articles claiming that without undermining church teaching, church leaders do not have to oppose but may support the distribution of prophylactics within an educational program that first underlines church teaching on sexuality. Different emphasis in solutions. Click on the link in that paragraph and you will find another article speaking about the distinction in Catholic teaching between prevention and containment - both of which are needed according to them. Dawkin's comments, may be relevant, but the article you found would be a rebuttal to it.

In terms of the Islam and polio workers article and the BBC article in Nigeria, the article does not mention any tenant of Islam prohibiting receiving vaccines. The objections are based on the their previous experiences in getting contamination, fear of agendas by foreign governments about making them sterile, and general mistrust of the motives of Western nations. This involves Muslims, but the objections clearly are not based on religious tenants of Islam or religion. The CDC source just mentions the same thing about mistrust of the agendas of Westerners.

All of this misreading and SYN is one main reason why news reports are generally not good sources on criticism. The wiki editors who use them tend to make them say things that they clearly do not say and to extrapolate their claims to where the sources clearly do not. For all additions, there has to be crystal clear connections between criticism of religion and things relating to religious teaching or texts or motivations based on those beliefs. We cannot go beyond what the sources say and the sources have to be clear. --Mayan1990 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is kosher or Halal, it is non-veg. Other thing would be to specifically add the Islamic point of view, that you can't be a vegetarian, without any medical reason. Christianity, Islam condemns homosexuality, it can be checked if you click on these links. Judaism condemns it too, but jews just changed by time. So you are saying that Islam actually allows Polio vaccination? Let me get this straight, [20] like this one would confirm, that for how long muslim countries have denied the polio vaccination, and today even if they buy from only Indonesia, some still buys. Pope benedict actually faced a lot of criticism for saying that condoms are less effective against Aids[21](just a idea). Bladesmulti (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kosher or Halal is non-vegetarian, but being a meat eater is not a criticism in and of itself. Non-Muslims eat meat also and so do the non-religious. I don't think it fits in the context of criticism of religion. Cruelty to animals clearly does fit in though. In terms of the Polio vaccine the source does not say Islam or the Quran or Sharia or any religious belief is the cause of resistance. The cause of resistance is mistrust of Westerners agendas not religion at all. - Suspicion fell immediately on factions of the Pakistani Taliban that have threatened vaccinators in the past, accusing them of being American spies. and In any case, polio vaccine is now bought only from Muslim countries like Indonesia, and Muslim scholars have ruled it halal — the Islamic equivalent of kosher. Muslims in the report don't seem to object to vaccines coming from Muslim countries so where does religion and religious beliefs play a role to block anything? Its mistrust of westerners that is motivating resistance. In terms of homosexuality, the wikilinks are not sources in Wikipedia. Instead, you can go to that Wikipedia page homosexuality and religion and find a source that says something like many religions object to homosecuality and this harms people lives or something like that. Bring that source to this article and there will be no issue.

In terms of source on Pope Benedict, the source is not reliable since Family Life International is clearly a POV organization. Also the source does not really criticize the Pope and says Given this context, the Pope's comments are therefore the thoughts of a private theologian and by no means an official, still less, a dogmatic utterance or teaching to the whole Church. But even as a private theologian the Pope's thought is not without impact and so it is necessary to examine exactly what he said. and Here, the Pope is pointing out that condoms cannot be the solution to the AIDS epidemic since, despite being widely available, the rampant spread of HIV continues. This reality, he notes, is recognised even by secular sources who, agreeing that a condom-only solution is no solution at all, have proposed the ABC approach to the problem. In fact, the Pope identifies the "banalization of sexuality" as the primary culprit for the spread of AIDS. The banalization of sexuality refers to the reduction of sexuality to a casual encounter, shorn of any reference to the spiritual and moral dimensions of the human person. In the modern world, sexuality is too frequently used as an instant necessary gratification for lust rather than love, somewhat comparable to the gratification received through drug use. and Pope Benedict XVI is a remarkably skilled and courageous theologian who, I believe, wishes to engage the modern world in a positive and fruitful dialogue about human sexuality so that the world's sterile and rigid ideological misconceptions of Man as nothing more than an intelligent ape might be replaced by the view of Man as a creature, only "a little lower than the angels." Ps.8:6. It seems that this is not really criticism other than just polite disagreement. Also if the Pope is not advocating condoms, then that is not really an issue. What would be an issue is if the Pope says the condoms are prohibited from being used. Clearly he wants people to put love back in sex and not make it a quick fix. The fact that the Pope said that male prostitutes can use condoms means that there is no wholesale prohibition of condom usage. However if you do find a source stating something like "the pope is wrong and is being anti reason and anti humane for being against condoms", then that would be acceptable to add. Of course, you already provided 2 countering sources already here that I would add to contrast to such a source.

