Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Foley quote?

Joe Foley is no longer a part of the University of Minnesota Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (see CASH Officers) I will remove this portion as his former position as a co-chair of a student organization does little to reinforce the discriminatory claims made here.

Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."

Chingadiculous (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

His current position has nothing to do with what he said. He was mentioned in the source and is used in the article to give an interpretation of the results. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is my rebuttal of Verbal's eloquently laid out argument: Secular Student Alliance is a prominent organization and Joe Foley is a prominent member. There are 0 contradicting interpretations, so the one sentence in the article is fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Will this work?

In March of 2006 before the study was published in The American Sociological Review, Joe Foley, the co-chair for the University of Minnesota student organization, Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists commented on the results in the campus paper. "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."

Chingadiculous (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the inclusion of this text. Why is the opinion of a student activist published in a campus newspaper notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia? Note that no other newspaper or book has ever seen fit to quote him about this topic.[1][2] If we must have a quote, then there are many more prominent people (Dawkins, for example) whose opinions we could quote on this matter. But I don't even think a quote is appropriate... the survey (and the quote) is about disapproval not discrimination; and including the quote gives undue weight to what is basically a side issue to discrimination, to the opinion of a basically non-notable person, and to an opinion that is clearly controversial even amongst atheists themselves.[3][4]. I will remove it again in my next set of edits, pending some more discussion here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote says "hate" not "oppressed". The idea being that one can get away with saying stuff like, "atheists aren't citizens," but if they said something like, "asians aren't citizens," their political career would be over. I think he's notable because the poll is notable. It was done by his university, and he leads the department that performed it. Of course a person so close to the actual data is a figure from which to get interpretations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If Foley was a professor and the head of the department (Sociology) at U of Minnesota that hosted the research study, I wouldn't have any problem including the name and quote at all. But he wasn't. Foley was an undergraduate student in Biology and Music [5] at the time. He didn't have anything to do with the study at all. The reason he was interviewed in the U of M student paper was that he was an atheist student leader at U of M. Fair enough, and good for the reporter for getting local student opinion on the study's findings. But as such Foley's views don't have such worldwide importance that we want/need to include them here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll quote Dan Newman instead. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you go blithely ahead to add another quote, with no apology for the incorrect attribution above, and without responding to my other concerns about the inclusion of quotes. As I stated above, I don't think a quote is warranted because this whole topic is only tangentially related to discrimination. Choosing who to vote for or wish to marry your child is about approval/disapproval, not discrimination. Americans don't elect socialists, communists, black magic practitioners, eighteen year olds etc. Does that mean 18 years or socialists are discriminated against, or does it mean that socialists/18 year olds just don't have the qualities/views that electors wish to support? More polemic quotes are still not what we need in a NPOV article. --Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Americans do elect socialists. They're called Democrats. Communism is a political ideology, not a religion or lack thereof like atheism. Black magic practitioners are less than 1% of the population. And being 18 is something everyone experiences, every religion, so it is not relevant. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You: "If Foley was a professor and the head of the department (Sociology) at U of Minnesota that hosted the research study, I wouldn't have any problem including the name and quote at all." Ok, we have someone even more notable, a current politician. I added the quote because this seemed to be exactly what you were asking for. You yourself even quoted Newman! I don't understand why this upset you so much. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because, as I have said, it gives undue weight to a topic that is not even discriminatory per se. If you look above you will see plenty of other editors who would question the inclusion of any of this, because nobody nowhere calls this discriminatory. Note that the authors themselves say that the focus of the study "is not on mistreatment of atheists". Frankly, having anything about the survey at all is somewhat borderline. You are absolutely correct that we already quote Newman once, which is why it is overkill to quote him again saying basically more of the same. What you aren't correct about is the politician thing, however. Newman is a political strategist, quite a different thing, and not very notable at that. Once is enough --Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I only consider opinions articulated on the talk page. Anyway, I hope you understand this was a good-faith attempt to introduce material that an editor besides me thought deserved a mention. I was surprised by your response, I honestly didn't think you would have any issue with it. I really do think this is an interpretation that should be represented on the page, how it is so acceptable to condescend to atheists. Googling this produces lots of unreliable sources saying the same thing. Clearly this is a feeling common among atheists. We do have a reliable source for it. Personally, I would trade what's in the article for this interpretation. I donno. What do you think? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, your issue with the quote as it stands is that it gives too much weight to Newman's views. We quote him too many times in the article if we include the quote. Therefore, I've found a second person to call atheism "political suicide" meaning we can quote them at the top of the paragraph and quote Newman on the bottom. Will this work for you? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the first part of my comments again more closely. To repeat, making more of this voting issue is giving undue weight to a fringe area of the topic of discrimination, one that no independent reliable source has called discrimination, and which the authors of the study themselves says is "not on mistreatment". So the answer to your question is no. However, I do think there is something that can be done to make something clearer about the study as you mentioned below, which I will do in a second. Please also note that this page is not here to present the feelings common to atheists, especially unreliable chit-chat found on the internet. The new source was a good find, though thanks for finding it. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We now have two reliable sources making this interpretation. It's going in one way or another. Add it yourself if you think the way I will add it is original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edgell et. al. study

The entire study is referenced in the citations. However, there is also another footnote for a blog on The Volokh Conspiracy. The author leaves this note at the bottom:

NOTE: the link to the Minnesota data above is to a summary on an atheist website because this is the most thorough description I was able to find on the internet. However, the study itself was not conducted or funded by any atheist organization.

The numbers found in this blog may or may not be the same as in the study it references. This reference will be removed and when I get to it (if anyone else wants to be my guest) I will go over the numbers that are on this page to the original study to make sure nothing was inaccurate compared to the study.

Chingadiculous (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• The numbers matched. This house is clean.

Chingadiculous (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have done a significant rewrite of the article as can be seen. I have finished for today and will continue to add material (mainly on Europe and Asian, Arab countries) tomorrow. --Slp1 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm more or less done.--Slp1 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks really good. I'm surprised by how much of the old article you kept, thanks. I'd like to mention Pete Stark, if possible. It is an interesting factoid that I would want to learn about if I were reading this article for the first time. You think there's somewhere we can squeeze it in? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The reason I removed the information about Pete Stark is because according to the citation given [6]

• Stark wasn't actually elected as an atheist but acknowledged it later.
• Stark wasn't the first openly atheist politician; Culbert Olson, for example, was active in the 1930s and 1940s as Governor of California

I think the point is that there are very few openly atheist US politicians. It's better to leave it there rather enter details particularly as once again it isn't really discrimination per se. --Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the article doesn't quantify in any way the difficulty atheists have getting elected compared to say African-Americans. Since Stark hasn't been re-elected yet, that means that there have been zero atheists elected to Congress. This is a noteworthy fact that should be expressed somehow! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But the article does quantify it very specifically by using the stats. Stark is obviously a talking point for American atheists, but they seem to ignore the fact, for obvious and understandable reasons, that "out" atheists have been elected to high office in the past. We aren't actually seeking to make noteworthy points for atheists, or anybody else for that matter. --Slp1 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Startk is the only congressman. I don't know how congressmen compare to governors. According to the article, Stark is the highest of any out-non-theist. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The competition (organized by an atheist organization, and spun by them) was find the highest ranking person "currently holding office". Not the first; not the highest ever. [7]. And BTW, see this independent reliable source which puts a much more positive spin on the position of whole situation. [8]--Slp1 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not really relevant given my argument, but since I was curious, it seems that Olson would outrank Stark in terms of precedence and protocol.[9] --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the "positive spin" you mentioned. I gotta tell you, it wasn't very inspiring. Only 27% of Americans would ban an atheist from making a speech? Wow, I really feel the love :p. What's relevant to me is a comparison of the difficulty of atheists getting elected compared to other minorities. That's my whole issue with getting a mention of Stark in the article. So it may be true that other atheists have been elected to more, higher offices. But you could say the same about other minorities. The question is how many. Pretty much every minority has had someone elected to Congress. Atheists have not and atheists make up 10-15% of the US. I think it's safe to say that that is by far the worst proportion of elected officials to percent of the population. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go:[10]. Pete Stark explicitly linked to discrimination by a prominent atheist organization. Work for you? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we have a lot of original research in your post above; your opinion of which group has had the least number elected is pure unadulterated speculation. What you consider relevant or 'safe to say' is also irrelevant: if you want to promote your views about this then feel free to write an article somewhere else in cyberspace. What we use are reliable sources; perhaps you don't agree with the analysis given in the book above, but since it is written by academics in the field, WP gives it credence.

I'm not sure why you link to an unreliable blog, but there is a link there [11] that is more useful. Finally. --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still discrimination

I agree with whoever is flagging the lack of atheists in public office as discrimination. Just because it is discrimination on the part of voters, doesn't nullify it. Wouldn't we call it discrimination if people said they refuse to vote for a catholic/black/muslim/jew/man with a funny accent? BillMasen (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It would be unthinkable for someone to try to remove that kind of fact from an analogous article for another minority. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting comments, but the confusion seems to be that, with all due respect, WP doesn't really care what Bill and AF call discrimination. We care about what we can WP:verify from reliable sources. Since there are lots of sincere people out there who strongly believe that the earth is flat, that Cold fusion exists, and that homeopathy works, you can understand that we cannot include the original research and opinion of editors. These are non-negotiable policies and must be followed. And lease note, that nobody is trying to remove the fact that atheists complain that it is hard to get elected. --Slp1 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The pools who say that most Americans will not vote for an atheist for the Congress or the Presidency seem to me based on reliable sources. For those who don´t live in the USA, it makes sense also to point that USA never had yet a President or a Vice-President who wasn´t non-theistic. From my knowledge, but I think this needs some research, I think all the members of the Democratic Party and Republican Party at the presidential elections never had yet a politician that wasn´t religious.81.193.220.198 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Perry book is not a neutral source

Gov. Rick Perry's book is not a neutral source (for one thing, all profits go to the BSA itself); it's given as a reference for the statement "As the Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists as members, atheist families and the ACLU from the 1990s onwards have launched a series of court cases arguing discrimination against atheists, including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities. None of the court cases were successful,..." which is blatantly FALSE. There have never been court cases against BSA's access to public facilities on the same basis as any other group. The clauses "including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities" and "None of the court cases were successful" need to be deleted.Brian Westley (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the above clauses.Brian Westley (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is confusion here, Brian is right that some court rulings have gone against BSA on public access but AFAIK, the rulings about who can join BSA have all gone in BSA's favor on the grounds of private organizations can set their own membership rules SCOTUS (Dale v. BSA). — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

The latest additions to this section are in the style of a previous version of this article; there are cherry-picked primary source quotations showing that Hitler was publicly critical of atheists and claimed to have stamped out atheism in Germany. There is no reference given for the claim in the article that atheists were actually persecuted per se. My searches haven't found anything useful, only that in fact one Nazi leader and prominent atheist Martin Bormann was actually involved in persecuting churches.[12]. I don't doubt that there is something to be said about this part of history; but the references need to come from secondary sources that include a claim that atheists were actually persecuted or discriminated for their atheism; and not just as excuse for their Marxism, Judaism, or even Christianity, per these sources.[13][14]--Slp1 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to, "Hitler didn't make this statement; apparently it was by Bernard Rust; therefore not in a collection of Hitler's speeches": you've obviously verified the factual accuracy of the statement, "A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces," since Bernard Rust is a part of "Adolf Hitler's forces." So add the source you used to the article. There's really no reason to delete this, though rewording might be in order. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is required is that we verify statements from a reliable source, which is the atheist website is not, as you no doubt know by now; so no, I will not be readding that reference. And what is frankly quite troubling is that a citation was added which fails verification, suggesting that no actual reading of the source had occurred.

In fact, there may well be a reason to delete this section; per previous conversations on this page, we need some reliable sources that discrimination and/or persecution of atheists actually occurred in Nazi Germany; we are not here to recycle a bunch of quotes that have been much repeated as talking points on atheist websites. I note, for example, that our Holocaust article (not a reliable source, though) doesn't mention that atheists were targetted, and extensive googlebooks searches etc haven't found anything to support the central claim of persecution currently in the article. I'll give it a week or two. It's certainly possible that I've missed something, but if no reliable sources are forthcoming about discrimination/persecution suffered by atheists, then the section needs to be deleted.--Slp1 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not deleting those quotes about atheists. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the most helpful statement, frankly. In an article about discrimination against atheists, we need some evidence from secondary sources that atheists were actually discriminated against in Nazi Germany. We've been through this before. Two quotations pulled from volumes speeches and letters don't make the grade, despite what you say. Consider that Hitler also promised to "stamp out Christianity"[15], replaced the bible in schools with Mein Kampf, and very obviously tried violently to stamp out Judaism in the world's most famous genocide. Note that atheists at this time in Germany were generally communists, giving his speeches so a tirade against atheists carry more political overtones than anything else. Find some reliable secondary sources about this; I've tried and was surprised that I couldn't find any; even Richard Dawkins, in a lengthy passage about Hitler, Nazi Germany and his purported atheism, doesn't mention anything about discrimination or persecution. For this encyclopedia a couple of primary sources aren't enough- there is a strong danger of original research when these sources, unsupported by secondary sources are used; and this especially when one considers how others did actually suffer in that regime.--Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, discrimination against atheists and discrimination against Christians are not mutually exclusive. The two can co-exist, and could co-exist with the (much greater) attack on Judaism.

Hitler made a statement that secular schools were unacceptable. That was clearly his policy, unless we can prove otherwise. The mere fact that he was more wicked towards other groups does not obviate his discriminatory policy in this case. BillMasen (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is obvious that discrimination and persecution against multiple groups can co-exist; my point, rather poorly made, was intended to be that since Hitler's discrimination against various groups is well-documented, it seems curious that his discrimination/persecution of atheists is not mentioned by any reliable sources that I can find. I would also mention that your answer is an excellent example of the need to avoid primary sources as much as possible, and focus on reliable secondary sources. We do not allow editors to edit on the premise that this is "discriminatory policy unless we can prove otherwise". We are not equipped or allowed to make such a determination. What did "secular schools" mean in this context? Since his comment was made during negotiations with the Catholic Church, and Hitler is not exactly known for being upfront and honest at all times, did he mean this, or was it merely rhetoric designed to appeal to the Catholics at a crucial time? Did he actually follow through with any of this? For example, were any secular schools actually closed or prevented from opening? A historian, writing in a secondary source would able to evaluate these factors and pronounce on whether this was actual discrimination or Nazi rhetoric, and place it in an appropriate context. We, as editors, may not.

The main question is, has any reliable source noted that Nazi Germany practiced discrimination against atheists? If so, great, let's have the reference and include it. If not, primary sources cobbled together like this gives undue weight to some original research.--Slp1 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From Freethought: "In 1881, in Frankfurt am Main, Ludwig Büchner established Deutschen Freidenkerbund (German Freethinkers League) as the first German organization for atheists. In Hamburg in 1882 the social-democratic Freidenker-Gesellschaft was formed.

Freethinkers were persecuted alongside Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany" AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From Nazism: "The völkisch movement was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations (such as the German Freethinkers League)" AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=paul_23_4: "Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement" AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From The Catholic Church and Nazy Germany: "The banning of freethinkers' and nudists' magazines and the destruction of the godless Communist movement in Germany were welcomed..." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are all from pages 1-3 of a google search. I must be pretty skilled at finding secondary sources! Are you satisfied now? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Outdent) Unfortunately, there several problems with this: principally because freethinkers does not equal atheists at this point of German history, though freethinkers certainly appear to have been founded as an atheist movement. By late 1920s and 1930s in Germany they were largely socialist/communist groups, in part due to planned infiltration by communist members; the banning of the groups was thus a political rather than a religious move, as one of your own reference points out, though you chose not to quote it "The banning of freethinkers' and nudists' magazines and the destruction of the godless Communist movement in Germany were welcomed even if achieved as part of the liquidation of all political opposition."[16][17] For confirmation see [18][19][20] etc. Our article about Max Sievers is a nice summary of the situation as it concerned one man.

