Talk:State atheism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

State atheism should be moved to Anti theistic government actions

I am proposing an article name change/move due to the fact that this article has nothing to do with actual atheism and everything to do with Anti theistic government actions Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I endorse this. This article is only here to make a fringe accusation look like widely-accepted fact. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a big problem with the title of the article other than it's really not a notable term; it appears to be a term translated from the Russian gosateizm by David Kowalewski in the October 1980 issue of Russian Review ("Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences," Vol. 39, No. 4), and used once by Allen Hertzke in the 2006 book Freeing God's Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights. I'm fairly certain the rest of this article is built on WP:MNA, that any government persecuting religious folk due to official policy automatically qualifies whether or not the term state atheism is ever used. If there needs to be an article on that subject, it may as well be "State atheism" (unless a more notable term is offered); but if this article isn't novel or informative, I say we just delete it.

To respond to Aperseghin, yes, this article is about "Anti theistic government actions," but only those actions that are a direct result of the official establishment of atheism by the state. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Atheism was not the central goal of the state; 'religion being removed' is not 'atheism being established' (and how is that even possible?) In every case, the 'replacement' for religion was communist in nature. There are so many reasons this 'atheism=communism' accusation doesn't even make sense, which is why the majority of historians don't endorse it. "State atheism" is a Christian apologetic idea, not a real thing. THEPROMENADER 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's codified in their constitution, such as in the case of Cuba (see my post below), it is a central goal. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"this article has nothing to do with actual atheism and everything to do with Anti theistic government actions" "religion being removed' is not 'atheism being established" But many communist regimes didn't just stop at their anti-religious campaigns but replaced or tried to replace religion with atheism by enforcing it on the masses through propaganda and education. You'd know this if you're familiar with the history of Soviet Union and Communist Albania. For example, Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.strangerX (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Cuba has also made it explicit in their constitution that they endorse atheism. "Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the clause declaring Cuba an atheist state has been amended to declare it a 'secular' state." (Hertzke) "Officially, Cuba has been an atheist state for most of the Castro era. In 1962, the government of Fidel Castro seized and shut down more than 400 Catholic schools, charging that they spread dangerous beliefs among the people. In 1991, however, the Communist Party lifted its prohibition against religious believers seeking membership, and a year later the constitution was amended to characterize the state as a secular instead of atheist." ((2001). Cuba: Foreign Policy & Government Guide. International Business Publications, USA.) — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So all these revolutions were done in the name of atheism? None were. Suppression of religious institutions (with pro-communism 'replacements') and after-the-fact constitution clauses (making atheism the 'state's central cause? No.) were not this, either. THEPROMENADER 16:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"So all these revolutions were done in the name of atheism?"

That's beside the point. The fact is atheism was enforced by the state. They weren't merely secular states neutral on the matters of religion but they actively opposed it and promoted atheism in its place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.strangerX (talk • contribs)

THE PROMENADER, I agree with Mr.strangerX that your objection doesn't appear relevant. If atheism is state policy, it's state policy regardless of what other beliefs and goals the government holds. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But the claim "state atheism" isn't itself relevant to what was a suppression of religion. Atheism is not a 'thing' that can be 'promoted' or 'taught' - "forbidding all religion" is not "enforcing atheism". In all these cases these suppressions of religion were replaced with communist dogma... one could even argue that it was one totalitarianist system replacing another. THEPROMENADER 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"But the claim "state atheism" isn't itself relevant to what was a suppression of religion" If you're saying communists' anti-religious policies had nothing to do with their desire to disseminate atheism, you're wrong. Albanian constitution I cited earlier clearly shows their intention to implement an atheistic outlook in people. It was on this basis religious people, especially clergy, were persecuted.

Atheism was a core part of Soviet ideology. Lenin wrote, in “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion”, that “dialectical materialism…is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion”. He also believed that "Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism". Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, who had fought with the Bolsheviks since the 1905 revolution, led their League of Militant Atheists, and said “it is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept”. The Society (or League) of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the “Plan”, “not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”! Kazan Cathedral, to illustrate the force of their anti-religious spite, was shut down and turned into the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism. Soviet officials heavily promoted scientific atheism. The doctrine was taught in schools, advocated in the media, and emphatically propagandized in books, posters, the arts, during holidays, and with celebrations. Due to the policy of state atheism in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the USSR in the 20th century, many citizens in those countries were subject to a government-sponsored program of atheistic indoctrination, specifically Marxist-Leninist atheism.[1][2] Sabrina P. Ramet, a professor of political science, documented that "from kindergarten onward children are indoctrinated with an aggressive form of atheism" and "to denounce parents who follow religious practices at home."[3] Similarly, in the former Soviet Union, the period of "science education Soviet schools is used as a vehicle for atheistic indoctrination", with teachers having instructions to prepare their course "so as to conduct anti-religious educations at all times" since officials felt that little Marxist-Leninist atheistic indoctrination was done by "even the most atheistic parents."[4] To this end, "to promote anti-religious propaganda, some Soviet universities (Kiev, for example) have opened permanent departments on the history and theory of atheism", which served to "prepare and distribute antireligious pamphlets and present public lectures".[4] In 1964, the Soviet Union made the class Osnovy nauchnogo ateizma (Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism) mandatory for all university students.[5]

____ Sources: [1] Jacques, Edwin E. (1995). The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present. McFarland. p. 447. ISBN 0899509320. "This Marxist-Leninist class revolution, therefore, demanded an atheistic indoctrination of the working masses and the elimination of all religious convictions." [2] Franzmann, Manuel (2006). Religiosität in der säkularisierten Welt. Springer-Verlag. p. 89. "However, another conspicuous result of our comparison is that some Eastern European countries, in spite of decades of atheist indoctrination, have a considerable percentage of believers in God - Albania for instance, whose Communist rulers once claimed it was the world's first totally atheist country, or Russia, where the percentage of believers surged in the late eighties and rose dramatically once again in the course of the nineties." [3] Ramet, Sabrina P. (1990). Catholicism and Politics in Communist Societies. Duke University Press. pp. 232–233. ISBN 0822310473. "From kindergarten onward children are indoctrinated with an aggressive form of atheism and trained to hate and distrust foreigners and to denounce parents who follow religious practices at home." [4] Witt, Nicholas De (1961). Education and Professional Employment in the U.S.S.R. National Academies. p. 121. [4] Witt, Nicholas De (1961). Education and Professional Employment in the U.S.S.R. National Academies. p. 121. [5] Thrower, James (1983). Marxist-Leninist "scientific Atheism" and the Study of Religion and Atheism in the USSR. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 143–144.ISBN 9027930600. "In 1959, a new course, entitedOsnovy nauchnogo ateizma (Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism) was introduced into the curriculum of all higher educational institutions, including the universities." ____

Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. "A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer", Vol. 1: A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-Religious Policies; Vol.2: Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions; Vol. 3: Studies on the Church and the Believer’s Response to Atheism. New York: Sr. Martin’s Press, 1987-88.