Please know that I am not trying to be hard on you. I respect you and your desire to make this page better. But I think that you have to find clear sources that link criticism to religion (beliefs based on religious teaching or scriptures). "The Quran opposes reason because of...." would be an example of a criticism directly linked religion. The criticisms have to be solid and crystal clear, not indirect or subtle or implied. --Mayan1990 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Recent calls for the abolition of kosher (Jewish) and halal (Muslim) slaughter were made by Germany's federal chamber of veterinarians" was enough, like it was, previously. Homosexuality is forbidden, and you will "burn in hell" if you fall into the category of LGBT.... <<- This is what people are usually taught, as per almost all religions's teachings. This is how it's harmful in the sense, that they are teaching, if homosexuality is completely wrong, when scientific studies claim that homosexuality is natural. [22] may help, you can add like "the ban was lifted by pope benedict who remarked that condoms can be justified morally.".. "===Suppression of scientific progress===" has to be added back too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything in this article should have reliable sources backing up claims because the claims are all challenegable. All you have to do is simply find reliable source that specifically criticizes religion. The Dutch chamber sources clearly focus more on a political bill than on actual merits of kosher of halal slaughter WP:UNDUE. The PETA source is more relevant as it addresses concerns more on topic. You can elaborate on that. In terms of Homosexuality, you have to find a source stating specifically and clearly that religion is unjust. The same goes for the claims that religion is not unjust because it supports homosexuality also. Both statements are challengable, so you need clear sources to lock either one of the claims into the article. You as an editor cannot put in your own opinions into an article. It is WP:OR. Just find a reliable source that argues clearly and substantially what you are saying and that would solve the issue. Also please keep in mind that you cannot go beyond what the source says. The Telegraph source you mentioned is not a criticism of the Pope or Catholicism as it points out that condoms are permitted. If there was an issue, it is now resolved, according to the source. The "supression of of scientific progress", are you referring to the atheism sources?--Mayan1990 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it can be, but it's quite sensible for now, that religions(almost all) condemns homosexuality. Telegraph's report, is not a criticism? Well, it provides the pope's opinion, which was main point. Also i have few more ideas, such as "cruelty to animals", we must add that Islam forbids dog as having pet, and in Kuwait there was recently campaign to kill all dogs.[23] Also we have to put that Music is also forbidden by religions such as Islam, Christianity(instrumental music). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that everything here has to have a reliable source say specifically a criticism about religious beliefs, religious teachings, religious practices being criticized directly, not bu association or indirectly. The dog thing is quite absurd because what significance does that have for this article? If Muslims cannot have dogs, what is the problem with that? Such as criticism is not notable. Also the source for the dogs thing DOES NOT criticize Islam at all or anything to do with Islam. Doesn't even mention anything about Islam at all!!!! You cannot be bringing sources like this to the article because for you to say that it has to do with Islam clearly shows that you are reading beyond the sources and putting your own spin on what the sources say and forcing words into the sources that it did not claim at all. You cannot go beyond what any source says. If a source says " A Muslim clerk killed a woman" that is not a criticism of Islam and women or religion and women. The source has to say specifically, "A Muslim clerk killed a woman because he was following the Islamic teaching of ..... which is why religion in general goes against reason and sensibility to humanity". That is more like an appropriate criticism as it links religion (general) to a criticism. If a criticism is religion specific only (i.e focuses on Christianity only or Islam only, etc) then it does not belong in this article. You cannot interpret a source beyond what it says. If a source criticizes Islam only, it is a criticism on Islam only, not religion in general (the scope of the article). To extrapolate from one specific religion to religion in general when a source does not is WP:SYN. For criticism of specific religions, they have their own page and may belong there, but not here.

In terms of music and Christianity that is not a notable criticism at all and it is not worth mentioning since Christianity has produced massive amounts of music already. Also is the music issue relating to religion general? If not, then it should be excluded. I think you are simply finding any complaints you can think of and trying to force things that do not belong in the article. For this article the criticisms have to be notable, not any minor issues that any editor sees. Dogs and music are not notable at all. Also if the criticisms are cultural and not from a clear religious source (sacred text, specific religious teaching, specific religious practice), then it should be excluded from this article. The scope of this article is religion general, not religion specific or cultural. Please keep this in mind.

In terms of the Telgraph report is not criticism look at what it says After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms. He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids. While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage. Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.” He stressed that abstinence was the best policy in fighting the disease but in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life. Can you point out where any criticism is? It clearly says that the Pope is open to use of condoms and that there is a moral solution (root of the problem) in making sexuality more humane which would be even better to solve the issue of AIDS. If a condom helps prevent others from getting infected it is a "lesser evil" argument that they use to accommodate the use of condoms.

In the near future, I will continue to clean this article up as it still has many questionable sources and lots of extrapolating. Criticism should be made clear by the sources and they should link to religion in general. If a source says "Religion is anti humane because religion persecutes homosexuals" that would be acceptable and more appropriate to include in the article. But the source has to also be reliable, not just be some random website or source. Just a few thoughts on all of this.

Christianity[Genesis 19)], Islam[Qur'an 4:16], Judaism[24], condemns homosexuality, you tell me if they allow it anywhere, or regard that it's not a sin. Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, executes if you fall into any of the LGBT. Hitchens, Dawkins, and many more have condemned such rulings.

What about this one[25]? It should be mentioned that dogs are targeted by muslims, because of the religion, how many dogs as pets you see in whole middle east/north africa anyway?

[26] this one. Music is prohibited by Islam, and there has been incidents too, when this law was regarded as inhumane, by the given soure.

Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you cannot use primary sources here because interpretations are not straight forward and an interpretation of a source can be challenged by someone else interpreting those same verses as cultural, not a command from God or not binding on anyone today. See policy on WP:PRIMARY. If Dawkins or Hithcens make generalized criticism on homosexuality and religion general, then they can be added. As I have already mentioned before, the dog issue and the Music issue is not a notable criticism of religion general. This article is about religion general, not specific religions (WP:COATRACK). A source must make a link between with religion in general. Since many of your suggestions are on Islam only and since the sources mention Islam only, then those belong in the Criticism of Islam page, not here. This article is about religion general, not Islam. The only sources acceptable here are the ones that link to religion general in some significant way. Please carefully read WP:BUTITSTRUE. It should provide clear answers on how wikipedia works and why an editor cannot just put in anything they thinks is true.--Mayan1990 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why you are not signing your comments anymore? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He's signed it now. Mayan1990 is correct about primary sources. And we cannot say that Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality or consider it immoral because that simply is not true as a general statement. See Religion and homosexuality. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both Mayan1990, and Dougweller here, there would be a need to edit the religious notes as basic summary, if we tried. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I rechecked your source on music. I think you can add it into the "Suppression of art and literature" section since it does mention vague interpretations of Sharia Law. The art and literature section only has things about Islam already so I guess you can insert it there. Its up to you. --Mayan1990 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Added about music, and added the latest event, about which I knew, took a while to get back though. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion of "Violent Verses in Religious Texts" page

Recently I created a new page on violent verses in religious texts for the list of all the verses which are violent towards disbelievers, women, homosexuals etc. but the user "User:Cindamuse" unnecessarily deleted it citing it duplicate to the page "Religious Violence"! Could someone please restore that page as that page has nothing to do with for or against views towards different religious texts but is simply a list of verses from various religious texts. Could someone also please issue warning to the concerned user of handling the Wikipedia in a dictatorial manner without abiding any existing framework or guidelines and handling it as if this is his/her personal property to fulfill his/her whims and fancies. I know that this is a different page but I believe that the deleted page is strongly related to this article. So someone please restore it ASAP to restore the neutrality and encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Longlastingpeace (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like that would be hard to reference from WP:Secondary sources. Editor2020 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To: Author of "Criticism of Religion"

You have written a fine article. However, you could expand the topic effectively by reading the views of the French Philosopher, Paul Ricoeur. In the early 1960's he wrote much about religion and he is the most original and effective critic of religion of the 20th century. If you added to your article in Wikipedia Ricoeur's concept of the INTERNAL and EXTERNAL critique of religion, you would find a thorough and expansive notion of the critique of religion...way beyond the work of people like Hitchens and Dawkins. The INTERNAL critique is the most difficult, but should be explained. Check out the collection of Ricoeur's work on this subject in his FIGURING THE SACRED. Also, his best exercise of his critique can be found in his essay: "Tasks of the Ecclessial Community in the modern world" which is included in the volume: Theology of Renewal, Vol. 2, L. K. Shook, ed., Palm Publishers, Montreal, 1968. I think you will enjoy learning Ricoeur's views on this matter.

Sincerely,

R. Lauck ramus4ster@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.114.211 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Article on Criticism of Religion vs Article Criticizing Religion

There are a few places where I feel the article loses its focus of one criticism of religion and instead puts in editors views of criticisms of religion. Sections should be placed in context of who is saying them and what arguments critics of religion use.

The Suppression of Art and Literature Section, and the Racism section are almost entirely in this format.

Suppression of Art and Literature Section:

Islam strongly forbids music.In February 2013, in India, a fatwa was released by a mufti against a girlband, claiming that "music is not good for society", and "All bad things happening in the Indian society are because of music." In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses. Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women's rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.

Racism Section: Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism. There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism. The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978. Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race. Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships. On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement. The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.

I have not made any edits on these sections yet. I'd like to put this up in the talk page first to discuss the correct interpretation of this article, though, I may be violating WP:BOLD so I will likely revisit them in the near future. While, I have highlighted these two sections they are not the only ones suffer from just listing objectionable actions by religious groups instead of critiques of those actions. I would like to make sure I understand what the direction of the article is before I make some super edit.

I have made one edit by removing the sentences "It continues to the present day with the advent of New Atheism, represented by authors and journalists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens."Alternatively, "religious criticism" has been used by the literary critic Harold Bloom to describe a mode of religious discussion that is secular but not inherently anti-religion

While the New Atheists are some of the most well known critics of religion, the subject is large and such a prominent placing of them gives them an overly large focus. The following sentence seems to be made as a counterweight to the first one but it is weak and is not supported further down due to most of the article's sources being Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet. I believe this article overall suffers from too large a focus on the new atheist's as sources due to their modern prominence and would love to see someone with a strong amount of knowledge on historical critiques of religion(David Hume gets one sentence and a link!) or an equally large elaboration on modern critiques of religion that do not come from the New Atheist school of thought used as sources.

Thanks for making it through this massive talk section!

YshuDS (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are free to edit anything you wish here. Not many people seem to be watching it as it appears to be very uninteresting to most editors. I agree with you that editors sometimes place their views without attribution - giving the impressions that a particular view is widely held by others when only the sources seem to have such a view. This page is a bit tricky since it seems to be a place for complaints about religion and just like with complaints about anything, these never end and not everyone will see the issues here as being real issues per se. Some complain about problems that are simply not there or are not prominent.

It would be ok to include complaints from people like Hume in a historical section since not all of his complaints are valid today since more recent discourse and even solutions to problems he saw have already been proposed. Mayan1990 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section - criticism of other religions

Most religions on Earth criticise other religions. (Note - this is a legal basis for opposition to blasphemy laws).

One common argument against blasphemy codes is that freedom of religion for one religion must include the right to criticise other religions.