• Did you check the references before placing them here? Conway's book doesn't support that there was persecution against atheists at all, just talking about Catholic attitudes about the issue. I will remove it from the other article. I don't have access to the "The Encyclopedia of Unbelief". Can you type out the relevant passage from p. 290 for purposes of verification? And as you know, I'm sure, material from Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source.

So. Can you find any evidence that atheists, per se, were discriminated against? It seems odd, as there were several prominent atheists in the Nazi movement, including Boornman [21]. --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, really. If he suppressed an atheist organisation, for the explicit reason that they were atheists, that is discrimination against atheists. It is for anyone else to prove that it was actually for some other reason. BillMasen (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. If you can show that he "suppressed an atheist organisation, for the explicit reason that they were atheists" that would be fantastic. I can't find the reliable secondary sources for this, but I would be thrilled if you can do so. Note that none of the secondary sources provided to date come anywhere close to saying this, and this is especially crucial given that the organizations were often also left-wing/communist fronts according to the reliable sources given above. --Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

he Encyclopedia of Unbelief By Gordon Stein Contributor Gordon Stein, Paul Edwards Published by Prometheus Books, 1985. Page 290. "The Union of Proletarian Freethinkers was banned by the Nazis as early as 1932, and the Prussian National Socialist faction introduced a bill banning the Union of Freethinkers. The end of all freethinking unions arrived in 1933, with the consolidation of Hitler's power." Do you not think that that covers the requirements? Atheists are necessarily "freethinkers" in the parlance of the age. I mean, hitler banned atheist organisations, and then boasted that he had "stamped them out". I don't see it could be any clearer. BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; except that this sentence doesn't actually mention that they were suppressed for being atheist. And as you might guess from the name, the "The Union of Proletarian Freethinkers" was actually a communist organization specifically set up by the KPD [http://books.google.ca/books?id=yaecVMhMWaEC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354 for one ref, but there is more details given in the refs above). Do historians think they were banned for being atheist or for being communist/leftwing? Since you are quoting the book Stein book, I presume you have it. What are the sentences that surround the quote you gave: the info might make it clear what Stein's view is on this; the current sentence just states the fact that they were banned but no information about why.

And yes, we have a cite that Hitler saying that he had stamped out atheistic movements; but this is a primary sources and we have to be careful: what was the context of this remark? Who was he addressing in his speech and trying to sway? Was it political rhetoric? Does he mean atheism per se or atheistic communism? Once again having access to the whole speech, rather than some cherrypicked quotes, would be helpful but even with the full context, these kinds of questions are best answered by historians not by WP editors.

Finally per original research we can't make linkages between these two separate sources and say that it is "clear" that he discriminated against atheists. We need, as you said above, a reliable source (or preferably sources) to make these claims and that say that he suppressed/discrimination against atheists or atheistic organisation for the explicit reason that they were atheist. I find it very curious that with all that is written about this subject, we haven't been able to find anyone making this point, except atheist websites etc. But there is one thing, however, it seems verifiable from several reliable sources that atheists were discriminated against because you were only believers were supposed to join the SS. We could add that I guess.--Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to BillMasen's "Hitler made a statement that secular schools were unacceptable. That was clearly his policy, unless we can prove otherwise..." I think this is a good example of why we need to look at his actual actions, not rhetoric, as you can't just take the word of an obviously immoral politician for granted, especially not from a political speech during negotiations with the Vatican. According to Atheism About, Hitler said, "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." on April 26, 1933. On Jun. 28, 1937, Time Magazine reports, "Last week on the Führer's orders Bavarian Minister of Interior Adolf Wagner closed every Catholic public school in Bavaria, fired 670 teachers, secularized 966 schools. This was in flagrant violation of the Nazi Concordat with the Vatican..." Also relevant to secularization, the records of the "Second Day: Wednesday, 21st November, 1945" of The Trial or the German Major War Criminals (Volume I) states, "After a strategic Concordat with the Holy See, signed in July, 1933, in Rome, which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood and its members, was carried out. Church Schools and educational institutions were suppressed or subjected to requirements of Nazi teaching inconsistent with the Christian faith....Religious instruction was impeded and the exercise of religion made difficult..." Not content with merely public schools, Martin Bormann put it, "I, therefore, would like to see you put the theological faculties under appreciable limitations in so far as, according to the above statements, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will concern not only the theological faculties at universities, but also the various State institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places." As the Vatican complained to the German Embassy on 18th January, 1942, "Let it suffice to recall in this connection, among other things, the changing of the Catholic State elementary schools into un-denominational schools; the permanent or temporary closing of many minor seminaries, of not a few major seminaries and of some theological faculties; the suppression of almost all the private schools and of numerous Catholic boarding schools and colleges; the repudiation, decided unilaterally, of [Page 44] financial obligations which the State, municipalities, etc. had towards the Church; the increasing difficulties put in the way of the activity of the religious Orders and Congregations in the spiritual, cultural and social field, and above all, the suppression of abbeys, monasteries, convents and religious houses in such great numbers that one is led to infer a deliberate intention of rendering impossible the very existence of the Orders and Congregations in Germany." And we don't even need to get into the Nazi crippling of the Catholic education structure throughout Poland.

My point is that Hitler's speeches on secularization were just to impress the Vatican that he was actually intending let the Catholics keep their schools, and Hitler's speech had nothing to do with actual Nazi policy. If you do want to put those quotes in, context is definitely needed to avoid leaving the reader with a very inaccurate impression. At least something about the massive Nazi secularization of schools which followed his public calls for religious schooling should definitely be noted. This is akin to quoting Hitler saying, "I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between. Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude. - . . The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers" and not mentioning he started WWII .Madridrealy (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some parts to hopefully give some context to Hitler's claims in his speech of an anti-secularization stance. Madridrealy (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this helpful context to the situation. It's certainly being a good learning experience about this period of history, and I personally appreciate the stimulus to learning about the situation. Unfortunately, what has been added are yet more primary sources (this time mainly speeches from war trials), perfectly illustrating the danger of using these as citations. In brief, by looking diligently enough for a primary source we can "prove" anything we want. We've now done a 180 turn from an article obliquely claiming discrimination against atheists to an article saying more or less the opposite. I'm not arguing about who is right or wrong, just pointing out why we cannot rely on these sources for WP editing. We are just not permitted to do this kind of synthesis in our editing.

What we need, as I've said before, are secondary or tertiary sources making these assertions, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc. I'd previously said that I'd give it a week or two for these to surface before deleting the paragraph as original research. I have honestly looked long and hard, including doing electronic journal sources such as JSTOR and have found nothing. I'm not optimistic that there is anything out there, and if there isn't, then per multiple policies, including of course WP:UNDUE it needs to go. --Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about the time magazine article though? It mentions the concordat and then the violation. Anyway, what I should be looking for then, is articles that mention these both speeches and the Nazi actions that followed and their relation to the speeches then, no? Madridrealy (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Time magazine is so old (72 years), [22] that I would argue it is pretty close to being a primary, historical source itself; in any case, doesn't mention anything about atheists at all, which is the focus of this particular article. Using it is original research because we as editors cannot make linkages to atheists/Hitler's speeches that aren't made in the text itself. What we need for this article is information from secondary sources about discrimination atheists suffered in Nazi Germany. It might be about these speeches or it might not. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We know that atheist organizations suffered and that Hitler specifically expressed disapproval of atheism. To say that he did not discriminated against atheists because they were atheists is original research that goes against the evidence. Leave the material in, in context, and let the reader decide. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, I could not find anything new on atheist suffering discrimination. (I had an edit conflict and had to copy/paste so I hope this shows up right.)

The most relevant source I could find for comparing the Hitler's concordat-era anti-godless rhetoric to his later actions was from the Museums of Cologne website (link here), which is unfortunately in German. I am not sure what the policies for foreign sources are, so I will post the relevent German, and google-translated part:

Here is what the Cologne Museums' page says:

Der Welt sollte das Konkordat die vorgeblich gemäßigte Linie des NS-Regimes demonstrieren und den Verdacht jeglicher Kirchenfeindlichkeit widerlegen. Es stellte das erste völkerrechtliche Dokument für den NS-Staat dar und bedeutete daher einen großen Prestigegewinn. Der Vatikan rechtfertigte den Abschluss des Vertrages mit der klaren Stellung Deutschlands gegen den Bolschewismus und die Gottlosenbewegung.

Sehr bald zeigte sich jedoch, dass die Nationalsozialisten keines ihrer Versprechen hielten, sondern vielmehr ihrerseits gegen die katholische Kirche und ihr nahe stehende Verbände und Organisationen vorgingen. Der schließlich seit 1935/36 eskalierende „Kirchenkampf“ veranlasste Papst Pius XI 1937 zur Enzyklika „In brennender Sorge“ – ohne an der Situation allerdings Grundlegendes zu ändern." (emphasis mine)

The world should adopt the Concordat the allegedly moderate line of the Nazi regime and demonstrate the suspicion of any church hostility rebut. It was the first international legal document for the Nazi state, and therefore represented a major gain prestige. The Vatican's justification for the conclusion of the contract with the clear position of Germany against Bolshevism and the wicked movement.

Very soon showed, however, that the Nazis kept none of their promises, but rather its part against the Catholic Church and her close associates associations and organizations acting. The final since 1935/36 escalating "church struggle" prompted Pope Pius XI 1937 encyclical "In a burning concern" - without considering the situation, however, to fundamentally change.' (emphasis mine)

(Important to note is "Gottlosenbewegung", which google translated to "wicked movement", literally means Godless movement and is apparently what Hitler actually said, at least that is what it is in this book in the German text of the ("We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.") speech, but it was translated to "atheistic movement" for whatever reason in the Norman Hepburn Baynes book's quote, which is used for the second quote of the Nazi section of this article) Madridrealy (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) edited to fix errors Madridrealy (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Madridrealy. FYI, non-English sources are certainly permissible per WP:RS, but I don't think that a museum website is the best source, and once again, it doesn't mention anything about atheists as all, seeming more relevant for an article about religion in Nazi Germany. I found your comment about the translation of "Gottlosenbewegung" is very helpful, however, and it has led to some new sources.

Despite what AzureFury claims, we don't know that atheist organizations "suffered" due to their atheism. We do know that in the wake of the Reichstag fire, "godless" communist groups/parties were outlawed as part of Hitler's campaign to get power and that he boasted about it apparently in order to curry favour with the Catholics.[23][24][25] (and see above). We are not an atheist or anti-atheist website where we can pull together bits of speeches etc to make a point and then "letting the reader decide". To get a section here, we need some secondary sources making the claim that any organization was outlawed or an individual discriminated against for atheism; to date we have none, though there are plenty of sources showing that groups and individuals were targetted as it was claimed they were godless communists, a very present Nazi and German concern at that time.

To follow AZ's argument that any atheistic organization counts to its logical extreme, since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were atheist,[26] we would be able to add a section that their overthrow was discrimination against atheists. Of course, we can't and won't. Despite the curiously reminiscent fact that per this scholarly article the "war to wipe out Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge guerrillas was waged in the name of saving Buddhism from the communist atheists." --Slp1 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The German Freethinkers League was not communist. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to this reliable source,[27] though possibly socialist would be a better descriptor given these other refs about the organization and its chairman Max Sievers[28][29][30]. But perhaps you have other sources, saying something different, and saying that the league was disbanded because of its atheism? If so, let's have them.--Slp1 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not possess the book (encyclopedia of unbelief) I was going by what was quoted by the other user. It's not viewable on google books. It's not in the library. I even looked into buying it, but it costs more than £100, so bugger that for a game of soldiers!

I book-googled the society of freethinkers but references in English are scant. Lots of German refs (with the German name) came up, but my German is pretty much beer-ordering level. Perhaps some kind German-speaker would care to look over the results in this search string: http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&as_brr=0&q=%22FreidenkerVerband%22+OR+%22Freidenker+Verband%22+OR++%22Freidenker+bund%22+OR++%22Freidenkerbund%22&btnG=Search+Books.

And see if we can find evidence that the group was discriminated against because it was atheist. BillMasen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand about the book!! What a ridiculous price. If I have a moment I will try and see if it is in the library around here. The German editor idea sounds good, if you are up for it. I guess one could narrow the googlebooks search down with the German word for atheist too. Personally, the more I look, the less likely I think it is that anything will be found: the freethinker groups seem to have morphed from atheist/humanist group into brave left-wing (communist/socialist) groups that valiantly opposed Hitler and Nazism and suffered the obvious consequences. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if "morphed" is the right word. Although I am not knowledgeable of the subject, the German free-thought movement seemed to be coming into its own during Marx's heyday (here is a couple pages of info), and he seemed to influence the movements enough that many groups by Hitler's times had given themselves names like as "gemeinschaft proletarischer freidenker" and "Bund sozialistischer freidenker" (this book has a list of different atheist organizations). Perhaps we can find a German freethought group that opposed communism? That would be very helpful for our purposes I think.

I agree that it is difficult to find more on the internet in English Madridrealy (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The source given by Slp1 says the Freethinkers League was "Communist-associated." Important distinction he must've accidentally overlooked. You know who also associated with communists? Hitler. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, I have deleted the section on Nazi Germany. The problems with the section were multiple:

• Original research: primary sources were being quoted out of context and used to construct an argument that no reliable source has made.
• Copyright violation: One of the sentences used was a word for word copy of the original sentence in Free Inquiry.
• Unreliable source: this interesting post [31] at the RSN on the exact topic of the reliability of Gregory S. Paul's article in Free Inquiry as a historical source about religion/atheism, comes to the conclusion that he is not and that better sources should be found. It is fascinating that one editor comes to the same conclusion that I have, after extensive research, that the comments about the godless movement and the banning of the freethought movement had little or nothing to do with atheism per se and everything to do with communism and socialism.

I still think that it is possible that something can be said on this matter. But let's construct it here with secondary sources that talked about atheists and their situation and treatment during this period. After all, there is the documented fact that atheists were not allowed to join the SS. I'll give it some thought and get back with a proposal soon. --Slp1 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it because every reason you've listed is wrong. Free Inquiry is an atheist magazine that is used specifically to claim that the material in question is discrimination because making this claim is an opinion that you won't find in objective writing. That's the only reason it is used. It is not used in the article for any factual claim. If you need more sources to verify the historical accuracy of the quotes or the closing of freethought organizations, they are not hard to find. If you need the section rewritten so that it is not a copyright violation, then I will do so. This is an embarassingly hollow reason to just delete something. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Every reason I gave is not wrong.

• Yes, the primary sources are sourceable from reliable sources; that was not my point. Read it. The point is the obvious WP:SYNTHESIS and that sources are being quoted out of context in an attempt to prove a point.
• Yes, the sentence is a copyright violation. If you want to rewrite it, go ahead, but it won't get away from the problem of the fact that...
• yes, the sentences "Nazism was inherently hostile towards atheism. Once Hitler took power, freethought organizations were banned as part of the “anti-godless” movement" are making an obvious statements of fact, not opinion; and as one editor at the RSN says that "I highly doubt that anyone needs to use Free Inquiry as a reference for historical facts. Go to the sources used by the articles, published by academic presses or in peer-reviewed journals." Another experienced editor strongly agrees. That is exactly what I have been suggesting be done here.
• Your comment here this claim is an opinion that you won't find in objective writing. That's the only reason it is used is a simply amazing statement. We don't want opinions. Quite the contrary, we want statements of facts from objective writing. If we can't find it in objective writing, it doesn't get a mention.