These volumes represent by far the most complete reference on the spectacular attempt at making the Soviet Union into an atheistic state; each volume is presented by the name “General Introduction” which emphasizes the unity of the whole; vol. 1 deals with the theory of Marxist atheism and with the official Soviet policy declaration regarding “the struggle” again religion through history; vol. 2 exposes and analyzes the strategies and tactics of the antireligious propaganda and persecutions from 1917-1985; and vol. 3 aims at presenting how the church and believers actually live in a society of militant atheism. _____

"Atheism is not a 'thing' that can be 'promoted' or 'taught'" That's your opinion. Presentism must be avoided when we analyse history. I've provided enough evidence above to prove that communists did promote and teach atheism whether you like it or not. Don't let your personal biases get in the way of history. When you promote the idea that nature is all there is and there's no God, that constitutes "teaching atheism". Mr.strangerX (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is the absence of something, and that's a fact, not my opinion. "Disseminate atheism": no, eliminating religion. The communist regimes didn't want people to believe in any god, they wanted people to believe in them (almost as gods). And by providing all those references to theist opinion and documented suppression of religion (not at all under a "state atheism" title or context), you're just proving my point. This entire article is a single WP:POV, and it does not merit an article of its own... unless it is titled "theistic claims that the communist suppression of religion was in the name of atheism." THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Atheism is the absence of something, and that's a fact, not my opinion"_____ Atheism is the rejection of theism in the inclusive sense of the term and is the denial of gods in the exclusive sense. When you promote the idea that nature is all there is and God, soul and afterlife don't exist and that religions are nothing but psychological crutch to deal with reality or "opiate of the masses", you're promoting an atheist understanding of reality. Communist worldview as how it was implemented in these regimes was based on this understanding. State atheism describes the promotion of atheist and materialist understanding of reality in opposition to religious claims, often with the suppression of religion by the state. This happened in various communist regimes whether you like it or not. These are not just claims of theists. Communist suppression of religion and the promotion of atheism in its place is based on facts. Facts don't cease to be facts just because you don't want to acknowledge them.Mr.strangerX (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Communist worldview as how it was implemented in these regimes was based on this understanding."

No, it was based on communist dogma. I'm sure you can't provide anything but out-of-context quotes ("opium of the people" et al.) where atheism was 'taught' on its own (if that is even possible). If godlessness was but part of communist dogma, or just an absence of religion from communist dogma, it is still communist dogma being preached, not atheism. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

" it is still communist dogma being preached, not atheism"___ Atheism is still atheism even if it's preached by communists. it's like you ignored everything I said. Did you even bother to read what I wrote.... You dismissed every source I cited, even the communists themselves, because of your own biases. You don't seem very informed about the communist worldview. Their worldview was based on materialistic understanding of reality which they themselves have described as atheistic and hostile to religion: "The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion."- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

"Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists."- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Socialism and Religion

If you dismiss every evidence I cite, even the Albanian constitution which explicitly makes its intention of disseminating atheism very clear, I'd be justified in dismissing you as biased ideologue with an ax to grind. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.Mr.strangerX (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Albania proclaimed itself the world's first atheist state" http://books.google.com/books?id=PVPD6x2greEC&pg=PA56&dq=Albania+atheist+state&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5IxJVP22FcK48QHh6YHIBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Albania%20atheist%20state&f=false Mr.strangerX (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Atheism is still atheism even if it's preached by communists."

No, you are ignoring everything I said (or choosing not to address it), and that statement shows that perfectly. Communists preach communist dogma, not atheism.

And I did address your quotes and citations, and I can repeat if you like: they are but a collection of historical facts that were published under no "state atheism" title or context (but including them in a "state atheism" article sure does give them that context, which is even WP:ESSAY), or they are the opinion of theologist writers. Especially under its present title, this article is but WP:POV presented as widely-accepted fact. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously they preached communist dogma but they also preached atheistic understanding of reality that denied God, soul, afterlife, heaven and validity of religions in general. As the sources I cited earlier confirm, they taught 'scientific atheism' in schools. Marxist worldview, as how it was practiced in those regimes, was based on materialist conception of reality which was atheistic and hostile to religions. Anyone familiar with Marxist-Leninist worldview would know this. No amount of denialism is going to help your case. State Atheism is a term that defines a reality that happened. It describes the promotion of atheism by the state. It did happen and this phenomenon is called state atheism. Mr.strangerX (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

With that logic, any teaching of any subject that is absent of theistic teachings is "(teaching) atheism". The idea is quite absurd.

I looked up "scientific atheism" and your book, and it seems like the term comes from... mostly that book, and its author is not only a theist but quite anti-atheist. I looked up "scientific atheism" alone, and the quasi-totality of the results (I only looked at the first 300 or so) were theistic and/or anti-atheist websites and opinions, often citing... that book. Again, one can't present opinion as widely-accepted fact.

You keep repeating that "state atheism is a fact", but I'm sorry, the evidence shows that it is nothing but theistic opinion.

This page's title either has to reflect the origin of the opinion, or the page has to be removed, because, as it is, it is disinformation. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This page is a valid topic, particularly given that POV deletionists are over-active on general atheism pages wanting to censor any and all references to governments employing organs of state to promote atheism, just in case acknowledgement of these chapters in history might be somehow used to counter the general atheist outlook. Hiding knowledge for such motives is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Whatever the flaws of the existing text on this page, the topic is valid, and the page can serve as a useful gathering point for information on an historical phenomenon which burned brightly through much of the 20th century. Ozhistory (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Those affirmations are backed by no evidence, as I have shown several times already; this article's name can only be found as a theist opinion (or "accusation"). The "hiding" accusation is rather tu quoique - my entire criticism is about this article hiding the fact that it is a WP:POV rejected (or unmentioned) by a majority of the world's historians. And if it were widely-supported fact, your references would be any of these and not rather dated and obscure theist opinion pieces (many of these chosen only because of the "atheist" in their name). If you want to present a certain WP:POV, you have to present it as the opinion of its group/person origin, otherwise you are guilty of WP:POV.