The following book ^[1] on page 179 says that some exclusive religions "make their own truth claims and deny the truth claims of others" though Proselytism - and suggests that any country that permits Proselytism must also permit people promoting religious truth claims to denigrate the truth claims of other religions - without fear of hate speech laws being used as a covert blasphemy code.

The book cites a Canadian law Journal (page 10) that contrasts Saumur v Quebec (City of) with Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15

Saumur v Quebec (City of) held that it is the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to denigrate Catholicism as part of the promotion of their own religion.

Many people argue that freedom of religion in Western countries includes the freedom of a religious person to condemn another person's religion.

I'll add text to this effect in the lead sentence. -- Callinus (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822141947/http://seyaj.org:80/en/ to http://seyaj.org/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism articles not allowed

Separate articles (like this one) devoted to WP:Criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided because these call WP:undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from WP:reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Johnfos (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a criticism in the sense of "criticism of bitcoin" or "criticism of Abraham Lincoln" which are not establishd fields or topics of study by experts. There are dedicated courses in Universities to "Criticism of Religion" and university professors and researchers who dedicate themselves to the topic. This article follows this research and the arguments given by these people. There is even criticism of the criticism of religion by these researchers/experts which is much closer to what you are probably referring to by WP:Criticism, though should definitely remain in the article. This isn't a "bashing of ideas" article with a mishmash of criticism out there (as you see in some articles). Not at all. Be careful when conflating "negative viewpoints" with criticism. At this level of study, not all criticism is negative and not all negative arguments equal criticism. --Shabidoo | Talk 14:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Criticism of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

On some sources

Hi, I noticed that some edits have been made on Theodore Beale's counter criticisms, which seem relevant to the article in the counters section. We have to keep in mind that this article as a criticism article, and as such it is going to have diverse amounts of sources ranging from the academic to the polemical. Many sources in the article of course seem to be polemical because academic sources do not generally engage in criticisms or complaining. Considering that even polemical sources (i.e. Dawkins, Hitchens) are heavily cited throughout the article, that no one seems to argue against, I am curious as to what others think. Dawkins and Hitchens, for example, don't really have expertise on religion and yet no one seems to say much on this.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins has the advantage of having become a recognised expert on the subject. As far as I can tell, Vox Day has no significant qualifications in the field, is a science fiction author and publisher rather than specialising in this topic, is not generally recognised as an expert, has not published in peer-reviewed sources, has not published in an academic (or, indeed, in a major press), and is making a very big claim that I'm having trouble tracking down in the book. (Thanks for the page numbers, but do you know if there is a specific page where this claim is made)? If we're going to make a serious statistical claim, I'd rather see it come from a peer reviewed source, or at least a recognised expert in the field. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...Dawkins is not recognized as an expert on religion and has no qualifications on religion either. He certainly is not a specialist on religion. No one cites him as an expert on any of the issues, except to note his mistakes (numerous books have been written about him on this shortcomings). In fact, he has been criticized for being ignorant of the subject by philosophers, theologians, historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc. Academic works like "Religion and the New Atheism A Critical Appraisal", for example, have addressed such lack of expertise on religion on his part including numerous academic conferences and meetings. Also, Dawkins has not published peer reviewed material on religion either. As such he is a polemic, not an academic on the issue. That was the point in bringing him up as a contrast.

Vox can be considered as a polemic as well (he is known for political and social commentary like Dawkins and Hitchens are) and of course the source is published in a major publisher as well. Vox certainly makes the claim on page 240 along with an interesting table on page 241. The whole Chapter 8 is a rebuttal attempt to Dawkins/Hitchens/others criticisms. I am puzzled that you said "source doesn't seem to support this claim" when it clearly was there - almost verbatim. Considering that Dawkins and Hitchens and other polemics are cited throughout the article, attribution, which is already there for Dawkins, Hitchens, Vox, and other is enough, I suppose, to keeps since it is clear that it is their opinions, not facts necessarily. Otherwise, it is a double standard and looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I know that there are lots of issues with this article, which have not been addressed, but usually these kinds of controversial pages have a mix of polemical sources throughout. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to argue for excluding Dawkins and Hitchens as well. However, while I don;t really know Hitchens, I see that he read Philosophy at Oxford, has been listed as one of the top 100 intellectuals multiple times, and seems to be highly regarded. Dawkins, whom I know a bit better, is a very respected academic, has a doctorate (although not in a related field), was a Reader and then endowed professor at Oxford, and is undeniably prominent as a critic of religion. Day has an undergraduate degree, is a science fiction author and publisher, and his book is published by an independent press. I don't think that a direct comparison is viable.

Given that Day does not have any significant qualifications in the field, is not well known, and has not been peer reviewed, why should we highlight his statistical analysis? Is there any reason to give his work particular credibility without peer review?

Thank you for the page numbers. Checking, it seems that he is not referencing those figures, but has calculated them himself based on his criteria. As these seem untested, I don't think that we can regard this as reliable. Bilby (talk)

Criticisms articles generally don't need rebuttals in the prose, it just makes them harder to read. The people who come to the article come looking specifically for criticisms. Lipsquid (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lipsquid, I reverted your edit since we are in the middle of the discussion here and your edit did not address anything about it. Your comment here does not address the situation either. On your point, "Criticism" articles, by nature invite criticism of the criticisms. To be even handed one should allow room for criticisms to be criticized somewhere in the article - like it is already. These pages are not for one-sided bashing, especially if some criticisms have been found to be problematic, unwarranted, incorrect, without evidence, etc.