I'm not going to revert again. Perhaps someone else will, or better still, perhaps you would show some good faith and revert yourself until you actually address the policy points made above and gain consensus that your interpretation of policy is right. --Slp1 (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You said in order for something to be included in this article it must be claimed as discrimination by a "prominent atheist organization". I found one. The facts in the section are not in question. Therefore the section stays. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please address the policy points above; those are what determine inclusion, not something I may have said in the past. In fact, I'm not in anyway disputing that there are atheist talking points about discrimination and persecution in the Nazi Era. The problem is that these are being presented here as a fact, using primary sources and synthesis and unreliable sources to make points that no independent reliable source has ever made. You need to convince me and others that this text does not violate multiple policy and guidelines. That's your job, simply pronouncing that "this section stays" doesn't do the job. --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I view the Free Inquiry quote somewhere on the web? BillMasen (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I found it here.[32]--Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List for me statement A and statement B which are stated in the sources, and then statement C which is stated in the article and not stated in the sources. These are the requirements for synthesis. I see that you're now outright changing your position on what warrants inclusion on this article so that you can excuse your deletions. Well, I think I'll treat past Slp1 as the expert editor and follow his advice rather than present Slp1 who seems to be looking for any excuse to delete the section in question. That's 2 against 1. 67% is good enough consensus for the section to stay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Statement A=primary source about schools; Statement B=primary source about freethought organizations; Conclusion C= obvious implied conclusion, atheists were discriminated against. (See WP:SYNTH, which states that the conclusion does not need to be specifically stated.) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".None of the speeches make the claim, (unsurprisingly!); more tellingly, no independent reliable source that we have been looking for in the course of the last 3 weeks has either.
• I have in no way changed my mind; an atheist organization claiming discrimination is a very good source for a statement that an atheist organization claims discrimination. Gregory S. Paul, is not an atheist organization, but his article is not being used to source "a claim" of discrimination (a word he doesn't even use, in fact), but for historical facts (e.g. "Nazism was inherently hostile towards atheism. Once Hitler took power, freethought organizations were banned as part of the “anti-godless” movement") something that the reliable sources noticeboard [33] has already determined that neither he nor Free Inquiry are a good source for.
• Personalizing this matter is unbecoming, unfortunate and deflects from the topic at hand. It's not a vote either (and anyway, I can't see where you get your 2:1 figure.) Kindly stick to making policy arguments about why this section why this section should be maintained as is, given that it is original research (as noted by other editors); has material quoted out of context (also noted by other editors); uses an unreliable source (agreed to by RSN) and is an obvious copyvio. Note also that I have always said that it is likely that something could be said on this matter, and proposed working here on the talkpage on a section, while removing the material that violates WP rules in the interim.--Slp1 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hostility is discrimination (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination). All instances of discrimination are included in the list of hostilities in the source by the prominent atheist organization. Therefore the statement C you listed is stated in the sources. All instances of discrimination are either verified or verifiable by multiple sources. 'Nuff said. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Schmidt-Salomon says "avowed atheists were persecuted". [34] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming very disruptive AF. Not only are you adding unverifiable information to this talkpage ("Hostility is discrimination" is nowhere to be seen in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination), but you have readded an incorrect reference once again to the article. As I pointed out above, p109 of the Conway article does not verify that freethinkers were disbanded.[[35]]. It is becoming very tedious having to repeat this kind of information, and it suggests that you perhaps you don't actually consider the postings made here. So to repeat... there is no dispute that most freethinking organizations were banned in 1933. The question is, was this actually discrimination against atheists or done for political reasons. All the sources we have found to date suggests they were disbanded because they were largely communist/socialist groupings. And in fact that some freethinking organizations that supported Nazi volkisch ideas were allowed to survive, suggests the latter.¸[36]. Do you have an independent secondary source that states that they were disbanded for their atheism? If so, let's have it.

"All instances of discrimination are included in the list of hostilities in the source by the prominent atheist organization. Therefore the statement C you listed is stated in the sources." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify? I'll just point out Paul is not a prominent atheist organization and Statement C "discrimination has occurred" appears nowhere in any of the sources cited, and certainly not in the two primary quotes. Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a history lesson. I am interested in the fact that we have prominent atheists labeling this as discrimination against atheists. Btw, try to read between the lines. "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." I would consider "hostility" a synonym for "making a distinction against". Regardless of your interpretation, the new source says that "atheists were persecuted" which alone is enough to warrant a mention of both the quotes and the banning of freethought organizations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This issues just seems to be repeating themselves, perhaps we should seek arbitration. Also, I think the secular schools quote should be removed, because giving speeches isn't actually discrimination, and as mentioned, from the explanations in collections of then-contemporary magazines about closing all Bavarian Catholic schools, to a book's example of 1,417 Austrian parochial schools being closed, it hardly seems the Nazi government had the effect or even the intention of actually of discriminating against secular schools. It can hardly be argued seriously that a government that was facing "angry demonstrations" in certain parts of Austria against their prayer bans was anti-secular education. Using Webster's first definition of discrimination as " the act of discriminating", I will ask, is there evidence about acts of discrimination against secular schools, or just acts of discrimination against parochial schools? To reiterate, I think this is like putting the Hitler's quote, "The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers" in the Nazi's foreign policy section, instead of mentioning WWII. Madridrealy (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a side comment: "arbitration" won't do anything about the content disagreements; as long as people are behaving well (like, not edit warring), there's nothing that arbitration could concern itself with. You might want to take a look at WP:DR to see how we handle dispute resolution here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong term; I meant have someone uninvolved with the article give their opinion.Madridrealy (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What I've been reading online says that the closing of secular organizations is the strongest evidence of discrimination, as people keep bringing it up in the "were Nazis atheists" debate. The quote was really to give some of Hitler's reasoning. I'm satisfied as long as a mention of the banning of freethought organizations is included. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick note to say that I strongly support Bill Masen's edit [37] deleting the secular schools. I think his reasoning and that of MR are sound, but in addition a trip to the library has found significant problems with its verifiability (viz, Hitler didn't actually give a speech on that day). I will expand on this later, as I am currently pressed for time. --Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, as far as SS goes, what was the level of discrimination? Were atheists supposed to be forbidden altogether, or were they just not allowed to describe themselves as atheists? This (non-reliable source) blog has the view that just the option to self-describe as atheist was forbidden. While that wouldn't be useful on its own, it interestingly fits somewhat more closely with the view expressed in this book that the choice introduced in 1937, "Gottgläubigen" "designated atheism". Furthermore, that book ("Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp" by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum) goes on to state that there were more Gottglaubig SS soldiers than Catholic and Evangelical and also appropriately for this idea, there were no chapels for the soldiers at the camp. Also it said that from 1937 on, "SS soldiers pledged to keep a lack of religious denomination." (all on page 279-80). Although prior to 1937, it may all have been different. Madridrealy (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a political motivation for suppressing the freethinkers' organisations necessarily at odds with the claim that suppressing the freethinkers' organisations was a discriminatory act? Because if it is, where would that leave the repression of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Bolsheviks, for which there were certainly political motives/"justifications"? Indeed, where would it leave the acts of repression which the Nazis carried out against some religious organisations and individuals, which again were "political" rather than arising from a theological disagreement? Just a thought. Also, I note that the UK's National Secular Society condemned "the brutal treatment of Jews, Freethinkers, Socialists, and Communists by the Hitler Government" at its conference on 4 June 1933 (reported in The Guardian, 5 June 1933, p.13). Doesn't give us much more information, though! I think the point is that the Nazi State demanded subservience from everyone, and wasn't ideologically anti-religious OR anti-atheist, as such. Anyone who wanted to be independent was going to suffer. --Dannyno (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. I don't think anyone will be surprised to see atheists included in the list of groups that suffered under Nazi oppression, for whatever reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am taking out the sentence "Nazism was inherently hostile towards atheism..[14]" (Free Inquiry Volume 23, Number 4) This is copied (without quotation marks), with one word changed from the Paul's "Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism:". Furthermore, this is problematic on its own as this is just Paul's opinion; there are no sources for the statement, not even in the whole paragraph is there one citation, just the Hitler quote we already included in this article. As Paul is a paleontologist and Free Inquiry is an advocacy magazine, this does not meet the reliable sources criteria that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original). Madridrealy (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this deletion is appropriate. Volkism is not the same as Nazism for one thing, even if the edit was verifiable, I agree that neither Paul nor the magazine are appropriate sources for such a bald statement without additional support from historians etc of the period. And the RSN has said so too, as I said above. And see below too.

Thanks for posting to this page. It reminded me that I have failed to follow up with the information I got from the library in July.

• It's moot now because the section has been deleted, [38] but Hitler did not give a speech on April 26, 1933. Rather he had a private meeting with two Catholic prelates, made these comments during the meeting, expressly forbidding his views from being made public.[39] Add to that the fact that Lewy notes in this meeting Hitler's "unconcealed avowal of the entirely political reasons that prompted him to see and maintain a policy of peace with Christianity", giving yet more context to the remark. It's interesting how often this idea of a "speech" has been quoted and requoted without anybody checking.
• I also checked the full text of Hitler's Speeches too, and the other speech is as quoted. Interestingly it is below a quote from a 13 October 1933 Nazi decree issued by Rudolph Hess stating that "No National Socialist may suffer detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all." Funny that in all the atheist/Christian debates this one never gets mentioned at all!
• I'm going to rework the section to add some of this, contextualize the freethinker stuff and "stamping out" information. I also don't think Nazi Germany needs an section of its own. It's part of modern times, no?
• I'm also going to delete the information about fraternities. One of the sources given is a webpost (not a reliable source) and the NYT article doesn't support the information in the sentence. --Slp1 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the rewritten seciton. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we make a section about discrimination in right-wing dictatorships; almost all of them were more or less hostile to atheists (and the fact that they often labelled atheists as communists does not exculpate them from discriminating against atheists). BillMasen (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Section looks good. Nice work. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Zellner quote is "undue" ?

Why is the Zellner quote "undue"? We never mention violence against atheists in the rest of the section, nor employment discrimination. This one sentence adds new information and seems to be minimal weight for maximum content. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The author is a University Professor who has to keep to the scientific method and tell the truth or lose his reputation. I'll restore that section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you wait for a bit more discussion here, per the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. I don't have time to express my objections in detail at the moment, but will do so as soon as possible. --Slp1 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He's a professor, certainly, but that's not a scientific article in a scientific journal; rather, it's an anecdotal opinion piece in an opinion journal. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:Undue weight states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each".

There are two viewpoints in the atheist community: one that atheists are discriminated against, and one that they aren't really, and that is a bit embarrassing to complain too loudly about this given lynchings, slavery, sex and anti-gay discrimination etc. Per NPOV, these two views need to be appropriately balanced.

The article already contains two (2) sentences devoted to the notion that atheists of complain discrimination, as well as one (1) sentence saying that other atheists protest that they don't really suffer when compared to other groups. As you can see it is already weighted in the direction of one viewpoint. The proposed short paragraph [40] contains two (not one) more sentences on the "we are discriminated against" side. In his article, Professor William W. Zellner describes the discrimination that he allegedly suffered in 1991. The question is, why are Zellner's opinions, as published in an atheist magazine in 1995, significant enough to deserving of being detailed in this article? Why would it be appropriate to weight the article even further to one particular side of this debate? Things that would help us determine, that yes, Zellner's specific experiences and claims are worthy of special mention and attention here would include independent sources (newspapers, books etc) writing about his views in the last 14+ years, or if Zellner was very prominent leader/scholar of atheists/atheism/discrimination whose views were particularly notable. Neither of these appears to be the case. No other independent, reliable source (that I have found) has written about him or repeated his claims in last 18 years. Zellner is indeed a university professor, but his area of expertise appears to be fringe religions/denominations such as the Amish, Heaven's Gate cult etc. I can't find any evidence of scholarly publication in the area of atheism, discrimination, etc.

Proxima Centauri has argued that Zellner has told the truth. I don't in any way claim otherwise. As I stated in my edit summary, the question is are Zellner's views "prominent" enough to justify the paragraph as written and unbalancing the article. My research suggests that they are not. However, they are a very appropriate additional reference to the claim that atheists complain of discrimination, and that is why I added a reference (to the original article in "Freethought Today") to the article.

AzureFury suggests that the information should be included because it includes specific claims of employment discrimination and violence. This is a good point, and I don't object to the idea that the initial sentence in the US section could be expanded to include some of these claims. e.g. "Some atheists assert that they are discriminated against in the United States in the areas of X, Y and Z. They compare their situation to ..... However, if you are going to do that, then per NPOV, it would be a good idea also to expand the opposing view of those who reject the discrimination claims to include some more details of their viewpoint.

I hope that helps.--Slp1 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How many atheists say that atheists do not experience discrimination? Are you implying the article should be half and half? Half claiming discrimination and half dismissing discrimination claims? TBH I doubt there's much violent discrimination against atheists, even in the deep south... but employment discrimination would not surprise me at all, as we know this still happens for other groups in that region. Perhaps I'll do some research and see what I can find. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material about Zellner and added material about the KKK to balance it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am pleased that you have taken on board some of the comments I made, I confess I'm quite disappointed by your restore, Proxima Centauri. [41] Two editors have expressed concerns about the Zellner source. And yet without attempting to gain consensus you make an edit restoring it; the edit also has additional multiple problems.

• "Some" people don't complain about discrimination, shunning and violence. One person did. In a rather obscure atheist magazine. About an incident nearly 20 years ago.
• 'This seems to apply especially in the Bible Belt." There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. An opinion column is absolutely not an appropriate source for such a generalized statement.
• Your addition of the Ku Klux Klan is what is called original research again. Can I suggest you read up on this point? You cannot combine two sources to make an argument such as "Arguably, minorities face worse problems..." That is clearly Proxima Centuri synthesizing and editorializing, and is not allowed here.
• In addition, "About.com" is not a reliable source. Neither is the "www.tueurenserie. I already found the correct citation/link for the Zellner article in Freethought Today. Please use it.
• The main question remains: Why do we need another paragraph, dislocated from the first mention about the same issue that some people complain of discrimination? Maybe AzureFury will come up with some research of some documented reports of real discrimination rather just opinion columns of complaints. Some newspaper reports of people being convicted of harassment etc would be great (though not for the people involved, obviously ;-))Some judgments of discrimination made by equal opportunities commissions or whatever the US equivalent is. That would really help us determine whether the article is well-balanced at present or not. Personally, I would also love to see some of the energy devoted to the US spent on finding information from reliable sources about other parts of the world, where there really do appear to be problems, but about which we have almost no information. And what there is is mostly stuff I found.