But reason doesn't seem to be effective here, and I sense a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I know full well that, absent of reason, this article would be "protected" by "consensus" (aka 'majority rules') even if it is wrong, so don't worry, I won't be going there. The "WP:POV presented as widely supported fact" nature of this article should be brought to administrator attention, though, as presenting opinion as fact this way is pure and purposeful disinformation. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

THE PROMENADER, I really don't see a POV problem. For example, I'm an atheist—a strong atheist at that—and I don't see a problem with the subject matter (other than, as I've stated before, the term state atheism isn't really notable). As a subject, I think there is fairly good justification to document cases in which governments officially endorse atheism. If there is a better term to describe this subject, I would support a move to that title. If it's decided the subject itself is not noteworthy, I would support a deletion. The current proposal (to move this article to a list page) doesn't seem to improve Wikipedia, and may even omit the fact that this subject is not just about "Anti theistic government actions" (to quote Aperseghin), but governments that explicitly support atheism and attempt to restrict or eliminate religious practices and institutions within the nation. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course moving this article to a less misleading namespace would be a good first solution, as it would make Wikipedia seem more credible.

"but governments that explicitly support atheism and attempt to restrict or eliminate religious practices and institutions within the nation."

...but this needs to be dealt with, too. Again, the elimination of religion is not a support of atheism (itself a paradoxal impossibility because atheism is not a movement or even 'thing' - there's nothing to support)... "State suppression of religion" would be a perfect namespace, if it is not taken already... and with that name, I don't think the article itself would have to be modified much at all. I would very much support this solution. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with that suggestion is that this article is not just dealing with "State suppression of religion," but "State suppression of religion in those specific cases in which atheism is official policy"; rather, it seems to purposefully omit this criterion. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"State suppression of religion in those specific cases in which atheism is official policy"

What does that even mean? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It means, for example, that "[t]he USSR is the first modern nation to have declared the promotion of atheism as an official policy." (Pankhurst, Jerry G. (1988). "The Sacred and the Secular in the USSR". Understanding Soviet Society. p. 167.) It means that Cuba's constitution explicitly stated that it was an atheist state (see above references). It means that, in one way or another, the state made the establishment of atheism an official policy. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the entire text [1] - it was a programmed suppression of religion. The read is interesting (and probably quite accurate), but aside from the opening phrase of that chapter (was this book chosen for that?), there's nothing about anything being "promoted" or "taught", just the usual suppression of religion and its replacement with communistic ideals, or 'filling the void' so to speak. Even then, this single phrase can hardly outweigh the majority of publications on the matter. Seriously, the name "State suppression of religion" would serve this article much better, if it is indeed accuracy and referencability you are looking for. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a suppression of religion because of a national commitment to atheism. There are plenty of sources that discuss the USSR's policy of gosateizm, so I really don't know what you're trying to rebut. Nor have I seen you present any of the "majority of publications on the matter" that would cast doubt on these sources. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"because of a national commitment to atheism"

Again again, no, they were commited to communism and "taught" communist dogma. But the more I look at this article, the more it seems but an WP:ESSAY trying to make "communism is really atheism" affirmation "seem fact".

When no other encyclopaedia or history textbook makes any mention of any "state atheism" or "teaching atheism" or any mention of "atheism" at all, and you have to stretch to find obscure sources (chosen for the "atheist/m" in their title or text) that turn out to be, in their overwhelming majority, opinionated theistic publications (yet it doesn't mention this fact), there's already a major problem. This issue definitely merits attention. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

__" Again, the elimination of religion is not a support of atheism "__ As I've been repeating, they didn't stop at that. They promoted atheism in its place through propaganda and education. This is clear in the Albanian constitution and for more info, refer to the books I cited. ___"itself a paradoxal impossibility because atheism is not a movement or even 'thing' - there's nothing to support"___

Strong atheism, the explicit denial of Gods, can be taught and promoted. How do you promote godlessness? You teach people a materialist understanding of reality devoid of supernaturalism and spiritualism. You teach people that God doesn't exist and everything has natural causes. Teaching people about the nonexistence of God or the falsehood of religion is a thing!Mr.strangerX (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, not only was atheism not 'taught' (communism was), it isn't even possible (there's nothing to teach). I've really outlined this quite clearly: "State atheism" is but an anti-atheist idea, an inventive accusation, and examination of article references, plus those you provided, only confirm that. But thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, communists did teach atheism, which can be easily confirmed by a quick research on Marxist-Leninist atheism and by the Lenin's writings and Albanian constitution I cited. Here's another source on 'scientific atheism' in Soviet Union: http://books.google.ca/books?id=BGJtDwJ7aPwC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=The+Fundamentals+of+Scientific+Atheism&source=bl&ots=eRnz5c2gQh&sig=uD3p3LFphEBGpa_xBXRJB8e8gZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iVZsU9yLMoSVyAT52IBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Fundamentals%20of%20Scientific%20Atheism&f=false

You're saying atheism can't be taught and there's nothing to teach about atheism. This is false. When you promote the idea that there's no God and everything can be explained by material processes without appealing to supernatural forces, you're promoting atheism and materialism respectively. If you're familiar with the history of communism and their materialist worldview, it would be easier for you to understand why communists like the League of Militant Atheists promoted atheism and were invested in discrediting religion through their propaganda magazine Bezbozhnik (Russian: Безбожник; "Atheist" or "The Godless"). Religion was treated as "false consciousness" that was to be overcome through atheist and scientific education and propaganda because it helped to exploit the masses on earth by promising them illusory hope in reward in heaven: "Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."- V. I. Lenin, Socialism and Religion Mr.strangerX (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't an WP:ESSAY, and no major encyclopaedia or history publication shares this WP:POV (presented here as "fact"). I'll only be repeating myself with any further comment, so please see my earlier comments. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Can we possible have a vote? my answer is obvious support because, well, i proposed the change and why would i vote against myself Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Despite the term's lack of notability, the subject itself is documented in reliable sources. Furthermore, the suggestion seems to purposefully omit the necessary condition that the governments specified in this article had an expressed commitment to atheism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - the term's lack of notablility is the very reason it should move (at least). This article is but a theist-opinion accusation unshared by the overwhelming majority of historians (and this is unmentioned in the article, making it both WP:POV and WP:ESSAY) and putting it in an article of its own under this title insinuates quite the opposite. At least a move to State suppression of religion would make it in part factual. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: State Atheism, like state religion, describes a real phenomenon that occurred especially in the 20th century. The promotion of atheism by the state, as happened in many communist regimes, is well documented and which can justifiably be described as 'State Atheism'. This article should stay.