Bilby, hmmm.... whether or not Hitchens read Philosophy at Oxford or is an intellectual or whether Dawkins is well respected does not make Dawkins or Hitchens an expert on religion at all. You originally mentioned that Vox is not a specialist and so he should not be included, but I did not hear you say the same of Dawkins or Hithches which are cited in many places in this article, early on either. Again it looke like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Vox was cited only twice it seems and yet he was zeroed-in as if much of that article was based on him. That is the point. Most editors on this page will tolerate non-experts on religion like Dawkins and Hitchens (no peer reviewed articles, no relevant degrees, etc) and will not say anything of how much they are cited throughout as if they were reliable sources on religion and as if their views are credible, yet they will complain about others who are on the same boat but counter them. This is problematic. I will agree with you that Dawkins is a critic of religion, but he is a polemic, not an expert. Again, the experts of religion from theology, sociology, philosophy, etc from have criticized Dawkins, Hitchens and others for their lack of understanding of religion. I could ask you a similar question - Given that Dawkins does not have any significant qualifications in the field, is not recognized in academic fields of religion, and has not been peer reviewed, why should we highlight anything he says? Is there any reason to give his work particular credibility without peer review?" Also, most citations on this article do not have people who are popularly known, so it should not be about a popularity contests. Dawkins gets his popularity from his lack of familiarity of religion and his polemics on it, not from academic merit.

By the way, Vox Day cites where he gets his numbers on page 240. Were you able to look at the page? It is clearly there in the footnotes. Day's publisher is a mainstream publisher not some random small independent publisher too. Nonetheless, it should be noted that most criticisms (on any controversial topic) are polemical to some degree. If polemics are allowed, the others should be allowed too. Also, attribution such as saying "According to Dawkins/Vox, etc" usually solves most of these issues since it clarifies that it is their opinion, not the opinion of wikipedia or that their views are are facts. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I wasn't really clear. If you want to make a case why Dawkins or Hitchens should be excluded, I have no problems with you doing so. I'm not arguing for or against their inclusion.

What I'm asking is why the statistical claims of Vox Day should be regarded as sufficiently reliable to include. I can see four potential reasons for including his claims - he is a recognised expert in the field; he has sufficient qualifications to make those statistical claims; his claims have undergone peer review; or, if all else fails, he has been published by an academic press known for fact checking. None of those appears to be the case here. Is there a reason to believe that any of those four things are the case? Or is my understanding correct? - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that if Dawkins and Hitchens and others who are not experts in religion and have no formal qualifications are allowed to be in the article, then so can others. The criteria you mentioned cannot be applied to one and not the other. The issue is a bit muddled though since "Fact checking" is not easy when someone says "religion causes harm" or that "atheism has caused harm also". These are generalizations and in many cases, these are not clearly true or false. For example, in one part of this article it says " Christopher Hitchens notes that "it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists." Was this fact checked? By whom? Is this opinion Peer-reviewed? All you can say is that Hitchens said it.

In the article Dawkins is quoted as saying ""how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns.... There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness." Was this fact checked? By whom? Was this opinion Peer-reviewed? All you can say is that Dawkins said it.

I think you can agree, that opinions will be opinions. For this article, due to its controversial nature, the criterion is that as long as the source is not from a self-published source, is relevant to religion and anti-religion, and has attribution such as "According to Dawkins/Vox..." it can be in the article. We are not here to claim the truthfulness of an opinion. All Vox is saying, with respect to atheists blaming religion for significant amounts of violence, is that when one looks at governments that were headed by atheists in just the past 9 decades, they carry a massive death toll that looks greater than theocratic events have caused in the past. I would say his point is don't be a hypocrite because its not like places that had atheists or anit-religionists in power made the most humane decisions. Vox actually brings this stuff up to address Dawkins and Hitchens' remarks on religion as violent (as if nonreligoious means better). Vox gets his numbers from Dr. Rummels collection of democide (death by governments) and he has a right to make his own conclusions on it like others do, whether what he says is right or wrong is not for any editor to decide. Dawkins and Hitchens can have their conclusions too, whether they are right or wrong, is not for us a s editors to decide. All three are expressing their personal convictions in their books, not academic conclusions. All we can do as editors is attribute or re-word what he says (much like the rest of this article).Huitzilopochtli (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been bold, you have been reverted 4 times. Per WP:BRD we discuss the change here before you make the edit again. Your behavior looks a bit disruptive. Please discuss. The edit in question is not a "Criticism of religion" it is a Criticism of atheism (That article also contains all of the statements you have included), so probably doesn't belong in this article. See WP:COATRACK Lipsquid (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid:, I have not violated the 3RR rule at all. Check out my the previous edits on the page [27]. You jumped in an reverted me twice despite there being a talk on the material in the talk page already. You did not follow the protocol that was already set up by wikipedia by doing that. You now have to revert it back to the way it was before all of this since you have clearly disrupted the ongoing discussion. The material was in the article way before Bibly removed it so that is the default for the discussion. Also, I am not sure if you are aware of what a COATRACK situation is. In the case of this article, a counter to a criticism of religion usually includes rebuttal with examples of nonreligion to provide a contrast. The fact that religion and non-religion are inter-related makes it less likely to be a COATRACK too since it certainly true that the nonreligious talk about religion way too much despite them not being religious. Its not really a mystery that there is clear overlap in topics, ideas, and beliefs between both, so one can expect a reversal in overlap too, espcially when it comes to criticisms. A COATRACK situation would involve more than just one source deviating into a completely unrelated topic. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in err and I wrongly characterized your edits. I still think this is WP:COATRACk as the edit says nothing about criticisms of religion. It is a criticism of atheism and probably doesn't belong in the article. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, if you wish to make a case for removing Dawkins and Hitchens, I don't have a problem with you putting that forward. But I'm not currently concerned with either of them. My interest is only whether or not Vox Day meets the requirements for this article.