In the meantime, having pointed out all the problems in the new addition above, I could either tag the problematic aspects of it (which would be every sentence) or just delete it for now. Given the extent of the problems I think I will do the latter. Please get consensus before restoring this material or versions of it. --Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the most recent restoration is not the direction we should be moving in. We don't balance the claim of violence against atheists by saying that violence has happened to other groups. There may be something to say here, but this isn't the way to approach it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union should be a good organisation to contact to find out how far atheists have problems in the United States. What I wrote about the KKK was from the Wikipedia article and from my source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding suggests that the only group that suffers significant discrimination is "out" atheists. This is a hard group to find information for as they are so small in the US. For now, until anything else is found, I think I'll just link to the "Out" campaign in the See Also section. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob Sherman

I'm restoring the old Rob Sherman discussion that appears to have been archived or deleted. Mohummy (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've glanced through the sources, but I'm a bit confused about the place of the Sherman item in this article. Apparently, there was controversy over one anti-atheist statement made by George HW Bush, not only because of the statement itself but also because it is known only from one source, Rob Sherman. Is there some sort of discrimination involved? From my glance, it seems that only two of the sources you provided mention "discrimination," and the text of both is identical [42][43]. Setting aside the question of RS, let us look at the mention of "discrimination" in these articles. "On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against Atheists by any elected or appointed official of government" and "On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veterans' groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination." These aren't discussing the quote controversy, perhaps because the quote is not actually discrimination in any form. Honestly, if anything, we'd be better removing the bit about the alleged quote and focusing on the veterans' groups instead. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The entire page at positiveatheism.org was devoted to that quote by Bush. The letter was condemning that quote and demanding an apology. Are you really trying to say that positiveatheism is NOT calling this quote discriminatory? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis of the page may be interesting, but the alleged quote is not explicitly called discriminatory in that article, which does not seem RS anyway. We need direct support, remember? WP:OR? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither does the article. I need only show that a non-wikipedian source considers the material discriminatory to justify its inclusion the article. I've done so. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has to be reliable. The source actually has to directly describe the material as discriminatory, which is does not directly do of the alleged quote; if you think otherwise please provide the supporting passage. Perhaps more important, to "justify its inclusion" you need consensus, which you once again did not have in restoring the material. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed it has and that position is that George Bush is a bigot." There's your accusation of discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an accusation calling Bush a bigot. What of the alleged "discrimination?" A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? No. No, I'm not even going to respond to that. I'm not playing this game. This is not a hunt for a specific string. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but perhaps telling, that you no longer wish to defend your position. Apparently, the needed support simply is not there. Original research was necessary to reach the desired conclusions. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The offered resolution read:

No person in public life may be free to impugn the patriotism of any minority group because of that group's opinion in respect to religion. President George Bush is herewith censured for his public expression of August 27, 1987, at which time he stated: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The resolution specifically censures President Bush for making those comments. This could not be any more clear unless you want to add that discrimination and the quote have to be in the same sentence or something. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The passage appears to regard impugnation. What about the alleged discrimination? Note that I not saying that this page said nothing of worth about discrimination. Rather, the focus upon the Sherman comment does not appear justified and would be UNDUE anyway, given that the alleged quote is known only from one source. I think it would be better if we focused upon the veterans' groups instead, since discrimination is explicitly tied to that issue. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The section gives it due weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a controversial quote that does not itself entail any sort of discrimination, or at least RS do not directly call it discriminating against atheists. I'm a bit confused by your insistence; how would a quite possibly imaginary opinion statement be discriminatory anyway, not being a law or order or anything like that? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a controversial quote that has had significant press coverage, thus justifying the weight. We can quote American Atheists regarding whether or not the quote is discriminatory if need be. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of press coverage does not justify the weight given to it in the article. I don't believe it belongs in the article at all. The article should be about discrimination against atheists, not about anti-atheistic sentiments. dougweller (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If this quote had "significant press coverage", then source it. If the remarks were made at a press conference, the odds would be good it would be reported, if noteworthy. Robertsherman.com and the atheist blogosphere aren't qualified RS at wikipedia. I did find this cite by Michael Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil, p 233), "The belief that one's faith is the only true religion too often leads to a disturbing level of intolerance, and this intolerance includes the assumption that nonbelievers cannot be as moral as believers...The most famous pronouncement along those lines came during a news conference on August 27, 1987, by Vice President George Bush, who was making a sop at Chicago's O'Hare Airport on the 1988 presidential campaign trail. After he explained that 'faith in God is important to me,' a reporter inquired, 'surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?' Bush replied, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.'" A wag might note that "Most famous pronouncement" is damning with feint praise considering how hard one has to look to find reliable sources making note of it, but at least this is a RS. The article may use it, or others like it, but not the selfpublished sources. There is no justification for ignoring the RS policy in this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We are quoting Rob Sherman, which is why I used his website. You can't claim that he doesn't say what is described in the article. He claims that the other journalists chose not to report it. Also, what notability policy are you using doug? Of course press coverage proves notability. And we have a source, biased or not, calling it discrimination. You may disagree, but on Wikipedia, we cover both sides of the dispute. If someone thinks this is discriminatory, we include it. I suggest you take a look at WP:PRESERVE. Add more, rather than delete. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is single sourced, all other sources are simply repeating what Rob Sherman says. It was used for partisan purposes and needs reliable sourcing. Considering it was claimed to have been said at a public press conference, it should be simple to find other reports but none have been found. Mohummy (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I realized that after I rolled back your edit, so I rolled back my roll back. Sorry for making you go digging. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that it is not factual is original research. Bush senior himself never denied making the comments. The quote has received significant press coverage. It has been responded to by prominent atheist organizations. We weight it fairly by considering the number of sources on both side of the dispute. I see no sources claiming that the quote did not occur, and as such, the quote remains on the page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No WP:OR here at all. It simply needs a third party reliable source. Not denying something doesn't mean anything. Including it is UNDUE and BLP. Mohummy (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have about a dozen third party reliable sources. Even rumors can be publish per WP:BLP if they have received significant press coverage. You have absolutely no reason to delete this. Naming a policy is not by itself an argument. This is from WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We're done here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob Sherman material

AzuryFury: It is interesting that you are injecting your opinions into this article by deleting the Rob Sherman controversy that has received so much press coverage. Find a source that says it is a non-issue or it stays in, uneditted.

You seem to misunderstand the criteria for inclusion here; I don't have to find a source saying it is a non-issue: it's hard to prove a negative, I'm sure you will agree. If you want to include the material in the depth you desire, the onus on you is to provide reliable secondary sources to show that this is a significant notable issue related to discrimination against atheists and convince the other editors here that the inclusion of the material is justified. One way you could do this would be to find mainstream independent sources about it: books, newspapers etc that actually mention it in the context of discrimination. You say that the incident got "so much press coverage". Great. Find the articles and let's see them and what they say. To date the paragraph you want to include is sourced to:

• an American Atheists booklet; unreliable source
• Exactly the same article, hosted on a different website; still an unreliable source
• brief mention of the alleged incident in the Tucson Weekly]; reliable source
• [44] and [45] both pages from Rob Sherman's website; reliable only for his opinion not for significance of the incident
• [46] and [47] blog postings by Kevin Drum; reliability questionable especially as he admits to getting the story wrong in his first post.
• Brief mention of the incident in The Science of Good and Evil, but nothing connecting it to discrimination against atheists; Reliable source.

Summary: there are very few independent, mainstream reliable sources about this incident, and fewer still that make any connection with discrimination against atheists. Maybe you can find the newspaper articles that you mention? At present, in my view, the incident justifies only the short mention proposed by Zara, though longer versions could go in the Sherman article, as she suggests. --Slp1 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I need a reliable source to prove that it is related to discrimination against atheists to avoid WP:OR, which the article has. The number of sources mentioning it, regardless of context, establishes how much WP:WEIGHT it deserves. I really haven't been looking hard for sources as this is a no-brainer. One of the sources describes it as one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society. You really think the "most famous quote" deserves just two sentences? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is an American Atheists' booklet an unreliable source? American Atheists is a prominent atheist organization is it not? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources mentioning the quote:[48][49][50][51][52][53] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources:[54][55][56][57] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. Weight is determined by the number and importance of references from mainstream reliable Sources. See WP:UNDUE. To date you have only produced two independent reliable sources, both with very mentions of this incident, one a local paper and one of which doesn't mention anything about discrimination against atheists at all. The brief references found to date justify only a very short mention of the Sherman incident.

The American Atheist article was written by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the early 1990s, founder and it seems one of the few members of American Atheists at that time (see the WP article about her, and at the Time article referenced for this point). I don't think there was much editorial oversight given to her writing, do you? I think when you read about her and her organization you will understand that the article can hardly be described as the kind of independent, third party reliable source required.--Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're using it to establish that someone besides me thinks it's discrimination against atheists and we surely have established that. Can you establish the existence of a view in opposition to the quote being discriminatory? WP:UNDUE assumes two points of view exist. You have never been able to show that there is any dispute that this is discriminatory, only that the quote many not have been stated, which is neutrally explained in the expanded version. Currently, we have more sources that believe it is real than believe it is not real. So the article should give more weight to the view that the quote is real. In addition, since we've accepted the relevance of social disapproval, and almost all of the sources I've listed link the quote to that, the quote trivially deserves significant weight, per WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove a negative. The ball is in your court. If you want to convince other editors here that the Rob Sherman mention should be longer and more detailed (given more weight) that it currently is, then it is up to you to show that it deserves this by finding multiple independent, mainstream reliable sources that see this incident as being related to discrimination against atheists. Per "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" To paraphrase Jimbo, if this is really is a significant viewpoint, you should find it easy to provide evidence that this is the case. You've provided a great list of links above, but from a cursory look many of them are not reliable sources at all, being blogs, webforums, unsigned webpages, WP mirrors etc. Perhaps you could go through them and weed out the ones that obviously aren't reliable sources, and the ones that don't mention discrimination against atheists in some way and I will try and look at the rest of them tomorrow. --Slp1 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, apparently the BBC is an unreliable source. We have no sources disputing that the material in question is discrimination and a prominent atheist organization, American Atheists, calling it discrimination. This is getting tiresome. I'm satisfying every condition you put forward and you still will not concede. What will it take before you admit that this deserves greater weight? You are contradicting reliable sources and providing none that support your position. What exactly do you have in your favor besides a vote? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source, National Secular Society, echoing the same story, calling it discrimination.[58] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another by The Varsity labeling it discrimination.[59] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"The God Delusion", one of the books I linked to explicitly calls it discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lantern includes it in a list of "injustices."[60] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article from City on a Hill Press that I linked earlier gives the Bush quote as an example after saying "Although this country was founded on the separation of church and state, many have been persecuted for trying to uphold that separation." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheist Alliance International calls the quote "Anti-atheist bigotry."[61] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got time to go through all this now, and I am disappointed that you haven't taken the time to remove the obviously unreliably sources as I requested. Hopefully you will soon. In the meantime, I will note that the BBC article you refer to is quite clearly an unreliable source [62]. The disclaimer at the bottom makes clear that the page was written by members of the public, and that the BBC takes no responsibility for the contents. And anyway the only mentions of discrimination are to say that atheists are not generally discriminated against! --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the disclaimer at the bottom. In any case, I was using that source as evidence of significance. You're an expert on the reliability of sources. I don't really get the qualifications. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only reliable sources are considered in the determination of significance and the weight due to a specific viewpoint. If it isn't an independent, reliable source that relates the issue to discrimination it isn't relevant to our discussion about this topic. The BBC "article" (and many of the others listed above) are therefore irrelevant, as I have tried to explain before. Please list the ones that are clearly reliable sources only, and remove the ones that aren't. If you are not sure about what reliable sources are, then read this WP:V and this WP:RS --Slp1 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My post starting from "Lol" and ending with "Anti-atheist bigotry" should be filled with reliable sources, defined as prominent organizations, labeling the material in question as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE implies consent, Turkey and Verbal. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise. You think two paragraphs is too much weight. Let's delete the skeptic paragraph. That cuts the weight in half and it's justified as all of our sources believe that the quote is real. We still link to Rob Sherman or some other place where the debate over the accuracy of the quote is covered in full. Thoughts? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Once we find out what the reliable sources are for this incident we will be in a much better determine what can be written from them and the weight due to it. Unfortunately, WP does not define webpages from "prominent organizations" as reliable sources as you have asserted above. I refer you again WP:V and WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source here. The nutshell version is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which in practice means scholarly journals, books and newspapers published by reputable publishers etc. Note that given that both Sherman and Bush are living, WP:BLP kicks in here (as has just occurred to me) so this requirement is very strict: "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". All in all, this means that the atheist websites are out, and that Sherman's website can't be used for any claim about Bush. See WP:SELFPUB. And not for determination of the weight due to this issue, of course. If you want to convince me and others about this issue, then please take the time go through the sources and list the ones below the ones you think meet WP's criteria for reliable sources. Think newspapers, magazines, journal articles, books. Thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Whew, ok, where to start. I am appalled by your bad faith direct contradiction with policy regarding the use of Rob Sherman's website to quote Rob Sherman. This is from V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Continue making statements like that and you will only convince me that the the policy compliant maintenance of this page will only succeed through attrition. In addition, I picked up this policy quote after other editors tried to remove well-sourced content from John Edwards: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Are you disputing the accuracy of the quote now? Because we already have sources that, by your admission, are reliable. We're using the atheist websites to determine that atheists think the quote is discriminatory, which WP:V allows. Your argument is becoming embarassingly thin. What will your argument turn to now? We can't use the Tucson Weekly as a source because it is published by the Tucson Weekly? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully what I wrote. I didn't say Sherman's website couldn't be used at all. I said that Sherman's website can't be used for claims about Bush. And it can't be. Read a little further in the policy you quoted...."Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ....it does not involve claims about third parties." Bush is a third party. Sherman's website can't be used for claims about Bush. Which is exactly what I said. You owe me an apology.

Your Edwards quote is great. It illustrates exactly what I (and many, many others) have been telling you. Prove that the allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well documented by listing the reliable published sources that mention it. That means finding "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Tucson weekly counts for the incident and the quote. The atheist websites don't count, because they are neither third-party nor do they have a reputation for fact-checking, though they are, as you suggest, reliable for the opinion that atheists think that the incident was discriminatory.

Nobody is disputing that the Rob Sherman incident should be included. Five editors were happy with Zara's short version, but you have disputed the weight attributed to it and would like your longer version included. As a result the ball is in your court. If there are lots of reliable sources, then per WP:UNDUE weight, it can have a larger weight attached to it. If there are only a few reliable sources (reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) then not so much. To date we have two only reliable sources. You said above that this incident "received so much press coverage". If that's true you should be able to cite all sorts of newspapers articles about the incident. Let's see them. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew you would say that. The article uses Rob Sherman's website to quote Rob Sherman. The article does not make any claim about Bush using Rob Sherman's website. It makes a claim about what Rob Sherman said about Bush. This is a clear distinction that I would expect a good faith editor to understand after having it explained. Regarding "reliable sources" commenting on the quote, we have two currently in the article. I have given many more. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is a book. The Varsity, The Lantern, and City on a Hill Press are all reputable newspapers. Not to mention you never bothered to comment on those two long lists I made earlier. Let me remind you that I offered to find you many reliable sources mentioning the quote earlier and you told me that what was needed were reliable sources calling the quote discriminatory. Regardless, we have multiple reliable sources mentioning the quote, multiple reliable sources for the interpretation that it is discriminatory, and one reliable source that specifically says the quote is important. This debate is over as far as I'm concerned. Here is the combined list that you did not comment on because you were too busy: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet more sources, how many will it take before you concede? [71][72][73] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Actually the article doesn't cite from the Sherman website at all. To what are you referring?

Thank you for listing what you consider to be reliable sources articles on this matter. I will take a look at the list of links in your post tomorrow. Please note that I have never said that I was too busy to look at these links. Only that you should list only those you consider to be reliable sources (based on WP criteria rather than your own assessment). That way I don't have to spend my time looking at and commenting on sources that are obviously unreliable to us both. --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the original version is what included references to Rob Sherman's website. They were used to quote Rob Sherman. Infact, it was pretty much copy and pasted out of his website. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more to look at: [74][75][76] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay here goes.