Here's an unbiased source affirming reality of state atheism:

“The first ever officially declared atheist nation in the world was Albania under the rule of communist dictator Enver Hoxha (1908-85). Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated: ‘The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic outlook in people’ (Vickers 2001). For several decades, atheism was brutally enforced. All religions were outlawed, religiously-based city names were changed, religious names for all people were banned, religious leaders were forced to flee and those that remained were imprisoned, tortured, and killed, and religious buildings were destroyed or converted into secular buildings (Jacques 1995). Life in this atheist nation was wretched: no democracy, gross human rights violations, widespread poverty, lack of adequate health care, etc. Although literacy rates did skyrocket under Hoxha, atheist Albania was definitely not a model of societal health. It was an isolated, under-developed, poor nation held hostage by a paranoid, vindictive tyrant.

The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was also explicitly atheistic. In the late 1920s, the communist regime of the USSR created the League of Militant Atheists, which had the explicit, decade-long, and governmentally-supported mandate of destroying religion, disseminating atheistic propaganda and education, and replacing religious rituals and holidays with secular versions. Simultaneously, the Soviets attempted to eradicate religion by arresting, torturing, and killing religious leaders and closing or demolishing religious buildings (Froese 2008). As is well-known, the USSR was a failure—economically, politically, and morally. The Soviets did not manage to create a free workers’ paradise. Rather, they created a totalitarian nation plagued by poverty, famines, surveillance, suspicion, gulags, and corruption. Hardly a model of societal health.”-- Bullivant, Stephen, and Michael Ruse. "Atheism and Societal Health." In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, 506. Oxford University Press, 2013.Mr.strangerX (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest making an article about Albanian atheism, or reducing this article to it. "Explicitly atheistic" is not "state atheism" - a few selective sources containing "state atheism" cannot outweigh the (silence of) a vast majority of historical books on the matter. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And "безбожников" translates to "Godless", as it does in the other two similar groups indicated in the League of Militant Atheists article whose name contains the same word. That's quite a stretch. This looks more and more like a concerted effort to tarnish the 'name' of atheism - that would explain quite a lot, actually. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

THE PROMENADER, you have mentioned a couple of times that this article does not comport with majority opinion in reliable sources—can you please provide these sources? In fact, adding these sources to the article could be the impetus for a name change. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

When a search for the term "state atheism" turns results that are a vast majority of atheist-criticising theist publications and authors, and no encyclopaedias, historical reviews or other mainstream history sources, you have to go figure. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Actual history outweighs your denialism. Why reduce it to be only about Albania? This happened in many communist states because as I explained in my previous comments communists incorporated atheism to the materialist worldview and wanted to replace the false consciousness of religion with "scientific atheism". Marx talked about how religion would naturally die out once communism is implemented, but other communists, Marxist-Leninist atheists, tried to eradicate religion through force and atheist education. Vast majority of academic sources on history of communism don't deny the attempt by the State to enforce atheism. Even if most of the historians didn't explicitly use the specific phrase "state atheism", they nevertheless affirmed the reality of it.

And your desperation and denialism are now even more obvious by your hairsplitting argument over semantics. Godlessness is another way of saying atheism. You think it's "quite a stretch" Godless is equivalent to atheist. Oxford dictionary defines godless as "Not believing in God". Of course it also means "Profane; wicked" but this is an obsolete definition and this is not the definition that League of Militant Atheists used. Google translator translates the Russian term 'Союз воинствующих безбожников' as 'League of Militant Atheists.

This "argument" is ridiculous for a lot of reasons but the main one being it focuses solely on the semantics of the term while ignoring what the people behind that term did. The League of Militant Atheists were trying to replace theism with atheism. That was their goal.

And now you think there's a conspiracy to "tarnish the 'name' of atheism". It's obvious why you want this article gone. You have an ax to grind here and have an emotional attachment to the atheist label. So you're desperately trying to defend the name of atheism from anything that might tarnish its reputation. No, there's no such conspiracy or "concerted effort". This article describes a reality whether you like it or not. Leave your prejudices and emotions at the door. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Mr.strangerX (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call it what you like, you have your right to your opinion, but search results are already more than obvious fact enough. But if the content is indeed the centre of interest here, why not move it, how is State suppression of religion such a problem? It would actually benefit the content, because it would be under a title that is not an opinionated theist accusation against atheists, but highly supported fact. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

0.o I just looked at your edit history - you created your username only to argue for this article?! This definitely requires some outside attention. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, nations like the USSR used the terminology of "atheist state" or "state atheism" to characterize the establishment of atheism as the official state doctrine. The text "Religion and Identity of Soviet Jewish Immigrants in the United States" is clear about this, stating "The USSR declared itself the first atheist state in the world that discouraged any religion and persecuted those who tried to contradict Marxist ideology." Mr.strangerX (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just choosing books because they contain something like a preferred phrase is not very helpful (again, this ignores the real problem here, see my earlier comments), and the fact that the result always contains the word "atheism" (out of many other words possible discuss this topic) is also revealing in the light of my earlier comments. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: State atheism is a notable concept. The anti-theistic government actions have based on this anti-theistic ideology which has strongly affected modern history. Greenknight dv (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am opposed to it because in high school, I knew this really cute Cambodian-American girl whom I still care about. Her parents were Khmer Rouge genocide survivors and they told about the brutal religious persecution they witnessed under the Khmer Rouge regime that was the result from the Khmer Rouge's attempt to brutally exterminate all religion-they are Buddhists by the way! I care deeply about her and I WILL NOT LET HER PARENT'S SUFFERINGS GO TO WASTE! ComradeDimitri101 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)ComradeDimitri101

• Oppose : this is a valid topic, with multiple notable historic examples. That said, the article is very incomplete, and its sourcing and content can be improved. Ozhistory (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per above discussion. The term is obviously covered with reliable sources, but the article needs to be improved though. --BiH (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The USSR might not have used the term "atheist state" but the term "impressionist" wasn't invented by the impressionists either.ShonaMcc (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: State atheism is the historical fact of 20th century. It has affected modern history of the world greatly especially of those countries who were ruled by anti-theistic governments partially or permanently. It describes the politiclal, economical, religious and social views of anti-theistic governments and is notable concept in many countries of the world. Night Fury (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I predicted this happening [2]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

French revolution

None of the "cited" articles applies the neologism "state atheism" to the Terror.

See page 153 of this paper "In the current public realm, the misconception that the Terror was an atheistic phenomenon is a common assertion..."

-- Callinus (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

the issue is atheism not terror. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources you added apply the term "state atheism" to the French Terror. The term "state atheism" is a translation of the Russian term "gosateizm" used in the USSR - no published source applies this term to the French Revolution or the Terror. The word "atheism" in one source, (that is heavily dubious given the paper above) does not establish that WP:COATRACK material should be included linking the French Revolution to the USSR. The only source that attempted that was a POV diatribe. -- Callinus (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

how we use "state atheism" is stated in the first sentence: a "government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism" and that is the meaning used by Robespierre who attacked government agents who were trying to set up atheism as a state policy. The USSR, by the way, often referred to the French Rev as a model. Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So that's a pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issue - the topic is not actually defined by any professional source.

gosateizm was an official policy and a word the USSR applied to themselves to describe their own policy - articles should not be written on neologisms used by opinion column writers.