As you say, Day is fully entitled to draw his own conclusions from Rummel. But the question is whether or not he is sufficiently qualified to be considered reliable in regard to those conclusions. From what you have been saying, he is not. If this was simply Day's opinion, then we'd be asking why his opinion is significant. That would be an interesting question, but to be honest it is not really relevant. Because we're not using Day as a source for Day's opinions - we're using Day as a source for the claim "that approximately 148 million people were killed from 1917 to 2007 by governments headed by leaders who were atheists, a total which is three times more than the deaths from war and individual crimes in the whole 20th century". Thus it is about reliability, and in this case Day is not a sufficiently reliable source. Normally I'd suggest using Rummel instead, but as Rummel does not draw that conclusion, we don't have that as an option. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think one way to solve all of this is to re-word what he says to something simpler. Something like "According to Theodore Beale, in the 20th century numerous nonreligious or anti-religious governments headed by atheists emerged in places such as in China, USSR, and Cambodia. He contends that many of these leaders offered utopias without religion and that even with this lack of religion, or even active anti-religion, millions of people were killed unjustly." I think this is the gist of what he is arguing here. What do you think?Huitzilopochtli (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, in that it is an attempt to qualify the claim. But what that really does is make a call to authority in Day, using him as an expert to authorise the claims. The reality is that we can't use Day for factual claims such as that one, as he is not a reliable source for that claim. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. In wikipedia, attribution does not give authority to the person or even to the statements they claim necessarily. Wikipedia is a collection of viewpoints so attribution is natural when it comes to controversial articles like this. When one attributes a statement, it merely notes that someone relevant to the topic said something relevant to the issue being discussed. That is it. It does not make sense to read any statements made in any articles as if they were all factual (even peer reviewed material - journals, newspapers, etc - is often incorrect and not factual). Even the attribution wikipage says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—that is, a comprehensive compendium of knowledge. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." I think you are mixing "truthfulness" of what Vox or Dawkins or Hitchens says when we as editors should be looking at "relevance" to the topic (criticisms and criticisms of the criticisms). Dawkins thinks religion instigates violence so it is horrible, Vox clearly thinks that nonreligion does the same if not more so it is even more horrible. Who is right? Not our job as editors to determine. Our job is only to mention the different opinions on that line of criticism. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

True, attribution does not give authority. However, selecting that person's statement lends their opinion authority, and assigning the statement to them suggest that they are an authority able to speak to that topic. In this case, Day is not qualified to make that statement - he is not a reliable source for the claim. Therefore, we cannot use him for the claim.

This has nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false. It is simply a question of reliability. Day is not a reliable source, so we can't add his claim, whether or not we clearly attribute it to him. To be clear, I have no interest in who is right. My interest here is only in who is reliable. In this case, Day is not. - Bilby (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are still confusing determining "truthfulness" of a claim (which always unclear in controversial topics like this article) with attribution. You said that "Day is not qualified to make that statement - he is not a reliable source for the claim." Well, Dawkins and Hitchens and others make similar types of claims in their writings, which are merely personal social commentaries, not academic studies, and yet you do not say "Dawkins is not qualified to make that statement - he is not a reliable source for the claim." Keep in mind that Vox is only cited once in the article (for rebutting Dawkins and Hitchens) while Dawkins and Hitchens are easily cited more than 30 times in the article for all sorts of statements and judgment calls on numerous topics (e.g. violence, women, child abuse, sexuality, etc). See the asymmetry?

If attribution does not give authority, as you agreed, then the issue is settled already. Why then would you assume that by merely citing Vox's rebuttal to one of Dawkins/Hitchens claims on religion, that it gives him any kind of authority? It clearly does not. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I need to reiterate - I do not care if Day is correct or not. The problem is very simple:

Day is making a claim that we are repeating here and attributing to him
Day is not a reliable source for that claim
Per WP:RS, we can only use reliable sources

Therefore, we cannot use Day to support that claim.