• The original reason for this was to determine the weight the article should give to the Rob Sherman incident. Five editors preferred a shorter summary of the event, while AzureFury has argued for a more extended version. WP:UNDUE states that in "determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources".
• A secondary reason is to identify the highest quality reliable sources for this section about about several living people; Robert Sherman, George Bush and C. Boyden Gray: "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"

I have examined for reliability all the sources suggested in AF's last four posts, as well as the sources cited in AF's longer version of the Sherman section.[77], assessing each to see which are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the chart below the reliable sources are those that have Yes in both the second and third columns; ie are both third party and have a reputation for fact checking. I have been fairly liberal in my interpretations; I am sure that some would argue that Dawkins isn't a third party, for example, and that student newspapers don't really have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Caveat: though I have a fair amount of experience evaluating sources for reliability based on WP's criteria, I don't claim to be infallible. In case of dispute about a specific source, I suggest posting a question at the reliable sources noticeboard.

Source	Third Party	Rep. for fact checking etc	Comments
City on a Hill Press	Yes	Yes	Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly
Atheists for HR	No	No	Atheist website, with no sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident
Washington monthly blog	n/a	No	Blog posting by a random person; unreliable source
God Delusion	Yes?	Yes	Book by prominent atheist; reliable source; a brief mention of Sherman incident, but few details
Daily Evergreen	Yes	Yes	Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly
Freedom from Religion foundation	No	No	no sign of editorial control; would be reliable only for opinion of atheists but merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or its discriminative nature.
War of the World	Yes	Yes	reliable source; merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or discrimination.
Speech by Spike Tyson	No	No	Speech by an atheist; quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination.
Media Lens posting	Yes	Yes	Not sure about this one; a media activist website, but editors are journalists; in any case merely quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination.
TV.com bio of Bush	Yes	No	Unreliable source; any member of the public can edit the entry
Institute for Humanist Studies	No	?	opinion column on humanist e-zine, though an Editor named. Quotes Bush briefly; no discussion of incident
Atlas Society webpage	No	No	Self-published article on Objectivist website; brief mention of quote, no discussion of incident or discrimination
The Science of Good and Evil	Yes	Yes	Reliable source; quotes Bush; no mention of discrimination or larger discussion of the incident. Note: in AZ's longer version of this incident, this book was used to cite the section Jon Garth Murray and a the letter from C Boyden Gray; this doesn't appear justified, as Shermer doesn't mention either man.
Daily Illini website	Yes	Yes	Opinion column in student newspaper website. Brief mention of quote, no wider discussion of incident or discrimination. Note that opinion columns can only be used for the opinions of their authors, not for facts see [78]
Tucson Weekly	Yes	Yes	reliable source; quotes Bush; general discussion of US disapproval of atheists.
American Atheists	No	No	Article by a prominent atheist, published by an atheist group. No sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident
Rob Sherman's website	No	No	Reliable source only for Rob Sherman's opinions.
Washington Monthly blog	Yes	No	No sign that the blog is subject to any form of fact-checking, though hosted on Washington Monthly website. Somewhat confirmed as Drum admits to getting the story wrong.

Summary:

• There appear to be 8 reliable sources for this incident, of which three are student newspapers.
• None of reliable sources discuss the incident in any depth. For example, while all the reliable sources quote Bush as saying at least part of "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," none quote Bush saying the "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists" part. None mention Jon Garth Murray or the letter from C Boyden Gray. In fact the same is true for almost all the unreliable sources, too.
• Prominent atheists and atheist organizations are reliable sources for their opinions of this incident. It is clear that they consider this incident to be evidence of discrimination against them.

Conclusion:

• The incident is notable and significant and should be included.
• The notion that atheists talk about the incident and find it evidence of discrimination should be included.
• The incident has received only relatively brief mentions in "reliable, third party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and therefore per UNDUE, this article should include only a brief description of it.
• Since living people are involved, we must use the highest quality reliable sources, though of course this is always the case, really. Self-published sources cannot be used (with the caveat that Sherman's website could be used as a source for information about himself). AF's longer version used several unreliable sources as citations, including for information about living persons. Even Zara's shorter version (currently included in the article) includes some unreliable sources such as the Drum blogs.

As a result, I propose this as a replacement.

The disapproval of atheism is also illustrated by an alleged statement made by George H. W. Bush during his campaign for the presidency in 1987. When asked by atheistic journalist Robert Sherman about the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists, Bush is reported to have answered "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not record the exchange and no other journalist reported on it. The story has been taken up as evidence of discrimination by prominent atheists and atheist groups.

In my view it is reliably sourced and gives appropriate weight to the topic in an article about discrimination against atheists. I hope others will find it an appropriate middle ground: it is longer than Zara's version, but is shorter than AF's version. I hope others will take the time to comment on this proposal. --Slp1 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly the compromise I envisioned. Thank you so much for taking the time to fairly consider the sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

I have reverted the recent edit about Turkey [79]. This is because...

• The first claims are that many atheist websites get banned. This does not appear to be supported by the sources. Both sources given about the banning of the Dawkins website say that it was ordered because it contained libellous material about Adnan Oktar, not to ban atheistic thought. And in fact the same court apparently refused to ban circulation of Dawkin's book, citing freedom of expression. There is no evidence of discrimination against atheists, and in fact clear cherry picking of information to make a point, apparently.
• The poll isn't about discrimination but about the attitudes of Turks, and says nothing particularly astounding about atheism, and more (as the article itself says) about a general lack of tolerance of diversity, since the poll indicates that Turkish people also wouldn't want to live next to those who drink alcohol, are Jews, unmarried couples etc etc
• There was some unsourced information about Turks not wanting "non-moslims to be a.o. a judge or serve the army". Note that in any case, non-muslim does not equal atheist. --Slp1 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that Turks are more hostile towards atheists than Jews. It's an informative comparison if you ask me. Perhaps we could spare one sentence to include this fact? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Without any information about the margin of error etc, there is no way to determine whether there is any significant difference between the two (relatively close) numbers. Added to which no comparison of the sort is made in the source given. --Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, since when does a poll taken from the media require its margin of error to be available in order for it to be included in a Wikipedia page? In any case, 64% and 75% are not statistically close numbers. So unless you're expecting a margin of error of 11% or more, I think it's safe to assume that atheists still come out on top. The study itself "was meant to gauge radicalism and extremism in Turkey." So the study is making the comparison. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking it was 67%, but you are right that it is 64%. Sorry. But even so, the margin of error wouldn't need to be 11% but 5-6% for the two figures to be overlapping, and we still have no stats about whether the difference is significant. This is because the study was to look at Turkish attitudes to diversity in general, not to compare their attitudes to different groups. You are interested in trying to show that "Turks are more hostile towards atheists than Jews" but this comparison is not made in the summary of the survey, and per WP:OR we cannot make this comparison ourselves. We cannot use even reliably sourced information "to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used", and --Slp1 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting it. The source specifically says that turks are less willing to live near atheists than jews. Exactly what statement did I just make that isn't directly supported by the source? When I have some time, I'm gonna post this on a noticeboard and get some outside opinions, because I just don't believe that WP:OR can be applied this ridiculously. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote the sentence that specifically says that "turks are less willing to live near atheists than jews"? If it did, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's just not there. You are assuming that this is the case from the numbers given, (and you may be right) but on WP you can't do that per No original research. And in fact, even if we weren't talking about WP's rules, no statistician, given the information given in the article, would be able to make this assertion, because there is not enough statistical information given etc etc. And just to further confusing the issue is that this reliable source for the same survey quotes 63% for atheists. [80]--Slp1 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm misinterpretting the information? 64% of Turks would not live next to a Jew. 75% of Turks would not live next to an atheist. More Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists. We can find the population of Turkey and calculate the actual totals if you prefer. Where is the break in logic? 63% is probably a rounding error. Most round up, and they simply truncated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that you are not allowed to interpret information for WP. What you are suggesting with your calculations and with your statements is the epitome of original research, as well as being statistically unsound. Please read the policy carefully, and if you don't believe me after that, do post on WP:NORN. And also check what I wrote :-) 63% is for not wanting atheists as neighbours. It's some rounding error to round down by 12%!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be making any interpretation. It is a rephrasing of information directly stated in the source. No new information is added. The statements are mathematically equivalent. A => B. We summarize in Wikipedia all the time. This is the level of inference we are allowed to make and assuming the first source is accurate, it is definitely fair to say more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists. If you want to debate about the factual accuracy of poll, we can start googling and perhaps find the original poll information. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Final attempt at explaining, and then I'm done, I'm afraid. Survey results such as these are primary sources, and can only be used with great caution, per WP:NOR and the danger of misuse. You have decided that ""Turks are [more] unwilling to live next to atheists" than jews, something that the reliable source does not state. You may indeed be right, but that is your analysis of the data given, not the interpretation of the scientists who did the study, nor those who wrote the article in the newspaper, which in fact specifically notes that the margin of error is not given. If you read the margin of error article, you will understand why the M of E figures are so critical for knowing what confidence we can have in the percentages actually reflecting the "true" number of Turks who have any particular attitude. So as I said, from a purely statistical viewpoint you cannot make the claim you wish to make, and more particularly here on WP, we need a reliable secondary source making the interpretation of the data. Your point is not "directly and explicitly supported by the source used". BTW I've looked for the original study, and found it here.[81] Unfortunately, it's no help in clarifying whether it the atheist figure should be 75% or 63% per this[82], since it doesn't mention the atheist data at all on the online tool. --Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where on the World Value Survey website did you find the information about the study in question? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explore the online data analysis tool to find it, just like I did. There is no better link I can give you. --Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything about atheists or people without religion under the question "People that respondent would not like to have as neighbors." Why again do you think that this is the same study as in the original source? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I said that above that nothing about atheists was mentioned in the online data. And the one on that site may indeed be a different study to the one quoted in the article. However, the principal investigator (Yilmaz Esmer), the umbrella organization of the survey (World Value Survey) and the date (2007) are all the same, which suggests something. Maybe you will have better luck finding the original survey results than me. But remember that if you find them the problem of original research will be the same... I was only really looking to clarify the 75% vs 63% question. A much better find would be a scholarly journal article in which Esmer or somebody else interprets the results. There you might find the kind of analysis you seek, and one that would not be considered original research. --Slp1 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. I thought you were making two seperate points, one of WP:OR and the other of statistical ambiguity. The point you were making was a combination of the two. You're saying that in order to make the comparison I've been trying to make we would need to know additional statistical information, but by using that information to make the claim we would be doing WP:OR. Anyway, during my searching I found yet another source that said it was something like 53% would not want to live next to an atheist so I think we can just drop it for now. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

English grammar and the literary level of wikipedia

I can read Hochdeutsch, and if the reference given were available (or better identified) I would consult it, however it's irrelevant as far as correct English is concerned and therefore have taken the correct action and that originally indicated in the edit summary. Lycurgus (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable examples.

Recently 89.253.73.146 added the following examples of discrimination against atheists to the bottom of the US section.

Then 16-year-old Nicole Smalkowski suffered harassment and threats in Oklahoma for being atheists. It was featured on an ABC 20/20 special on atheism in July 2007.

Wayne Adkins cites religious discrimination against atheists as his reason for resigning from the Army National Guard.

Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Though I hate delete something that probably took some time to do, I feel that these examples are too specific to include in an article with global scope. The article should not cover every single instance of discrimination against atheists. If we did, the article would stretch on for hundreds of pages. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should only include examples that are particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia has a broader focus than a particular episode of ABC news. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to force the issue. I know when I'm beat. But it is with "global scope" in mind that I added them. They are chocking to people outside of America. I think that they perfectly illustrate that nothing has happened in the last century. Pat Tillman is another example. You don't have to go further than this page and the idiot who try to deny that the atheists were persecuted in Nazi Germany. But then, killing of homosexuals was not considered a crime at the farce known as the Nuremberg Trials. And the Nazis never persecuted lesbians. After all, a lesbian is just a woman who has never experienced a REAL man. And there are no atheists in a foxhole, right? And Christian rocker Regina Spektor sings "No one laughs at God in a war" because atheism is a wager.

But if an atheist would say, "nobody is at ease when a Catholic approaches the playing ground" or that Evangelicals are stupid moron retards, Christians of all colors would be up in arms.

The greatest crime of all is that while we acknowledge that gays, blacks, women, etc. are being discriminated against, atheists are just getting their just deserts. They reject Jesus and for that they shall suffer for all eternity. Let the suffering begin in this life. And that's basically what it says in the intro of this page, "In constitutional democracies, legal discrimination against atheists is uncommon." So that 16-year-old girl should just learn to live with being persecuted--the price of atheism. This "editorialising" is just to illustrate my point.

It was not my intention to "beat" you, just to explain why I thought the examples should not be included. While it is true that atheists face (sometimes violent) discrimination in the US, we can't get too wrapped up in specific examples. You can probably still find examples of people facing violent discrimination for being a member of any minority, including homosexual, black, jewish, muslim, etc. Does that mean we should open with a sentence saying "Jews are killed in the United States"? I think what we have in the article is more representative of the realities atheists face in the US, ie social and political discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not beat by you. I'm beat by Christians. But you are one of them. You are the problem of the world.

My point is that the US government (the military) sanctions discrimination against atheists. General Stanley A. McChrystal is the US military's current posterboy for bigotry and intolerance. But somehow that is not notable.

...that Christian whore Regina Spektor gets away with insulting atheists, by calling them cowards or saying that there ultimately are no atheists.

And, as said, we recognize that homosexual, black, jewish, muslim are being discriminated against. But the atheist gets his just desserts. Saying, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," is NOT discrimination. Saying, "No, I don't know that homosexuals/blacks/jews/muslim should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," IS. But any idiot knows that that is not how it works.

That's quite a revelation for me, since I thought I was the atheist who pushed to get the Bush quote included in the article in its entirety as shown in the discussion below about Rob Sherman. Do you have any evidence of widespread discrimination against atheists in the military besides this one example? If so, please link me. Wikipedia merely repeats what other sources say. Take a look at one of our core policies, WP:Verifiability. Similarly for violence against atheists, if you have sources that establish it is more frequent than this one instance, please post them.

On a side note, I don't know how interested you are in further editting to Wikipedia, but things you should pay special attention to are WP:CIVILITY and WP:No personal attacks. It doesn't help the article calling other editors "idiots" or "the problem of the world". If you're interested, you might take a look at WP:What Wikipedia is to get a better understanding of what we do here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Liars are idiots.

Again, this page illustrates my point. It tells us it is discrimination to discriminate against some groups, but it is not discrimination to discriminate against some other groups. (Am I the only one seeing the contradiction in that sentence, not to mention the outright stupidity?) I would like to know the names of the latter groups, other than atheists. I am not saying the Bush quote is true, or not. But if it had been reported that he had said the exact same thing about blacks, Jews, Native Americans, anyone other than atheists, people would have been up in arms.

And, again, I know when I am beat. Being an atheist today is like being an atheist in Nazi Germany. All you have to do to get by is to go to church and be a good Christian, whatever "good Christian" is.

Like the bible-Jesus, Christians rely on passive aggression. "I love you, but you are going to hell." "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Or, in the case of Tillman, the military suffers collective amnesia. So I think it is hard to find any overt examples of discrimination. I think this is about as "good" as it gets: [83]

To clarify. I did not and do not mind the examples being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're an atheist living in a red state. You have to understand that the demographics change online. The proportion of non-religious to religous drastically changes. It has been shown that people with higher IQs are less likely to be religious, so if we assume that people who use computers generally have higher IQs than those who don't, the natural conclusion would be that there would be there will be disproportionately fewer religious people online than in real life. My point being, when you come online, the world is no longer against you. But I digress.