The lead section should not be written from the perspective of sectarian opinion columns. It's original research and a synthesis of published works to apply a new term in a way that isn't used in professional, published research.

The Catholic encyclopedia does not use the word "atheism" once in the article on the French Terror, let alone "state atheism" - a POV term only used by Alistair McGrath.

There are professionally published academic resources that discuss religious rights in the Soviet Union, and deal with "gosateizm" in an independent, academic manner, and aren't published to push populist opinion to Daily Mail readers. -- Callinus (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the policy on WP:NEO is to write articles about topics from an academic perspective, not just repeat how populist usage of a term is used.

Government bodies like the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom have standing in international relations and exist to promote freedom of religion. Populist literature only exists to promote sectarian causes domestically, frequently publishing on trivial issues like whether christmas trees are called "Christmas trees" - note that the USCIRF does not publish on trivial issues, because they want to be taken seriously in their treatment of death row cases (eg Saeed Abedini, Raif Badawi, Mariam Ibrahim). -- Callinus (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on State atheism. 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/20091010050756/http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf to http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf

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} 07:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

The lead section of this article states that state atheism was an official policy of anti-clericalism. The article on anti-clericalism states that anti-clericalism refers to historical movements that oppose the clergy. State atheism was opposed to religion as a whole, not only the clergy. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that when one thing is expressly listed, all other things in the same class are intentionally excluded. Because state atheism was not only a policy of anti-clericalism, it's misleading to only indicate that state atheism was an official policy of anti-clericalism in the lead section. Squideshi (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point, and I see that the cited supporting source is very clear that it is about state atheism, not just anti-clericalism. Here I've WP:BOLDly replaced the initial part of the lead section with its content prior to this 2015 edit, relocated the replaced material to the Soviet Union section, and excised the mention of anti-clericalism from the relocated material. This likely needs more work; please revert or edit further as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What is state atheism?

I'm asking why Cuba is considered a country which promotes state atheism despite the fact that since 1991 its constitution recognises "freedom of religion" and Laos not even if its constitution allows freedom as well. It's true that both countries have experienced some religious persecutions even in recent times. I'm asking if state atheism means "the government of a state restricts the religious practice in some way" even if the Constitution says there is freedom of worship.--Carnby (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Who defines the 'state atheism' concept?

I won't revert-war over a tag, but instead, I'll turn this into an opportunity to elaborate my questioning of the claim:

"State atheism is the name given by scholars to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes"

The term "state atheism" is not present in any mainstream reference I can find, and the 'scholarly reference' that is supposed to be a justification for reverting leads only to a badly-reviewed [3] not-even-print 'dictionary' (really, a collection of 'atheist terminology', as the book own description says, "neologisms by or about atheists"[4]). What's more, the dictionary entry does not at all reflect the claim it is purported to support, as it says only 'is the name given to' without any mention of 'by who' let alone 'scholarly'... adding 'by scholars' to the claim 'because' the publishing house ('Oxford Quick Reference Online'?) is 'scholarly' is seemingly intentionally misleading WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

If the term is as common and authorative as the claim tries to suggest, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it. If not, the claim must be changed to reflect the concept's real origins, or it should be removed altogether, as, as is, it goes against several Wikipedia policies. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

User:1990'sguy, You've been extensively editing the article since the above was posted, which makes it seem as though you are pointedly ignoring it (and WP:POLICY). Since you have already demonstrated that you will revert any edit you 'don't like', if you continue to ignore this question, I will have no choice but to bring outside attention to it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I originally was pretty confused too on this term so I tried to clarify the tag that was there to something more adequate. You added the "who" tag last month right? But now that you mentioned it here more explicitly, I see what you mean. Looking back at the source...the term and definition is in there and the source is from Oxford University Press. Seems appropriate since the authors of the Oxford reference are also involved in research on atheism and non-religion and contributed to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism too (one of them was one of the editors for that handbook). So it is not by some random people making a dictionary - it is actually by experts on atheism. I think you have a point in asking about if anyone has used it and yes it seems to have been used quite a bit. I found examples from journals pretty easily such as [5] and [6]. Here is another one from Albania [7] (if you have access to the whole article you can see it). Perhaps some clarification on the source itself would help since it was missing publication details and it did look like some random source at first glance, when it was not.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it doesn't anwer anything. Again, the 'source' is a collection of, in the book author's own words, "neologisms by or about atheists"[8], and it says nothing about the origin of the term.

By what I can see, the term is hardly used in any 'scholarly' works, but when it was used in anything approaching that (and these were almost exclusively religious-author works, or works speaking of those works/authors), there are two distinct meanings over two periods:

1. Pre-WWII: the few uses I could find used the term to describe any government that separated church and state (in education, namely) [9]
2. Post-1950: It was a term coined by religious fundamentalists to blame the evils of religion-suppressing governments on 'atheism' (to promote religiosity locally) [10][11]

The entire Google Books list, organised by date [12]

I'm sure one can try to find exceptions, but evidence shows that its use is overwhelmingly these two cases.

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually from your list of google books [13] nearly all of them are from academic sources since they come from academic publishers. So for instance, "Introducing Anthropology of Religion: Culture to the Ultimate" by Jack David Eller (a textbook) comes from Routledge, "Religious Actors and International Law" by Ioana Cismas (a textbook) comes form Oxford University Press, etc. Some of these authors from your google list are atheists too such as Jack David Eller (on China) and Julian Baggini (on contrast with other options like state secualrity). Pretty much most of them in the first page come from academic sources. So the term is used quite a bit in textbooks, references, handbooks, etc. The search for origin of the term is certainly interesting but the fact that it is used should be enough to at least establish that the term has been around. Interestingly, in google scholar I get +700 hits with "state atheism" [14] so it has quite a bit of usage there too.

Certainly you can add different meanings to the article if you find some. If you have found 2 distinct meanings: Pre-WWII and POST-1950 as you said, then you can certainly expand on the definitions if the source defines it to some extent. I don't think that would be a problem since multiple meanings are possible. Considering that "atheism" does have a history of multiple meanings ranging from not believing in the "right" gods but believing in others, or being forsaken by the gods, or rejecting all gods, or mere absence of gods, etc; I imagine there would be multiple meanings for "state atheism". Maybe a "history" section could be added?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't 'interpret' evidence or sources here, nor pick those we 'like' the most. We can indicate a preponderance of sources, though, and this should even be a requirement (if it isn't already).

