Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Discrimination against atheists. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discrimination against atheists. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Anti-atheism be merged into Discrimination against atheists. The anti-atheism article does not seem to cover any content that can't adequately be addressed in this article. I fail to see how anti-atheism differentiates from Discrimination against atheists enough to warrant a separate article at this time. I also have concerns about the balance and POV of that article as it stands. I would take what relevant content exists in that article, NPOV it as necessary, and add in to this article as part of a new section on anti-atheism. If a good case can be made why we need a separate article on anti-atheism then we should work to fix then lack of content in the article and NPOV the current content. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Notcharliechaplin in merging the articles together, as there is a substantial difference between being an anti-atheist and being discriminatory of atheists. I believe this user wants to place their particular views in this subject and therefore is biased into considering both things the same. I believe there needs to be more information on the matter but this will come in due time. Julio P. 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Discrimination against atheists is really a subcategory of anti-atheism. You wouldn’t really discriminate against atheists if you where not anti-atheism. Now it is possible to be anti-atheist without discriminating against them so I see how the two things are not synonymous, though often related. After further consideration, maybe the best course is to include a section summarizing the discrimination article in the anti-atheism article with a link to it at the top of the section. The anti-atheists article needs lots of work to fix it up to a respectable state, none the less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcharliechaplin (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done This seems really straightforward redundant topic. Open for a couple months, and the only user that has spoken against the merger has been indeffed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Image at top

Hmm ... something strange going on. The file above here appears as it should, but when I load the page it pops up with the US in red. I went to the image commons page and tried to undo an edit there which added the red US, but that didn't seem to work ?? Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

However, when I open an incognito page ... the image appears as it should. I guess my browser is remembering the previous ?? odd. Vsmith (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.newsclick.in/Lynching-Bharat-Called-Vaddh. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – Levivich 06:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

New section

Should the "Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.48.127 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, and I'm going to explain it point by point, since you don't seem to be reading my edit summaries.
According to the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, the word lynching comes from an incident in the Bible where Jesus Christ told people to hit a woman with stones only if they had never committed any sin in their pasts. The RSS chief said that India had no such history as Indian culture taught peaceful co-existence.[1]
This doesn't belong here, because it isn't about discrimination against atheists. It's about lynchings in India, and it's a comment made by a person who is not a recognised expert.
The first mob lynching in Bharat-Varsh happened on the 13th day of Kurukshetra War resulting in the death of Abhimanyu. [2]
This also doesn't belong here. Quora is not a reliable source.
The most systematic “lynching” (or mob violence against an individual or individuals) in the mythologised history of India was that of India’s materialist philosopher Charvaka, as he was not just killed, but was demonised and his ideas distorted for generations. Charvaka was physically eliminated by a mob of servile brahmins because he could speak truth to power (so much for being called a “sweet talker” – a Charvaka!). The description of this is given in Mahabharata. [3]
A blog post is not a relible source, and this is also WP:COPYVIO, as you appear to have copied it directly from the site.
A scholar of Sanskrit language and literature would say that “vaddh” means nothing but murder, but supposedly one done in pursuit of a noble cause. Thus, the killing of Kansa by Krishna is called “Kansa vaddh”. Or, the killing of Shambuka in the Hindu epic, Ramayana—who is a shudra scholar—is also referred to as “Shambuka vaddh”. Perhaps, it would be opportune here to look at Ramayana itself, where ‘vaddh’ is referred to many-a-times. [4]
And finally, musings on Sanskrit etymologies have nothing to do with discrimination against atheists and are not encyclopedic.
Seriously, stop inserting this. PepperBeast (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "[GreenYouth] Re: Fabricating Lies and more brazen Lies: 'Term mob lynching comes from Bible, says Mohan Bhagwat: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief Mohan Bhagwat on Tuesday said that some incidents of violence such as lynchings were actually being branded to defame India, Hindu society and create fear among some communities.'". www.mail-archive.com.
  2. ^ "When did the first mob lynching happen in India? - Quora". www.quora.com.
  3. ^ "Lynching in Ancient India? The Case of Charvaka". October 15, 2019.
  4. ^ Gatade, Subhash (October 12, 2019). "Will Lynching in Bharat Be Called Vaddh (वध)?". www.milligazette.com.

RfC about New section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "[Ancient India" section [1] about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.213.35 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No per my comments above. Material is badly-sourced, has wp:copyvio issues, and is unencyclopedic and off-topic. The author of this content has been trying to insert it into multiple articles. PepperBeast (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The author does nothing to clarify the relevance of these insertions in the articles where they are inserted. Also, the statement about the stoning of the adulterous is inaccurate: Jesus reportedly challenged only the first person to cast a stone to be without sin (making the point that not a one of us is perfect). Jzsj (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Not relevant information. --Thi (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Irrelevant, inaccurate, biased. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Someone963852 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No. This does not fit within the context of the article, though may be included within other, more appropriate articles. FULBERT (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing this discussion, as I believe we've had enough time and a clear consensus has been reached. PepperBeast (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion

  1. Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists#Third opinion" Should the "Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?. 03:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Should the "Ancient India" section about "lynching" (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Discrimination against atheists and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

No, the "Ancient India" section in this diff should not be included in the article. There are a number of problems with it: 1) it is not properly sourced to reliable sources, 2) at least one paragraph is a copyright violation (and I have requested removal of it), 3) it does not appear that all of it is relevant or significant enough to this article, and perhaps most importantly, 4) there was a recently-closed WP:RfC with very strong consensus against inclusion. There may be additional problems, as discussed in the pre-RfC discussions and during the RfC. In my opinion, proponents of the content should re-draft it, addressing editors' concerns about the prior draft, and then post the new draft on the talk page to see if there is consensus for inclusion of the new draft. – Levivich 06:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Asking for 3O after an RFC is completely backwards, as the RFC already gave upto 6O's at least. First off, the proposed subsection is in the "Present day" section. Ancient India doesn't co-exist with the present day. Secondly, "lynching" does not equate to "discriminating against atheists". Thirdly,
    • Mohan Bhagawat is not a recognised expert on ancient India or lynching or Jesus or language.
    • Quora isn't a reliable source. Abhimanyu wasn't lynched, he died in battle (breaking the ancient code of battle conduct doesn't amount to lynching). It's not a legitimate historical incident, it's just a story that may or may not be a romanticisation of something that actually happened.
    • Wellburrowed.com is not a reliable source. Charvaka is a philosophy that may be (but most likely is not) eponymous with its founder.
    • "Vaddh" is a neutral word for "to kill" and therefore doesn't equate to lynching. One person killing another (Krish-Kansh, Ram-Sudra) doesn't amount to lynching.

Finally, one can be disruptive on the article talk page, and one of the signs would be a demonstrated inability to let things go. In other words, it's time to. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Update the map

The map showing which countries execute atheists is from 2013. It's been nearly a decade, the laws have likely changed. I am requesting that we make an updated map for 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flossingjonah (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Contents of this article make zero sense

The title of this article is "Discrimination against atheists", "Atheism" meaning "an absence of belief in the existence of deities", yet virtually all statistics in this article - specifically in relation to Islam and discrimination in Muslim countries - refer to heresy against the state religion; i.e., lack of faith in the state religion, not lack of faith in any religion. I don't see how apostasy laws are discriminatory against specifically atheists, unless we were to use an entirely different definition of "atheist".

It would be accurate to delete reference to Muslim countries wherein it is apostates against Islam itself; these are not examples of anti-atheist discrimination, including the map in the lede. Thoughts? Zilch-nada (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists/Archive_4&oldid=1185810201"