I read through the source you provided. I think what we have here is the first step in a paragraph about atheists in the US military. The source is reliable for atheists' opinions on the status of atheists in the military. The next step I think is going to be to find some more reliable sources, preferrably not from an atheist organization. Now before you get up in arms about that, we require independent sources to make factual claims on Wikipedia. You can understand the potential for bias if we only go to atheists for information about atheists. We need to try and write with a neutral point of view which means additional sources. Additionally, I'm going to consult with another editor before we move forward. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We are more or less talking past each other. My fault. Me posting those examples was something of a kneejerk reaction, if I remember. Since this Talk page is quite heavy on text, I just skimmed through it. I believe I read somebody say some atheists do not consider these things discrimination. I risk resorting to after-construction by saying this or that was the reason why I added those examples.

I'm in Sweden. 39% here believe in god, according to one recent survey (others, I'm sure, will differ). As said, these things are shocking to non-Americans. And it is the other way around. While we do have Christian fundamentalists, it was not until the Internet they had a public voice. They are just like that loud minority in America that calls itself the moral majority.

Anyway, I'm off this. I do not want to hijack this page. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit moot, but since I've been asked to comment I will. When we look at what needs to be included in WP, per NPOV we focus on material that has been determined to be significant by inclusion in reliable secondary sources. As AF says, an atheist website is a reliable source for their opinion, but the question is, are they significant enough for inclusion? This press release is a perfect test case. They are announcing a news conference at which various army personnnel who have alleged (note that neither cases had actually been decided) will speak. Did anybody actually go to the press conference? Did anybody take notice of these allegations? If not, why would it warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia entry, that doesn't aim to be a collection of indiscriminate information? Very conveniently, the organization keeps note of their media coverage.[84], and they got a tiny bit of coverage, the most extensive being some US army papers, and all of which clearly state that this group is complaining and trying to lobbying Obama as he comes in. We already know that people complain of discrimination, and it is already included in the article. Until somebody actually wins their case, or their complaints get noted by independent sources, I agree with AF that the details are overkill, giving undue weight to what is clearly advocacy by interest groups.--Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What interested me was the talk about trends. They say atheists are "harassed, denied promotions, proselytized or threatened," sometimes by chaplains. I think if we could find some more sources/coverage on this it would be worth a mention. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Until somebody actually wins their case, or their complaints get noted by independent sources, I agree with AF that the details are overkill, giving undue weight to what is clearly advocacy by interest groups." By that logic, since no Jew won any discrimination case in Nazi Germany...

That some atheists think there is no discrimination is no more relevant than Uncle Tom thinking he was not being discriminated against. Facts speak for themselves. Calling ALL blacks lazy is racism. Calling ALL atheists cowards is just telling it as it is. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."--1 John 2:22

I know when I'm beat. As long as there are Christians there will be discrimination against atheists and other infidels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Title

I think the page title needs to be moved to proper capitalization (i.e.Discrimination Against Atheists). —Mandi talk 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at just about any other article in the Wikipedia, you will note that the standard format is to use title capitalization only when the name of the article is a proper name, such as Flying Spaghetti Monster or the World Calendar. Capitalizing the first letter of the first word only is used in all other cases, as with History of atheism or Criticism of religion. The current title is formatted properly. TechBear (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am new to this. Should this article highlight that much religious discrimination is simply against all people who believe differently? For instance; Crimes by muslims are often against 'infidels' that dont believe in allah. this includes atheists, but also those that are atheistic against allah specifically (like christians, etc). Is that distinction worthwhile? narcolepz

• Also, perhaps this article should include more information about the approval of atheists as a whole. I think there was a university of minnesota study about it? Right?

• Also, is there more information regarding the work of activists like margaret downey? she sued the boyscouts right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcolepz (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Downey has her own article. You can reword the article to include her if you wish, as the boyscouts controversy is already included. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

child custody

Great source (NYU Law Review) for discrimination against atheists in child custody disputes. [85]. To be incorporated soon.--Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be done. I am fairly new as a contributor, so I might have some difficulties in terms of format and editing, but I'll try to add it nonetheless Spree85 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved to restore established title per consensus. Per WP:IAR performed close despite being involved, see comment below. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Atheophobia → Discrimination against atheists – I propose that the recent page move, made without discussion, be reverted promptly. The new name contravenes the principles in WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?
• Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article?
• Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

The change to opening sentence contravenes WP:NOT#DICDEF.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. In addition to Old Moonraker's comments above, the new title appears to be a neologism - it has no entry on dictionary.com or wiktionary. This is not a title that any significant number of visitors will search for.eldamorie (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move back. I agree with every comment above. I would add that a commonsense interpretation of the new title would be "fear of atheists", rather than discrimination against. The rename without discussion was severely misguided. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support although a phobia can be about discrimination and not just fear this term is not in popular usage at all. "Discrimination againist Atheists" returns 230,000 results on google while Atheophobia only returns 11,900 that isn't even 1/5 the size of "Discrimination againist Atheists". -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support The current peculiar title is a neologism and is unhelpful as a title because it means nothing to nearly all readers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all done now. Does anybody know how to revert to the original title? I'd do it, but the redirect page is in the way; probably needs an admin. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As the redirect has no history, an admin is not needed. I did the move without following standard procedure (find an uninvolved closer) because the original move was completely unjustified, and not bureaucracy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Findings of a study into prejudice against athiests

I propose to add to the Contemporary section... Discrimination against atheists#Western countries

This additional sentence, at the end of the paragraph. (source references provided).

CathMontgomery (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Prejudice against athiests exists. A University of British Columbia study found that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists. The study also showed that athiests have lower employment prospects.

Any thoughts? CathMontgomery (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My only (minor) issue is that it would be better if the citation link went directly to the Vancouver Sun, instead of to Dawkins' website. Otherwise, I'd say it certainly passes all the sourcing etc. requirements, and is certainly noteworthy, so go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This was the original url -

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Atheists+rapists+list+people+religious+believers+distrust+most+study+finds/5794699/story.html

But it’s only available in the google cache at the moment, and I’m not sure how to link to that directly.

Vancouver Sun no longer provide the story online, so it is against the Wikipedia:redlinks policy to add the old URL.

I found the WP:ENC page was very eye-catching.

Wikipedia policy – Encyclopaedic content reports from secondary sources, not primary sources. WP:SECONDARY

So I think it’s ok to put the two secondary sources. To be able to also cite the primary source, ideally someone could find a way to link to google cache? But I’m not sure how long that Cache hangs around for?

Any ideas where to find out about linking to Google cache, please help. Thanks -- CathMontgomery (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No need: the original research paper is online, made available by the American Psychological Association[86] --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Prejudice is based on attitude? discrimination on action?

Let us say that I don't like atheists to live in my neighborhood, is it against the bill of rights for me to influence my neighbors to not sell their homes to atheists? Now, suppose again I don't like atheists and I run a grocery store, is it against the bill of rights if I don't sell food items to atheists?

Next, I have children, is it against the bill of rights for me to do my utmost to dissuade them from marrying atheists?

Another question: suppose I am a taxi owner-operator, is it against the bill of rights if I instruct my taxi drivers not take in people they know to be atheists?

What about is it against the bill of rights if I will not vote a candidate to a public office because I know him to be an atheist, or oppose his appointment?

The distinction between prejudice and discrimination in this regard of the above examples is that if I act on my negative attitude against atheists is tantamount to a violation of their civil rights (which I submit are also the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights of the standard democratic country), then that is what I would call discrimination, otherwise it is just prejudice.

For example, if an atheist neighbor wants to visit me to socialize with me and my family, I refuse his advances so that I don't welcome his friendship, but otherwise I am polite with him, that is prejudice but not discrimination.

What about not voting him to elective public office or opposing his appointment, I can do that also and that is prejudice but not discrimination; or even campaigning against him, that is also prejudice but not discrimination.

You cannot make a law to prohibit people from not voting atheists to public offices or being appointed, even though atheists have the civil right to be in the government.

And you cannot make a law to prohibit people from influencing other people to not let their children marry atheists, or even to campaign against atheists getting elected or appointed to public offices.

What about I am looking for people to hire in my business establishment, is it discrimination if I exclude atheists from my employment, or prejudice?

It depends: if jobs from me are the only means an atheist living in my area has to make a living, then that is discrimination, otherwise: no.

Now, let me see some people who will delete my contribution here.

Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed part of the material about elected officials from the US section for this reason... the polls discussed, showing that most Americans would not vote for an atheist, are an indication of prejudice, not of discrimination. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See the dictionary.com definition of discrimination. If you want to talk about the definition, "consideration of a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" is satisfied by both of the examples that you removed. The Pete Stark example is specifically connected to discrimination by the sources as was discussed previously. So saying that it is not discrimination is WP:OR. The polls, again, have been discussed and were included to explain the social climate towards atheists. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to show that someone has acted on their prejudice... By your logic everyone who voted the party line for the Democrats in today's elections was guilty of "discrimination against Republicans" (as they made a consideration based on a group, class or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit). Gee... don't let the ACLU know about this, or we will have a class action lawsuit against the DNC. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was establishing that the definition of "discrimination" is ambiguous and as such it is not clear that the polls should be removed. Interesting fact, dictionary.com's thesaurus includes "prejudice" in the list of synonyms for "discrimination."[87] In any case, you could view the polls as background information about the situation of atheists in the US, not as an outright example of discrimination. Certainly views towards atheists in the US is relevant to discrimination against atheists in the US. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps views towards atheists in the US are relevant to discrimination against atheists in the US... what is needed is a reliable source that makes the conection... something that ties the the polls to an actual case of discrimination. Without such a source mentioning the polls (even as background info) is a WP:NOR violation.

This is actually an issue throughout the article... It list examples of things that might be discrimination, but does not list reliable sources that properly establish that these things are considered discrimination.

I am tagging the article for clean up on this... and have started a discussion for it at WP:NORNBlueboar (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, have you looked at the sources? I've had long discussions with Slp1 and he said the same thing you're saying (except about the polls) and we found sources labeling everything as discrimination, for the US section at least. What are these "other examples" you're referring to? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is from WP:OR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged." This is from WP:NOTE: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles." I know of no policy that specifies what can and can't be included in a Wiki article assuming it complies with policy. Whenever people talk about WP:OR, they talk about WP:SYNTH, and no conclusions are drawn from the poll, its relevant statistics are listed, and that's all. Where is the WP:OR violation in including something relevant to, but not an example of, discrimination? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The OR is an implied conclusion... that the the prejudice indicated by the poll is in some way discriminatory, or directly leads to a discriminatory act. What is needed is a source that actually says the poll results are or lead to a form of discrimination. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. If the article implied that the prejudice demonstrated in the polls lead to discrimination, we would need a source to say that. But it doesn't. You are reading too much into the polls. All that is implied is relevance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few places that specifically mention the poll alongside discrimination. They obviously think it is relevant to discrimination:

Legal Times article calling atheism "The Final Prejudice"

Richard Dawkin's website published an article explicitly calling voters' views discrimination.

Albert Mohler notes that Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association says "resistance to atheist candidates is a form of wrongful discrimination." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this one is reliable, the website says it has both public and professional authors, but it mentions the poll and discrimination together.[88]

Interview by the American Humanist Association mentioning the poll and discrimination together.[89]

Derren Brown mentions the poll and discrimination together.[90] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you narrow down this list to the ones that are reliable sources (ie "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy")? A quick glance suggests there is more than one that is questionable. I've demonstrated this for you a few times in the past, so imagine you know the ropes.--Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

6 is too many? They should all be reliable. I noted the one I wasn't sure about. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look again, keeping the criteria "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" firmly in mind. ie the material should be not be self-published (no blogs, articles posted on websites without editorial supervision etc), and it needs to be third-party, ie not an atheist website. I've spent hours doing this kind of check on sources you provided in the past, and I'm sure you understand that it's time for you to put what's been shown to you into practice. --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when can't it be an atheist website? These sources are not here to verify factual accuracy, only relevance. I think this is entirely pointless as the relevance of prejudice to discrimination is established by multiple dictionaries. Now we have multiple sources linking them. These are probably the best three: [91][92][93] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(indent)Ok, let's look at your three best sources.

• [94] A self-published transcript of a podcast hosted on an atheist website, therefore reliable only for the opinions of atheists. And in fact the only mention of discrimination comes when the host reports [After Stark's speech] "there was a Q&A session afterwards and number of the people asking questions wanted to focus on atheist as a distrusted minority and the discrimination against atheist and the congressman was pretty emphatic in saying that: "Atheist are not demonized in Congress." All that it shows is that according to an advocacy website's description, there are some people out there for whom discrimination/distrust etc is a talking point, and that Stark disputes that he has been discriminated against. No evidence that "prejudice demonstrated in the polls leads to discrimination" per Blueboar
• [95] A self published opinion column/blog by a Christian fundamentalist, and therefore reliable for his opinion, which not surprisingly, is to disagree with Fred Edwords' contention. "The more important question is the one raised by Fred Edwords. He claims that resistance to atheistic candidates is a form of wrongful discrimination. Is it? Not hardly."
• [96] This one is a reliable source, as it was published by the Legal Times. As it is clearly written as an opinion column (lots of "we" statements), it could be used a source for Somin's opinion. (BTW, it contains some intriguing claims of discrimination against atheists in the context of child custody disputes, which should certainly be checked out) However, Somin specifically segregates things he views as "prejudice" from those he views as "discriminatory". The polls and political/social exclusion are both given the former label.--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a contradiction that these sources establish that prejudice is relevant to discrimination which is all that is necessary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point that Blueboar made. We already know that prejudice is related to discrimination. We need to find an independent, reliable source shows that "prejudice [as] demonstrated in the polls lead[s] to discrimination". Where do you see this in the sources you provided? --Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. This claim is not made in the article. We do not need sources for claims that are not made. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I understand now what the problem is, though I think we've been through this before. In an article about discrimination against atheists we only include information about discrimination against atheists. Things that other secondary reliable sources have determined are related to the topic specified. Including random information because we think it is related is original research and also contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, gg. This debate is now closed. This is you in your previous post, "We already know that prejudice is related to discrimination." This is you now, "In an article about discrimination against atheists we only include information about discrimination against atheists. Things that other secondary sources have determined is related to the topic specified." I'm glad we agree :). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may say so, AF, the use of imperious phrases such as "this debate is now closed", is just plain rude and entirely unconducive to harmonious editing. I've noticed similar approaches before, unfortunately. It's also untrue, as I am proving by my reply. Blueboar says you need to find a source stating that "prejudice [as] demonstrated in the polls lead[s] to discrimination". I said "In an article about discrimination against atheists we only include information about discrimination against atheists. Things that other secondary sources have determined is related to the topic specified." You have not done this, and instead try to use sources showing there is a relationship (though also a clear difference) between X and Y to justify the inclusion of information on X in an article about Y. It's original research. Jaguars are related to domestic cats. Does that mean that information about cats is relevant in the article about jaguars? No, not unless a reliable source has specifically commented on the specific issue at hand and made it significant and notable enough for inclusion.--Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaguars are not synonymous with domestic cats. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We have sources that have commented on the specific issue on hand and the polls, as I've said. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? The article does not claim that prejudice leads to discrimination. Stop saying it does. Blueboar was wrong to make that inference because it simply is not there. You can stop quoting him as some sort of authority on Wiki policy. I'm not going to pander to every editor who comes up with some half-baked issue with a fact listed in the article. We write about what the sources write about. The sources write about this poll. There is no OR violation. There is no synth violation. There is no notability violation. The polls have huge significance and are relevant to the topic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed material from the article. I think it's fair to say that there is not consensus for its inclusion per discussion here and on NORN, and strawmen arguments about my posts and those of a highly experienced editor such as Blueboar as well as the unsubstantive responses to the objections raised has convinced me that this material is not appropriate for the article. If you disagree, why don't you try an RFC and see if you can get support of other editors for your position and interpretation of policy.--Slp1 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the material. You have not provided the least bit of evidence that this material violates any policy. It is repeatedly mentioned in discussions about discrimination against atheists. It is synonymous with discrimination. In addition, you are deleting material not involved in this discussion that you yourself previously agreed to including, how shameful. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's Stark, discrimination, and the poll all mentioned in the same article by the San Frandisco Chronicle.[97] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a site calling the poll discrimination.[98] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

Removed OR and Globalize apparently maliciously added, and in any case unjustified and unactionable (since nothing pointed out corresponding to same). Noting that this subject inapplicable to China where the literate classes have been atheistic since classical times. The same would be true for countries with non-theistic religious institutions, e.g. Burma/Myanmar. The reverse, discrimination against various superstitions/cults is the reportable topic in those cases. Lycurgus (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese atheistic since classical times?