Nor can one claim a source is 'suitable' simply because it contains the term; it has to demonstrably reflect the claim made, or it is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR, or simply false.

It's the lede definition, and the entire article is built on that definition, so the origin of the term and who uses it that way must be indicated in the lede. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is why the source is cited per definition - so that readers can see where that particular definition comes from. You are open to find more and add those citations. Our job is not to make WP:SYN of what one editor thinks "many" sources are defining. If a source says "state atheism" means A and another source says "state atheism" means B then citations per each definition can be added right next to each definition such as: "state atheism" means A (add citation) and can also mean B (add citation). There would be no issue. Since "atheism" has many definitions, even at its origins in ancient Greece I don't think any one definition would be a limiting factor. More than one definition is possible, but the sources used to define a term should have a clear definition like the "Dictionary of Atheism" does, no?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

But WP:SYNTH is exactly what that source is, as it does not indicate nor reflect anything the claim says: it simply contains the term. Again (again), in the author's own words, it is a collection of "neologisms by or about atheists"[15]. It does not indicate in any way the author of the term or who uses it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: your 'Google scholar' link (that shows results that, for the most part, have content that isn't even accessible; only the authorship is clear) reflect the same preponderance/usage as my 'Google books' example. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PPS: Your 'meanings' section idea is a very good one. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on the publisher (Oxford) description. I was wondering about what you said - "collection of "neologisms by or about atheists". But that is not how the publisher characterizes the dictionary, no? I mean it clearly says: This new dictionary provides definitions of terms related to the subject of atheism, ranging from those of historic importance, including the history of the term ‘atheist’ itself, to crucial concepts in the contemporary study of atheism and related topics, such as nonreligion and postsecular." As such it covers many things (history, events, concepts) and also covers neologicsms, organizations, etc because they are contemporary subjects on atheism. Plus it also says "Atheism is a growing subject of study with a significant scholarly presence emerging online, and many of the new terms covered represent the first authoritative definitions for this subject. So the dictionary is not reducible to "neologisms by or about atheists". Now if you don't like the definition, then please go ahead and look for another source that is just as authoritative as this one and we can add that one too. Many definitions are possible, but if you cannot find another one, then there is no point in entertaining this further. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

One more thing to note, you cannot call out WP:SYN on a source. That policy applies to us editors, not the source. It says - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Clearly this is not combining sources since the Dictionary is one source. There is nothing to combine.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You're dissecting (to distract from the main point), and again, we don't 'interpret' sources ('tell people what sources really say), nor use two sources for two parts that 'conclude' something together... those are both examples of WP:SYNTH, and that's exactly what the lede claim does. The source in no way indicates what the claim states (a claim that would suggest 'everyone knowledgable': it is, in fact, but an empty appeal to authority), period.

But both your example and mine show that usage of this term is overwhelmingly by one point of view/origin (a religious one) with two different meanings across two time periods. How could one not want to make this clear to the reader? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by we don't "interpret" sources here. The only way to not interpret sources is to just quote them, no? The leaves the context to reside in the source by the source. And from the definition on the lead right now, it is pretty much verbatim from the source. Do you you want to quote more from it? Please go ahead and find another usage of "state atheism" that is out there and we can add that to the article. Why keep on persisting about one definition by an authoritative reliable source, when I have said from the beginning that it would be good if you can add more on top of what is already there? Find another source that shows an alternative definition and add it. Multiple definitions are possible. Does that help clarify? Like on the "atheism" page right now, it has the format of "atheism" means A (citations 1,2,3) and can also mean B (citations 4,5) and can also mean C (citations 6,7,8). Multiple definitions from multiple sources. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what there is not to understand, and that 'extra' bit added to the 'pretty much verbatim' part that makes it against multiple Wikipedia policies (as I've already explained at least three times already). If the 'by scholars' was removed, the claim would match the source, but, as the term is absent from most all non-religious-origin references and history works, the issue returns again and we're back to square one.

And, again, one can't find multiple 'scholarly sources' (according to the contributor's POV) that use the term and say 'scholars say': that, too is verboten on Wikipedia for multiple reasons; the source has to say 'scholars say' as well.

The only way around that is to say that "A Dictionary of Atheism" (sic) defines State Atheism as..."... but that source is a practically pamphlet not-even-print e-book published by 'Oxford Quick Reference Online'... since the claim is suggesting that the term is common knowledge to authority, surely a better source/origin/definition should not be hard to find. If the claim is to stay as-is, that is.

But yes, listing the multiple definitions from multiple origins from multiple sources is fine, we've already come up with a few together just today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at it, the "who" tag you put in really did not even belong in the sentence because it had a source for it. It was redundant. If people wanted to see where it came from, it was there. The fact that you and I found hundreds of uses of "state atheism" using google books (even a century of people using it by your find - I saw some uses from the 1800s from your list) and google scholar means that it is in currency and by the number of recent works using it, it looks like it is rising. This is probably why the term actually made into the dictionary. Dictionaries in general are full of terms that are not overwhelmingly used. But they are used enough to make the cut. The source is by experts of research on atheism and the publisher is an academic publisher. Merely saying it is in electronic form does not diminish its quality considering that the Encyclopedia Britannica is also an academic source that is only found electronically now. Also numerous academic journals are only found electronically too. Find another definition from reputable source and add it. You mentioned [16] earlier which defines it as something free, without god, and destroying parents rights. Maybe I can soften the language to "usually refers to" or "refers to" (leaving room for different defs). Other defs can be added with "...it can also mean..." and/or attribute. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see the 'need' to explain after the claim "X is the name given to", then... that's troublesome, and makes further discussion pointless, especially when, again, the term is absent from all dictionaries and encyclopaedias (that I can find)... and having to 'settle' for a e-book (and why no other?) as a source speaks volumes about that, doesn't it? But, as we both demonstrated earlier today, the origin of the term is clear: why not make that clear to the reader as well?

I can't repeat myself a fifth time, so if you (or the particularly revert-prone contributor I pinged twice about this who, even after several major edits to this same article since, seemingly refuses to respond) still 'can't see the problem', it's better to invite outside opinions on this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...Just realized and important factor in all of this. This dictionary is actually a specialized dictionary on a specialized and very narrow topic - atheism. It is in the same vein as there are specialized dictionaries on narrow topics such as "The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics", "A Dictionary of Chemistry (Oxford Quick Reference)", "The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion", "A Dictionary of Hinduism (Oxford Quick Reference)", "The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy", "Barron's Law Dictionary", etc. None of these are general dictionaries so many terms from ALL of these dictionaries will not be found in generalized dictionaries or even be used by most people. Specialists and researchers have their own specialized terms and specialized dictionaries like the "Dictionary of Atheism" serve specialists more than the general public but these dictionaries make specialized terms accessible to a wide audience including the general public.