Either a) we need to show that Day is a reliable source for the claim that "approximately 148 million people were killed from 1917 to 2007 by governments headed by leaders who were atheists, a total which is three times more than the deaths from war and individual crimes in the whole 20th century", b) find a reliable source with which to make that claim, or c) we have to remove the claim from the article. As far as I can tell, the only source that exists is Day, and there is no evidence that he is reliable on this particular issue. Therefore, we have to remove it from the article, unless you can show that he is a reliable source for this particular claim. - Bilby (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually it seems like you really do care about whether or not Day is correct because attribution already solved the issue and yet you insist like he is getting special privilege or authority? He merely is rebutting Dawkins's and Hitchens ideas of religion and violence and nonreligion and violence. Each one of their views stand fall back on them. On top of that I already suggested some re-wording, which already addresses your concern about the claim to something more generic about his point. So what is the issue? It really looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep in mind that Vox is only cited once in the article (for rebutting Dawkins and Hitchens) while Dawkins and Hitchens are easily cited more than 30 times in the article for all sorts of statements and judgment calls on numerous topics (e.g. violence, women, child abuse, sexuality, etc). For wikipedia, in the RS page you cited, there is a "biased source" category which I think fits many of the sources in the article because of the controversial nature - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Clearly Vox, Dawkins, and Hitchens stuff fall on the "biased sources" category because even the writings themselves lack cohesion and are a bit sporadic in content - they look like personal informal notes. At best they are informal social commentaries, not academic studies.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think from this that we have a consensus that Day is not a reliable source for those statistics. From your comments it is clear that you also believe that neither Dawkins nor Hitchens are reliable, either, so you may wish to look at how those authors are used as sources and see where consensus lies. I'm curious as to where that will lead. However, given that we are in agreement that Day is both not reliable for the claim in question, and, indeed, is a biased source, I'm comfortable with removing the claim that is attributed to him. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Huitzilopochtli This still isn't criticism of religion and the Day source isn't even really a rebuttal of Dawkins and Hitchens saying people are killed in the name of religion. You are only making the statement that people commit atrocities for other reasons also. The source even makes it clear that they were ALL communists and atheists. Criticisms of communism are not rebuttals of criticisms of religion. Also, just because there is criticism, does not mean that someone who doesn't like it can come along and make a rebuttal. This does not belong in the article. It has nothing to do with criticism of religion and by your own admission it is there to push a POV. I agree with Bilby, this should be removed. Lipsquid (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby, I did not say that Day would be considered an unreliable source. The point was that what the WP:RS sources page clearly states ""Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." So biased sources like many in the article are allowed in wikipedia because of the context. The criticism of religion page is just such as case. By nature some of the sources will have to be biased - how else would you get a criticism or counter-criticism? Attribution and re-wording solves the issue.

@Liqsquid, considering the context of the source, where Day is countering criticism of religion by Dawkins and Hitchens by pointing out numerous atrocities made by nonreligion, it certainly is appropriate. It does not makes no sense to expect a counter about criticism of religion to be done with a criticism of religion. That would be absurd. no? As already mentioned, counters are allowed in this article since controversial pages like this have to have space for counters in order to reach some degree of even-handedness. This article is not a one sided bash-fest. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument has repeatedly fallen back on the claim that Dawkins and Hitchens are just as bad. That seems to me to be an affirmation that Day is unreliable on this, but you believe that other people are unreliable as well. Given that, and given Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, I see no viable option but to remove the claim. If you wish to show that Day is reliable on this, I'm sure that can be considered, but I can't currently see a basis for that claim. - Bilby (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I just read that "He merely is rebutting Dawkins's and Hitchens ideas of religion and violence and nonreligion and violence" which displays a misunderstanding of Dawkin's statements. They have stated that religion can be the direct cause of some violence. The information from Vox Day is not a rebuttal of that point. If the rebuttal is to be read by me that atheism is the cause of violence, then it should be stated that way with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not the mama (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby, My argument is simply that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Day all are acceptable sources for this particular article with attribution, per WP:RS under the "Biased or Opinionated Sources" clause, because this whole article is a POV (biased) article. Bias is inherent in the article's scope and contents and so will some of the sources. It sure is not a topic-neutral article since critics have axes to grind and so do the counter-critics. To have an "unbiased" article of criticism is simply impossible since if a source is unbiased, then there won't be much criticisms and there would be many qualifications to the claims made. Like wikipeidia says, biased sources are acceptable under some circumstances. "Reliability", in wikipedia's terminology, does not equate to the source being accurate on what it says or that the statements therein are true or correct. Reliability only reflects that the source had some oversight and that it is verifiable. A source can be reliable and yet make erroneous statements. For example, Dawkins and Hitchens use the term "child abuse" on parents who teach their children about religion. As long as there is attribution, there isn't much of an issue since such a claim is not put in wikipedia's voice. To say "Parents who teach their children about religion are engaging in child abuse." is different than saying, "Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings." The best way to present some neutrality into the article is to allow both sides to be presented, with attribution. Otherwise debates will never end.

On other articles, maybe none of these sources would be acceptable, but here they are not much of an issue considering that criticisms and counter-criticisms come heavily from non-academic sources including blogs, newspaper articles, mainstream books, etc. For some of the best and notable criticisms, one has to look beyond academic sources to those like with Dawkins' or Hitchens' personal works, despite their informal nature. As long as the source is not self-published (had absolutely no oversight), is relevant and engages the discussion it should be acceptable with attribution. Wikipedia also prefers secondary sources over primary sources so commentaries like Day's or Dawkins are certainly within range.

@Not the mama, as editors we only provide what the source says. In this case, Dawkins said stuff and Day criticized it. The correctness of Dawkins or Day is not our job as editors. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are we discussing bias as a concern? This isn't the issue. The issue is that Day is not a reliable source for statistical claims such as the one he is being used for in this article. As he is not reliable for that claim, we can't use him. Whether or not he is also biased is irrelevant. At this stage I think we are going in circles. Therefore, ignoring all these unrelated issues of bias, unless there is something that shows that Day is a reliable source for the claim that we are using him, we have to remove that claim. I'll give this a bit more time, but it seems like we need to remove it, as I haven't seen a case for regarding Day as reliable in this situation.