The literate or thinking Chinese from the dawn of civilization in China or the land area later known as China have always believed in a No. 1 God in Whose name the emperor rules the people.

Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably believers chafe at this article because there is an inherent bias against superstitions and irrationality in modern, secular, scientific society, indeed in the society of intelligent beings anywhere who have risen to the level of scientific culture. To the extent that backwardness and persistent and pernicious remnants of pre-scientific irrational belief systems coexist with progressively more reason basedness universally, the sort of contretemps above are universal as well. The general pattern though is demonstrated by modern chinese society, belief in the gods of European antiquity, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also acknowledging I missed the OR subthread above which appears to be resolved, please make it a separate thread so others don't miss it if it's not. Lycurgus (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what country you're coming from, but if there's any bias in the US, it's against secularism. This is most likely a result of the Cold War, as the USSR was an atheist state. Further, secularism is far from the dominant force in even "modern" society. The non-religious only make up 10-15% of the world. Even in places accepting of atheism, like Europe, the non-religious are a minority. I, personally, can't say anything about China. I've studied it a bit on my own time. The religion and culture is so radically different from the West, it is difficult to compare the two. You could consider a Chinese person "religious" even if they didn't believe in a "God." Further, as with most countries, you could debate about respondenet's willingness to report their religious views if they have any as it is politically advantageous to be an atheist in China right now, as I understand it. Anyway, there's an article on the Demographics of atheism, if you're curious. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note that the dispute over the supposed WP:OR violation was just a couple of days ago. I don't know if it was ever "solved." The discussion just ended. I was going to wait a week before declaring the matter closed per WP:SILENCE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief note to say in this case Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. I've decided that editing this page further is just not worth the bother. I began a post a few days ago pointing out that per WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", so the onus is on AF, not other editors in his reinsertions; I was going to note that despite AF's repeated claims, the meanings of "prejudice" and "discrimination" are not synonymous, as noted at NORN and in multiple scholarly sources [99][100][101][102]. I was going to... But what's the point? After months and months of this, I've had enough.

This is supposed to be a fun hobby, and it's no fun working with editors apparently more interested in promoting their personal views and article ownership[103][104] than any collaborative, respectful, scholarly work.[105] I find it extraordinary that editors who on the surface claim to promote a reason-based, scientific approach, should have such uncritical trust (faith?) in advocacy websites and their contents, so little interest in critical thinking,[106] and use such an imperious approach in their edits.[107][108] The editing has many of the hallmarks of tendentious and disruptive editing, and that includes succeeding in driving this editor away. I've tried long enough. Have fun guys! --Slp1 (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the above, except to respond that I am the United States, however in "there is an inherent bias ..." I obviously was not referring to that country but the general, universal situation. Also there is a persisting western myopia on this topic consistent with the idea that human history began 20 centuries ago, which for peoples that emerged (to some degree) from barbarism at that time, it did. However at that time in southern and eastern asia more advanced cultures already had highly developed civilizations and more sophisticated belief systems. This article is not about irreligion as such but atheism and so it is naturally more applicable to the Abrahamic cults which are its (theism) final and complete expression, and completely inapplicable to eastern and southern asia which contain more than a third of the planetary population and where said cults made whatever penetration they were going to make (i.e. Islam and the negligible christian penetration) some time ago. As stated, the topic doesn't even make sense in China because educated Chinese have rejected belief in gods and spirits since Confucian times. The problem of superstition and ignorance in China is not distinct from education generally and is not exacerbated by pernicious organized irreason as it is in the US and to a much lesser extent in some parts of Europe. Lycurgus (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your post went a little over my head...but you seem to imply that China has been completely irreligious for centuries. A quick search on Chinese religion in Wikipedia leads me to this section in Confucianism which states, "the 1970s scholars have attempted to assess the religious status of Confucianism without assuming a definition based on the Western model (for example, Frederick Streng's definition, "a means of ultimate transformation"[9]). Under such a definition Confucianism can legitimately be considered a religious tradition." Again, I'm far from an expert on the Far East, but I would be hesitant to compare modern western atheism to near ancient Confucianism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the notion that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide editors with a 'fun hobby', I rather see it's purpose to be that referred to in my comments in talk:The System of Nature. Lycurgus (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Aan

The case of Indonesian atheist, Alexander Aan may fit into this article.There are multiple references in the media. 110.174.247.16 (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Barry Fensom

Islamic countries

The article mentions Islamic countries and seems to make sweeping generalization that seems sort of biased I think this should be changed to show which countries Please tell me if you disagree I am not making changes right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.167.213 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking in talk. I'd say that, sure, you can make changes. Just make sure that you review WP:NPOV and WP:OR first, and make sure that you cite reliable sources for the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will be erasing the mention of Turkey under "Islamic countries", since Turkey is a constitutionally secular democracy with a big Muslim populace. Turkish legal system does not recognize Sharia law and Turkey doesn't have a state religion. Calling Turkey an Islamic country makes as much sense as calling Italy a Christian nation since vast majority of it's citizens are Christians. For the record, I am a proud Turkish atheist. Drigeolf (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are of course correct that it was wrong to list Turkey as an Islamic country. However, I think that the material itself was adequately sourced, so I restored it, but moved it out from under the Islamic countries section header. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That solution seems much better than simply erasing the statement. I'm still new at editing, so I'm kind of learning . Thanks for being considerate. Drigeolf (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish edit on "internal links"

edit was explained as "moving internal links to see also". But those internal links are just mentions of the publishers of the report at the external link provided. And putting them in the "see also" is mistaken, because those organisations don't deal with discrimination only. 188.112.170.51 (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't understand that. What made me do that is that WP:MOS requires that the External links section be only for, well, external links, with internal links going instead in the See also section. It's not necessarily a problem to have See also links to subjects that are only partially related to the subject of this page (in this case, discrimination), so long as the links fit the concept of "if you are interested in this page, you may perhaps also be interested in these other pages". For that reason, I wouldn't mind leaving them in See also. On the other hand, if you feel strongly that they are not needed there, we could instead just remove them. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to provide extended information about publishers in the External links section, however, since readers who click through to the external link can read about that there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to "Discrimination against atheists and agnostics"

I wish discussion had taken place before the move. I skimmed through the article, and I only see 4 mentions of "agnosticism" or "agnostics" anywhere in the article. Many stats discuss atheists specifically, while excluding those who identify as agnostics. I don't think the title of the article should be "...atheists and agnostics" unless we do a fundamental rewrite. For starters, we'd need to talk about agnosticism somewhere in the lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. It also strikes me as making the page name wordier and more complicated than it needs to be. In fact, one could argue that there is discrimination against the irreligious and the insufficiently religious, and it opens up a can of worms as to how far the subject matter of the page should be extended. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I also object to the change in title. "Discrimination against atheists" already encompassed agnostic atheists, and stretching the topic to encompass agnostic theists seems too broad, in my opinion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Let's have a discussion about whether this article should be moved to Discrimination against atheists and agnostics. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

This article text is srinkingly similar to the fourth chapter of [109]. It is impossible to be a coincidence. Looking at the article's history, it seems to me that the book by Robert Firth written in May 2010 copied wikipedia, not the other way round. Lechatjaune (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You are right: Chapter 4 of that book seems to be copied directly from here. However, I want to make sure that the copying is not, in fact, the other way around. The first time the lead of this page was identical to the opening of that chapter was here: [110], in an edit by me! I was changing punctuation from the edit just before mine: [111]. Before that, the opening sentence was not identical to the one in the book; after that, it was. Those edits were on the last day of December 2011. The book is copyrighted in 2012. The book preface is dated May 2010, no independent verification. It looks like a self-published e-book, not one from a reputable publishing house. Looking at the edits to the lead, the sentence got the way it did through a series of successive edits by different editors, so no one editor could have copied directly from somewhere else. Assuming the book did not appear online until 2012 (perhaps not a correct assumption), the page was here before that. Taking those things together, I have to agree with you that it does not seem possible that any editor here could have copied the text wholesale from the book.

As long as it's not the other way around, then we have no need to do anything about deleting anything here. Mr. Firth (who should, perhaps, be less inclined to throw around the word "idiots" in his book title) is not well reflected on, but Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3 license allows him to copy, albeit not without attribution. I'll list the publisher at WP:MF. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he clearly copied Wikipedia. Our first paragraph has hardly been altered over the last four years. And his copy has the recent changes. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No legend for world map of state discrimination

There is no legend to explain what the color coding on the world map for the status of various states means. without a legend or key no useful information can be gained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.21.223.235 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I looked at the file description page, and the data seem to be compiled by the editor from multiple sources, so there is no obvious key to the colors. I'm concerned that the image may therefore violate WP:SYNTH. Should we delete it? I'm going to wait a few days and see if any editors want to defend or improve the image, but if no one does, I'll delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the editor who created the graph has been indefinitely blocked. I'm going to delete it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Slight Contradiction in "Ancient Times" Section

Two sentences appear in the "Ancient Times" Section

1. Historians including Lucien Febvre agree atheism in its modern sense did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century. 2. Philosophers such as Plato argued that atheism (as we understand it today) was a danger to society and should be punished as a crime.

These sentences together imply that Plato, who lived in the fourth century B.C., was aware of a sense of atheism that did not exist until thousands of years after his death. This implication should be either made explicit or removed. Perhaps Plato argued that atheism as it was understood in the first few centuries BC was a danger to society? If in fact it is true that Plato could see thousands of years into the future to criticize a sense of atheism that did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century, it is important that the fact is included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugTimXII (talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good catch. I made an edit that hopefully corrects that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Philippines

I know there's a large scale discrimination against athiests in the Philippines. Any information on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.216 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

PA Law

The PA law, as stated IS discriminatory in favor of believers but it is NOT discriminatory against non-believers, it is in fact silent about that. Saying that it is discrimination against atheists is a) counterfactual and b) fails to collect the implicit gain there in the underlying acknowledgement that having irrational beliefs ought otherwise to disqualify you from roles requiring rational functioning. Such disqualifications are what this statute interdicts, it's tortured and doof to construe this as discrimination against atheists. It's true for example that affirmative action can be considered discrimination against the group considered to not need such action due to quotas for a fixed number of slots, but nothing like that applies here. Lycurgus (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thailand

What are the references to discrimination against atheists in Thailand by buddhists? Why isn't there any source to back up this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousAbout (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The material was added recently, and I tagged it as lacking sourcing. If sourcing isn't provided soon, I will delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional problem with this section, namely that (most) Buddhists are atheists. The historical Buddha is not G-d as in religions like Christianity and Islam. What are currently characterised as negative attitudes toward atheists are probably better described as negative attitudes toward the irreligious.Bill (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

While Buddhism does not require a god-belief similar to the Abrahamic religions, few Buddhists consider themselves to be atheist: Bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism are functionally indistinguishable from gods, many schools of Vajrayana Buddhism incorporate overt religious practices and beliefs, and many Buddhists follow other religions in addition to Buddhism. Your point about negative attitudes towards irreligion is accurate, I think -- Indonesia, for example, has a list of "approved" religions and national law requires all people to follow one of these -- but such a distinction would have no impact on the content of this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why Thailand which is majority Buddhist is listed as an Islamic country.

I also find it necessary to challenge the apparently very narrow definition of Atheism to include Buddhism. There may be multiple definitions of what constitutes an Atheist, and the one I would use is a person who denies any spiritual beliefs, and this would include things such as the occult or astrology etc. Buddhists believe in after-life so cannot be Atheists. It appears that for the purpose of this Wiki Site, Atheists are only being defined as people who don't believe in a God80.111.155.138 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

NONSENSE

What a bunch of anti-American bullshit. Look at the biggest part of the article .... You Wikipedia people are complete and utter angry morons. And this is coming from an Atheist. You make ALL of us look like idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As anyone who reads the United States section can clearly see, the section is well-sourced and accurately represents discrimination against atheists in the United States. Sometimes the truth isn't what you want to hear, but that's too bad - it is not the fault of contributors to this article that discrimination is particularly strong in the U.S. In fact, I'm surprised any American atheist would see otherwise unless looking at the U.S. through rose colored glasses. It's Wikipedia's policy to channel the views from the sources to the article, while making sure that the article proportionately reflects the views of those sources. If you don't like the views, or don't trust the data and statistics, then your quarrel is with the sources, not this article. John Shandy` • talk 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing says you can't improve it. Knock yourself out. "In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century." If the discrimination that goes on in Arizona can happen, it's easy to see the dust being brushed off this. Honestly it could use more information. Do something to add something. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note also challenges against Cecil Bothwell taking office in Asheville, NC, because article 6 section 8 of North Carolina's state constitution still states “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this is ignoring that the Supreme Court overruled these anti-atheist laws in 1961, as the very article notes. SorcererCallandira2 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)SorcererCallandira

Even so, this happened. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

With reference to the comments by John Shandy, I have to say that I can see where you are coming from, there is quite clearly a campaign by believers which is all about disinformation, semantics and sophistry that you would expect from a 10 year old.

Some examples are as follows: Pacholimus appears to argue that if it is not forbidden in the Bill of Rights, then it is permitted. Notwithstanding that the Bill of Rights applies to less that 4% of the world's population, he goes on to argue even more spuriously, that if he refuses to employ an Atheist for that reason, it is not discrimination as long as someone else is prepared to offer him a job. So what happens if the alternate employer doesn't care that he is an Atheist but doesn't like the fact that he is a black man. If you follow the logic put forward by Pacholimus, because Pacholimus doesn't mind that he is a black man, then neither of the two prospective employers have discriminated against the prospective employee.

Elsewhere, others have claimed that it is not discrimination to vote against a political candidate because he is Atheist, or where SCOTUS have struck down a state law because it gives rise to affirmative action, because SCOTUS does not specifically mention that the law is discriminatory, it cannot be discriminatory. These arguments are irrational and specious. As soon as you do anything to favour one side over another, it is about choice, and ultimately all choices are discrimination. Where state laws discriminating against atheist are struck down by SCOTUS, it is because they breach the victims first amendment rights to Free Speech, and by necessity, this must include freedom of thought including the right to believe, or not to believe.