Most "regular" people do not focus on learning specialized terms from Math, Law, Chemistry, Philosophy, Hinduism, or Atheism, but that does not diminish the fact that people like specialists AND interested laymen do use these terms.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If the term is so commonly used, finding proper (and many!) secular references using/defining the term (that are not references to non-secular works) should not be a problem at all.

Again (again), the term is overwhelmingly particular to non-secular works (yet the lede suggests that the term is common to (unspecified, suggesting 'all') authorative publishers and works). We both acknowledge this particularity (and have even demonstrated it), so, again, the specifity of the term should be made clear... with or without 'by scholars', that claim does quite the opposite. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter by whom a particular word is used. Early in its inception, the term "agnosticism" was overwhelmingly used by non-theists in small circles in the late 1800s, not theists. Then as time went by it gained popular currency in philosophy then it became even more popular to what it is today. It became a specialized term when academics started using it and talking about to some extent. The fact that 'state atheism' is found in +700 articles on google scholar + numerous academic books (textbooks, handbooks, references) + even experts of atheism and secularity research put it in specialized dictionary means it has currency. If the issue is merely of attribution, then attribute. Its a simple fix. Go for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want me to comment, I'll comment (I have more important fish to fry, however). I just looked at the source, and it is a scholarly source published by Oxford University Press. As Ramos1990 just pointed out, a Google Scholar search will show other scholarly sources about the term. If you really want to know who uses the term "state atheism," look at the RSs -- it's scholars. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The origins/quality/content of that (e-)source (and others) was demonstrated way back in and several times through the discussion, so repeating myself further would be pointless. Let's see what others have to say about it.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You are asserting one position, and Ramos1990 another. Two different positions, and I obviously align with the latter. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue boiled down to attribution in the end which I did encourage User:ThePromenader to do. Why this has not been done by him to resolve his own issue about who defined the term (he even suggested the attribution solution), is a bit puzzling since the solution was agreed upon and even encouraged. Even adding more definitions was agreed upon and encouraged.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

'Voting' does not 'override' WP:POLICY, nor can it 'override' deomonstrably WP:SYNTH and WP:OR claims. All I'm doing here is trying to make things clear to you to avoid edit-warring, as I feel that either of you will revert without valid justification any changes made you don't 'like' (as 1990sguy has already done twice [17][18]), also because you're 'more'... that's not how Wikipedia editing works.

We did not agree on any such 'only the attribution' thing today, rather the answers to my demonstrations of WP:POLICY transgressions have been more to the tune of 'but... it's fine how it is!'. So you won't oppose changing the lede so that it expresses the nature of the overwhelming majority of sources/authors using the term and whence the term originated? That would be fabulous indeed, and points for all of us. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim about WP:SYN is not applicable to the source and the fact that the source exists invalidates any claim on WP:OR since that policy says if no source exists for a claim. The source makes the claim and it is reliable. I am following wikipedia policy accepting what a reliable source says on a particular topic. But what it looks like to me is that you are just complaining because you do not like what it says when you can certainly add other definitions. I already said that we can define the term in different ways as long as you have reliable sources that provide alternative definitions. Are there no alternative definitions? How about this, can you provide an alternative definition for the term and provide sources for that? I get +700 hits for the term on google scholar. If you can, then please add them to the article so that it shows diversity on the understanding the term! I have said many times over and over again multiple definitions are possible! This article can be expanded further. I will wait for other editors to comment as this is getting repetitive and solutions have already been suggested multiple times.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I attributed per your suggestion earlier. That should help accommodate some of your concerns for the moment. Will see if others comment.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So, no. The claim now reads "according to Oxford's Dictionary of Atheism.", but the title of the book is "A Dictionary of Atheism" (an e-book published by 'Oxford online quick reference'). And why only that source: is a badly-acclaimed online collection of neogisms 'about aheists' (that doesn't even disclose the origin of every neogism, at least not in this case) really the best there is out there? Since even this change tries to imply that the term is widely accepted by (all, even secular) authorative authors, why is it so hard to find a reference (or collection of references) that actually demonstrates that? But, for sure, it's a small step in the right direction. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI - See here for the the nature of Oxford Quick References from OUP's site [Oxford References- Answers with Authority http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/about].Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My point about the inaccurate title ignored, I changed it to the real title, and was kind enough to not indicate its 'online quick reference' (not even print book) nature within its Oxford University Press parent company (and indicate 'Oxford University Press', but even this is a form of deception that doesn't sit well with me (but, hey, compromise). At least now it 'sounds authorative' while not technically offending any WP:POLICY. I also formatted the quote to demonstrate that it is, indeed, a quote.

Every neologism has an author and most common use, but, again, this source divulges neither (which is odd in a book that claims to provide information about such terms). But at least now that part of the lede is 100% truthful. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What a badly formatted RfC. Who (what) defines "state atheism"? Obviously, all acceptable sources under the WP framework. I don't see why this article should be an exception. And BTW Cuba does not fit to the category of the country practicing state atheism. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm a newbie to RfC. I'll close it and start another one. Noted about Cuba, too - thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuba does not appear to currently be an atheist state, but it once was. I noted this in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's bad practice to do that just after someone voiced opposition. Unless the document you cite calls it an 'atheist state', you cannot 'attribute' whatever happened there to that neologism. What are you doing, trying to attribute every religion-suppressing despot's act in history to 'atheism'? This article has exploded since I last read it a few years ago. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

First off, I was not contradicting the other editor. Cuba is not an atheist state today, but it once was in the past. I clarified this. Also, I am not "attributing evil acts to atheism." What the sources say is that these governments were officially atheist. The anti-religious policies came from the official government position of state atheism, not necessarily from the hearts of the people in charge. There is a difference. I understand that people of all stripes are often motivated by more than purist religious ideals. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That is an... interesting interpretation of events that doesn't address at all your timing that was my point.

'State Atheism' is a neologism and even your gotta-have "A Dictionary of Atheism" 'scholarly source' says as much, itself[19]. I've found that Wikipedia has strict policies about this [20][21], and the before-last policy link's "In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions"[22] describes this case pretty neatly.