To clarify, reliability is not simply verifiability. Being verifiable is also a requirement, but the question is whether or not we can trust the source to make an accurate statement. It is about whether or not the source has sufficient fact checking, qualifications, or other expertise to justify the claim being made. - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You said, "Day is not a reliable source for statistical claims such as the one he is being used for in this article." Already addressed this multiple times - reword, attribute. Everything falls on him. When Dawkins and Hithcens say that parents teaching children about religion is child abuse the same thing applies - reword, attribute. Everything falls on them. By attribution, no one is saying such statements are factual or correct or false. All one is showing is that multiple or different conclusions on the issue have been reached - like what an encyclopedia is supposed to be - a collection of voices. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm lost on this. How does attributing the comment to him suddenly make him reliable? He is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter whether we attribute the claim directly to him, or simply reference him. I think it is time just to pull it from the article. This is not an opinion we are talking about - if we wanted to say "Day believes that atheism is bad" we could, because he would reliable for his own opinion. (Of course, we would then have to explain why Day's opinion matters, but that is a side issue). But we are not saying that. We are making a factual claim based on statistics. Day's book cannot be used to source that claim. - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No clear consensus has been reached so you can't really proceed with removal. You said, "This is not an opinion we are talking about - if we wanted to say "Day believes that atheism is bad" we could, because he would reliable for his own opinion." Day's conclusions on anything he writes is exactly his opinion, which is why we attribute. The same goes for every source on this article. Day's source is considered a reliable source for this article because his work is relevant (criticizing critics of religion like Dawkins and Hitchens on their views on religion), published in a mainstream publisher (had some editorial oversight which of course involves some degree of fact-checking), is verifiable, and is a secondary source. This is all that is needed to establish a reliable source for this article. In all criticisms or counter-criticisms, the authors (Day, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) obviously think what they say if factual or true - which is exactly why they write what they write. Our job is merely to cite diverse opinions on the issue that are out there. If readers want to check out details of what the authors wrote (ideas, opinions, their references, conclusions, etc) they can simply look up the references to find out more. On a related note, you concern about numbers have already been addressed with a re-worded paraphrase of what Day says on the matter. Why then do you bring this up when it has already been addressed early on? Hope this helps clarify a few things. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, we have a pretty strong consensus for removing it. However, let's look at this.

Relevance is not reliability. Something might be relevant, but it can still be unreliable. If the source is unreliable, we still can't use it.
Verifiablity is not reliability. A verifiable source can still be an unreliable one.
An author's opinion on whether something is true or not is also not reliability. If the author is an expert on that particular topic then it can be evidence of reliability, but that is not the case here.
Being published by a mainstream publisher is encouraging, but only when the mainstream publisher has a reputation for fact checking. If this was published by a university press I'd be happy. But again, that is not the case here.
This is not a secondary source. It is a primary source, as it is Day's own original research.

Finally, per WP:RS, it isn't our job to include any idea, opinion or claim that is floating around. It is our job to add only those which are reliable, verifiable and relevant. This claim meets two of those three, but fails the reliability test. Accordingly, we can't use it as a claim. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

By your criteria, then all of Dawkins, Hitchens, and other's claims in the article would have to be removed as well because though they are relevant, they are not reliable on numerous grounds: lack of expertise in religion, lack of expertise in the topics they discuss (women, violence, children, etc), lack of formal degrees on religion or the topics they discuss, their writings are also primary sources, their writings are personal commentaries - not academic studies, etc. This would be the only route to take to maintain consistency. What do you think? It will be a lot of trimming. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, I have no problems if you want to make that case. Personally, I think they will be more reliable than Day, but I'm not concerned if you want to see where consensus lies. - Bilby (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am more inclined for inclusion of all 3 sources despite their shortcomings for numerous reasons state above and especially because of relevance, but if you want to be super technical, then Dakwins, Hitchens, and others will have to go down too for the same reasons and falling short of the meeting the criteria you mentioned. It is only consistent and the only route really as that would be upholding the consensus view on tightening on the sources. Otherwise it is a double-standard and clear violations would have to be removed (which includes a lot of sources here). Huitzilopochtli (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I took it out, there is overwhelming consensus for removal as even drive by's are reverting the material. I would start a new thread about removing the information sourced from Hitchens and Dawkins. 14:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, since we already discussed Dawkins and Hitchens as not meeting up with the criteria as enumerated by Bilby, we can already remove some of it for not meeting the criteria. This thread was for both and also on other sources since what applied here applies to others.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Start a new thread and keep the discussion to the notability/credentials of Hitchens and Dawkins, there was no consensus in this discussion to remove their material. It just makes it easier for more people to review if you add a new section. I am not saying I don't agree, I am saying make it easy for people to review and comment in a new section. This was a very large deletion of material. Lipsquid (talk)

There is absolutely not a consensus on this topic yet and the discussion has only lasted a few days. Please do not make notable changes to the article (especially mass removal) until this is talked out. Shabidoo | Talk 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

^ Katharine Gelber; Adrienne Sarah Ackary Stone (2007). Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia. Federation Press. ISBN 978-1-86287-653-8.

[GelberStone2007-1] Katharine Gelber; Adrienne Sarah Ackary Stone (2007). Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia. Federation Press. ISBN 978-1-86287-653-8.

[1]