What's more, in the discussions over the past weeks, I've seen the term 'coatrack' thrown around, and after reading, that, too seems to describe a lot of what's going on in this article: it hangs factual events on a title (or 'thing' that is in fact but a nelogism) not even mentioned in the sources supporting them. I don't know how many levels of WP:POLICY that transgresses, but I'm still not done reading. It seems that Wikipedia policy has evolved quite a bit since I last looked, and that's a good thing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ThePromenader, good job on the attribute. That is what you should have done early on since I agreed with you on that and encouraged it. Anyways, it looks like Cuba is called specifically a "state atheism" in one source and "atheist state" in another in the recent add. I suppose the qualifier "Until 1992" sets chronological context too. Just my observation at the moment. A quick question, is the term "state atheism" really a neologism? From your google books list that you provided by date, the term goes way back to at least 1859, no? Other terms like "agnosticism" (1800s) and "atheism" (1600s) were neologisms in the recent past too so not sure what is the point of treating any word, even if new, as nonexistent or invalid when it does exist and is gaining currency. Isn't that how languages evolve? "New Atheism" was coined in 2006 so it is a way more recent neologism, but do you think the term is invalid since it only 11 years old? Time does not seem like the determining factor since new terms would be impossible to be invented, no?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you guys were WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit-warring, and a bit of discussion was necessary for me to figure out what changes you would or would not revert again.

All I did was make the claim echo the source, and since the term is absent from most all secular references and history books (so that we could actually demonstrate 'commonly known and accepted (by all scholars)'), the source itself had to be cited as the source of the claim. I'm not sure how 'solid' that is, and it still does not tell the complete () story it should, as the source itself does not indicate the neologism's (and it is one: see answer to 1990sguy just above) author or what circles it is used in. I'm sure that book got bad reviews and little attention (aside from here ; ) just for that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Google is showing me 803,000 uses and Google Scholar is showing me 750 uses of the term. So it there is some use of it, including among scholars. Seesms largely to be talking about the former Soviet Union policies, but other contexts are also used. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw some on China, Albania, and now even Cuba (cited earlier in this discussion too).

Just a side note on Neologism wikipedia policy - it clearly does say "Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources."

But since the term "state atheism" goes back to at least 1859 per User:ThePromenader's list from google books by date [23] I don't think this is an issue. I have to admit that the "secular references" criteria that User:ThePromenader mentioned is an absurd criteria considering that atheism is linked to "religion topics" fundamentally. It has the word 'theism' in it. Anyways, looking at User:ThePromenader's expectation that the term be found in references and history texts....uh it is per his google books list. Here are a few examples from his list: "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism", "State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law (Studies in Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights)", "Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular", "Eastern Europe and the Challenges of Modernity, 1800-2000", "Religious Actors and International Law", "Architecture and Armed Conflict: The Politics of Destruction", etc.

I would agree with User:ThePromenader completely if the word was not being used in these kinds of scholarly sources, but that does not seem to be the case. Considering that clear (and silly) neologisms like Flying Spaghetti Monster (this term was invented by an atheist in 2005) has an extensive wikipedia article on it, I don't see how anyone would object to a more serious term like "state atheism". Originally I sided with User:ThePromenader in questioning the term, but after all this talk it looks like I was incorrect in doubting it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to cite the number of google (books, scholar) results without looking at the nature of them: they are overwhelmingly nonsecular (namely Christian), and one cannot pick out a few exceptions (without noting that many of these are, in fact, citing these non-secular works and claims?) and claim that they represents the whole. Actually, the term seems to have been coined as part of an "atheist atrocities fallacy" [24] movement begun in the 1950s that sought to attribute all of the world's ills to 'atheism'... this article mimics it perfectly.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster example is a perfect one of what an article on a WP:NEOLOGISM should be: it denotes the origin, use and purpose of the term (and why can't that be done here?), and nothing more; this article is like one taking themselves-citatable real-world events and blaming them on the Flying Spaghetti Monster by listing them under that title.

Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches for "flying spaghetti monster" turn up a respective 522,000 [25], 4,450 [26] and 739 [27] results, by the way ; ). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The "nature of them" is irrelevant since it is used by people who composed text on secular/religious subjects like the "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism". It carries no weight as to who uses it more since you cannot control people's language usage. People accept terms and use them as necessary. Did you know that "Atheism" is a term invented and used overwhelmingly by theists? And does that "nature" make any difference to secularists who use it to describe their worldviews or themselves? What matters is that it is used, no? The "nature" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also irrelevant for the same reasons. You said "an article on a WP:NEOLOGISM should be: it denotes the origin, use and purpose of the term (and why can't that be done here?), and nothing more". Fair enough. The use and purpose is provided by at least the Oxford Dictionary of Atheism which is authoritative on atheism research terms, concepts ,etc (others can be added that you found but you have not put in effort to do so) and the origin it seems you have been able to solve yourself when you made "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" distinctions using Google books. You made this origins split, which shows that you have answered your own concerns as to approximately when it emerged. So what is the issue?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, because "people who composed text on secular/religious subjects" is the term's relevence quite demonstrable through those results, and its nature. It's a neologism.

I haven't 'made any effort'... to find evidence for the claim I've been trying to change or remove? The very reason I wanted to change/remove it is that I could find no evidence for it. And when the only source a claim-defender can find doesn't even indicate the source of the claim, only echoes it... go figure.

I have done my own personal analysis of my reasearch, and we agree on those conclusions (as they are demonstrable), and it is even demonstrable through google results when and how the term was created and used, but the thing is: we can't present google results as a citation or 'evidence', nor can we compose a synthesis of those results, that would be WP:OR. Instead, one has to find a source that indictates itself the origin and use of the term, because the citation has to echo the claim (I did find one source covering the post-1950s era [28]). The same goes for any event attributed to that neologism: if the source doesn't attribute the event to the neologism, neither can the claim. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: that last WP:policy alone [29][30], if it were applied, would eliminate 9/10ths of this article. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(intermission music)

I expected some protest (or at least some rationalisation) at my last comment, but the silence is telling.

But since then, I've taken the time to thoroughly read up on this: effectively, most all of this article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR possibly WP:ATTACK content hung on a WP:NEOLOGISM WP:COATRACK. I don't know how many levels of WP:POLICY are transgressed, here.

The only possible way 'state atheism' can be an article is if it is about the neologism itself: who coined it, who uses it, when and how it is used (and what purpose it serves).

Yet, looking at recent activity, were someone to remove every claim that doesn't have "state atheism" in the reference purporting to support it, I'm sure that will be reverted (edit-warred)... instead, I think it would be better to bring more eyes to this from the get-go. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources define the concept; this answer is the same regardless what the topic is. Wikipedia is not going to "allow" or "disallow" sources based on how agreeable their viewpoint is to a particular editor or camp of editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)