Quite apart from giving these comments a "free pass", I have other criticisms which I have mentioned elsewhere, including the fact that Thailand is described as a Moslem country, and that Buddhists are classed as Atheists. In my opinion, this whole article falls well below the standard that we would expect of Wikipedia, and bearing in mind the posts from the Christian Conservatives who are happy to accuse anybody that they disagree with of being "Liberal", I cannot help but wonder if the originator of this article did not somehow feel intimidated into showing his "objectivity".

As to the opening comment on this section and further to my previous paragraph, there are only two groups in the world who wring their hands about Atheists: Moslems (with apostasy issues) and Christian fundamentalists in the US. It is a very common tactic of propagandists that rather than arguing an unarguable case, they will resort to shooting the messenger. Hence the allegation of Anti-Americanism.80.111.155.138 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed Thailand section

In Thailand, atheists do not have any recognized legal status, and must declare that they are either Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Hindu. Atheists are forced to pay respect to Buddha and participate in Buddhist ceremonies in schools, universities, and work places. Thai people have negative attitudes toward atheists and have stigmatized them as an outcast, uncivilized group, and at the worst public enemies.

I removed the Thailand section and blockquoted it here. It has been flagged CN since May 2013. A very quick search did not show anything supporting this or any discrimination of atheists in Thailand. Another editor had just removed "Atheists are forced..." sentence. Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination

In the summary it states "Legal discrimination against atheists is uncommon in constitutional democracies, although some atheists and atheist groups, particularly in the United States, have protested against laws, regulations, and institutions that they view as discriminatory." Is there a valid source for this?

"In some Islamic countries, atheists face discrimination and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment." One quarter of Muslim Majority countries punish atheism by capital punishment. More punish it via other means. Using the word "some" seems to demean the extremity of it.

Also I'm unsure on the image guidelines. It would be nice if we could update the image with a picture of this map: http://freethoughtreport.com/map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.35.18 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEO atheophobia

Removed this as a violation of WP:NEO, WP:LEAD (not mentioned once in article body), WP:SOAP (advocacy, I've never heard it used in mainstream press) (and also WP:LOADED)

Atheophobia, the fear or hatred of those identified as atheists, is known to cause or be associated with this discrimination.

-- Aronzak (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Death penalty for atheist in Malaysia?

Hey, can anyone provide a copy from Malaysian law that said "Any atheist will be facing a death penalty in Malaysia"? I believe there is a capital punishment in Malaysia (for example: murder, drug trafficking etc.) as have been stated in the country laws. But I still never saw any law that said atheist will be executed. I have put a "citation needed" tag for Malaysia, please do not remove it until there is a more credible source to support the claim. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 23:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No they can not, because it does not exist inside Malaysian law. Neither in Iranian law, Pakistani law and so on. Any yellow media speculation should be removed if it's obviously unfounded in official law documents. --MehrdadFR (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The information was from a Reuter's report that took the Freethought Report 2013 out of context. If you look at the paper they were writing about, it never mentioned once that simply being atheist will get you the death penalty. It only said that apostasy is "punishable by death", nothing more. Nothing in the paper suggested that being atheist it and of itself makes someone liable for the death penalty. Sega31098 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page for a week to make the edit warring stop. Feel free to continue the argument over the contested material here; I assume that currently it's the wrong version, but the edit warring is unseemly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I didn't protect it long enough; no problem, edit warring has its own penalties. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The two editors who have been edit warring here have been advised that if they edit this article again without using this talk page, they will be blocked. Both of them have now been blocked at least twice, but they don't seem to get the point. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What's up with the edits?

So a lot of back and forth editing is going on. Did I stumble into a war between religious guys and non-religious guys or what the heck is the reason for all the edits. I updated the world map with 2015 data, and shortly after the out of date map from 2007 is back. I updated the article with data from the main source - that is the report the Reuters article gets the information from. The Reuters article is both out of date and a secondary source. I specifically state this in the edit text but lo and behold, Chronus reverts the edit without even specifying why. Wikipedia in a nutshell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulver-ftw (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea, since neither of the more virulent edit warriors had any interest in actually using the article talk page to discuss their desired changes. Which is why one is currently blocked, and the other was previously and will be again if they edit this article without using the talk page. I haven't even bothered looking at the content being warred over; no reason, since the behavior is the problem. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, Ulver: you should read WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are preferred on wikipedia over primary ones. 2013 also isn't particularly old, unless there's been some significant update in that time. I left both sources in for now, but we should generally defer to a news source like Reuters which discuss a report over citing the report itself. Thanks for your edits!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Map accuracy issues

Discrimination against non-religious persons

  Free and Equal

  Mostly Satisfactory

  Systematic Discrimination

  Severe Discrimination

  Grave Violations

I started a discussion on commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg concerning accuracy of the map concerning discrimination against atheists. Jim1138 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this page, and I've been having concerns similar to yours. I think that it is often a problem when editors try to generate maps, attempting to use a color scheme to represent information from a source, unless the source itself uses the exact same classification system. Unless the source really does that, we end up in WP:OR territory (and if the source does provide the classification, then we need to make to sure that the source passes WP:RS and WP:NPOV for this purpose). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the classifications used on the map are exactly the same classifications in the source document, with each country colored based on its classification in the source document. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving the map here. It fails the bullshit test. If it accurately reflects the source, then I suspect that the source is bad. I may be wrong, but since there are at least three of us who are concerned, TechBear, it's up to you to convince us before including it.

"Free and equal" in Niger as well as Japan? China's as bad as Saudia? The UK is worse than the US, despite having openly atheist elected leaders and the Church saying you don't need to believe in God to be a good Anglican, vs. it being illegal to hold office in much of the US? At best, I think we should present this as the evaluation of a particular org, note that it only concerns legal issues, and not put it in the lead as if it were fact. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the source: [112], although I didn't download the report to evaluate whether it uses the same classification scheme. It is the work of The International Humanist and Ethical Union: [113]. They are an advocacy organization (as opposed to, for example, a scholarly or journalistic source). As such, I agree with Kwami that it does not belong in the lead, and that it should only be presented with attribution. I think we can consider putting it lower on the page, with something like "according to The International Humanist and Ethical Union". On the other hand, just considering the objections about specific countries that various editors have already raised in this talk, I'm more inclined to leave it out. I'd like to hear from User:Muhammed Kabir, who added the image, before we make a definite decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is getting split between the commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg and here. Jim1138 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

China is black because it strictly controls, censors and monitors absolutely every aspect of religious life. It meets the "EXPRESSION OF CORE HUMANIST PRINCIPLES ON DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IS BRUTALLY SUPPRESSED" boundary condition.

The map is supposed to depict discrimination against non-religious persons not freedom of religion. The Chinese government is officially non-religious so they would have to discriminate against followers of the official state religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And as TechBear said on the other page, the two users who dispute this report (Jim1138 & kwami) clearly haven't read or understood it. The classification is based on state laws, not social norms or behaviour such as Christians only voting Christian persons to government in USA. Niger, despite being a country with many problems, has no laws which discriminate against atheists.

The position and how the map is presented in the article is separate issue, which I have attempted to fix.--Muhammed Kabir (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I've been over it. The map caption now states "Discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation." which does not reflect the reports statement that it is a summary of state laws. One could easily assume that the map is about any and all discrimination against atheists. My comparison discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg here of Australia and the USA demonstrates that the map does not reflect actual discrimination. Also, the report does not always follow its own charter: China, I would suppose no laws discriminating against atheists. However, the report seems to change its rating systemology and reports here on religious discrimination. The map does not indicate this digression and is therefore deceptive. I agree that China is highly discriminatory toward some religions, but the report claims to be a report about discrimination of atheists. Even titling the map to the effect of "state laws discriminating against atheists" would be inaccurate. Given all this, I conclude that the map is essentially useless and should not be on this article. Jim1138 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You are again comparing state and social discrimination, when the report is on state discrimination only. China is black because is violates humanists principles, and the map caption has been updated to show it also covers humanists. Please read pages 14-27 of the report.--Muhammed Kabir (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the image moved down to the "contemporary" section of the page made me notice that it is now directly above another map, that is full of "cite needed" tags. And the two maps differ from each other in ways that are not easily figured out by the average reader. I'm just not seeing what encyclopedic benefit we derive from either map, and I'd be inclined to delete both of them from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the maps are too simplistic a method of representing this issue. The first map does not represent actual discrimination. The second map, one or two elected atheist official out of thousands would change the color. Jim1138 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they would, but this is no different than the map at List of elected or appointed female heads of government. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted them both, with no prejudice to putting either or both back if consensus ends up that way. But I think the new map in the lead is not problematic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be open to the state law map used in conjunction with a map on actual discrimination. I suspect the date for that kind of map would be very costly to compile. Jim1138 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The new map is specifically about Islam, which is inappropriate. Last I heard, the Catholic Church still had the death penalty for apostasy, though it hasn't been enforced for centuries. (But God's Law doesn't change, so it's never been revoked.) The map should be for apostasy from any religion; I'm assuming that this means only Islam in the modern world, but I don't know that for sure. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the new map is out of date, per the source cited (which does appear to be current). I've revised the image caption from the revision that you made, and I think it is clear that, in the image, we are talking about present-day enforcement of the death penalty, so it's just a fact that the image will be Islam-only. I don't think that's a problem, because this page is about discrimination against atheism, not about discrimination by religion. I realize that's a subtle distinction, but it means that we report discrimination where it exists (per sources), as opposed to having to balance coverage across religions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of date how?

Yes, discrimination where it exists. I just wanted it to be clear that it was about discrimination and apostasy, not about Islam. 15:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Kwami about out of date, if you compare the countries shown on the map (created in 2007) with the countries named in the cited source (dated 2013), they are not entirely the same. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How unproductive, you've deleted it yet nobody has shown how it is unreliable. It is disliked because it focuses only on state discrimination, and does not focus solely on atheists, but also humanists. You could make a map focusing on one or more of the boundary conditions, but then somebody will just complain it's original research or not neutral. Shame.--Muhammed Kabir (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize that you are relatively new to editing, but we are all here to try to make the best edits that we can, and we can have sincere disagreements. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are important, not trivial complaints. There is no reason the image(s) cannot be restored if that's what we agree on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

The map that marks countries in black that, at a national level have a death penalty in place for apostasy is inaccurate and contradicts it's referenced source. The reuters article in question clearly states that as of 2013 countries that have a death penalty in place for blasphemy and apostasy are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are marked on the map in black despite not being mentioned in the article while Maldives and Malaysia are marked despite the fact they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/grothe-dacey_24_2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/petestark.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 18:01, 26 May 2016 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421040130/http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/ed_pubs/pubs/Mississippi_Constitution.pdf to http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/ed_pubs/pubs/Mississippi_Constitution.pdf

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S state laws against Athiests holding office are unenforcable

Despite the laws being on the books these laws are technically not enforceable and exist in text only. Any attempt to prevent in Athiest from holding office in these 7 states would be struck down by the supreme court as it goes against the following principles in the consitution:

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states:

   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and

   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of  the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,  both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by  Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test  shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I am going to update the article to show that because otherwise it's sending the wrong message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.120.236 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Map revisited

Yesterday, I reverted an edit by 80.6.101.84 (talk · contribs) for deleting the map and additionally removing other templates. At the time, I didn't notice the user's comments in the two-year old Map accuracy issues thread on this talk page to discuss the map. (The revert was justified though, as the edit removed more than just the map, as was claimed.) I've started this thread to discuss the issue raised by the anon user, and copied that user's comments below. Mindmatrix 15:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Copied from earlier thread:

The map that marks countries in black that, at a national level have a death penalty in place for apostasy is inaccurate and contradicts it's referenced source. The reuters article in question clearly states that as of 2013 countries that have a death penalty in place for blasphemy and apostasy are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are marked on the map in black despite not being mentioned in the article while Maldives and Malaysia are marked despite the fact they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

But Why is the map still up. It has been wrong for what, 10 years? Accusing several states for having capital punishment when they don't... Well It's just mean. I am not faliliar whit edditing, but I will try to remove it.2A00:1680:AA1C:0:656C:29F6:1774:1903 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed it. But I hope someone can make a better map to replease it2A00:1680:AA1C:0:656C:29F6:1774:1903 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the map. Would you please give some wp:reliable sources showing which countries have capital punishment for being an atheist? Freethought report and IHEU report lists 13 countries which have a death penalty for being an atheist (Pakistan is included as the blasphemy threshold level is very low). Jim1138 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please list which countries have the severe penalties for apostasy or being an atheist and I will update a map. Please include refs. Please wp:ping me so I am sure to notice. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim. I am sorry but this is almost the fist time editiong the wikipedia, and I find it rather confusing. Also English is not, as you may have guessd, my fist language. I simply did see the image, And I know it was wrong. It contradicts all sourses it is based on.

Jordan, do not have death penalty for the "A" word crime, that I can never manage to spell anyway. But it do have it for traditional things like killing and that kind a stuff. Hopfully inserting a link hear... https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Jordan

That is a compleat list of ways to get death penalty in Jordan. Beaing a Atheist, or converting from Islam, as the image illustrates, is not on the list.

According to the report you pout a link to, it also do not'Bold text' claim that it is death penalty for being, or converting to Atheism. But that systematic diskrimination is common. That is page 346 of the report

Someone further up also pointed to other mistakes of similar character.

Point beeing that the image is fatally wrong. Litterary. And that it in my opinion do more damage then good on the page. This is on the same level of saying that the USA has death penalty for ill-talking the President.

So I think the image should go. At least correct it to the correct countys. Idealy a entire new map that shows the waying degrees of discrimination against Atheists. But this has to go.

I will remove the imgae again in a week or so if it is still up. I will try to alert you on the... Chat? So that you and change it, or respond to me. 2A00:1680:AA1C:0:D8E6:A53C:2602:97F3 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will use this list published by The Independent to generate a map.

1. Afghanistan
2. Iran
3. Malaysia
4. Maldives
5. Mauritania
6. Nigeria
7. Pakistan
8. Qatar
9. Saudi Arabia
10. Somalia
11. Sudan
12. United Arab Emirates
13. Yemen

Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I updated the map just now with the 13 countries listed above. Jim1138 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208144104/http://www.secularhumanism.org:80/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508175203/http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228202939/https://positiveatheism.org:80/writ/ghwbush.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011112234/https://d171.keyingress.de/multimedia/document/228.pdf to https://d171.keyingress.de/multimedia/document/228.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228104545/http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf to http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

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) 12:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete info about Jordan

I quote from the article: "Jordan requires atheists to associate themselves with a recognized religion for official identification purposes.[132]". Recently, the new ID card was designed to not include religion per a royal decree in 2016. I don't have a reference now (I am using a free Wikipedia offer) but you will find plenty of you search. at least I'm sure my ID card does not list me as a Muslim. SammyMajed (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Discrimination against atheists → Persecution of atheists – This page has gone beyond just "discrimination". It lists examples of executions, mob deaths, etc. A move is needed for consistency with articles like Persection of Christians and Persecution of Muslims and ALL of the other articles. It is NPOV to claim that some of things that happen (especially in Muslim countries) are only discrimination. 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the instances of actual persecution are a small part of the article which is mainly about discrimination. Discrimination against Christians you'd expect to be milder than persecution... which is why it redirects to Anti-Christian sentiment. Likewise Anti-atheist sentiment should redirect here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi (and when we agree, good luck). (I fixed the spelling in the proposed title). --В²C ☎ 19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi.--Jobas (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was recently a dust-up over Category:Persecution by atheists, and maybe that plays into this proposal. "Of" and "by" are not equivalent. (And I fixed the capitalization.) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:CENSOR

Some text was added 8 February 2017, I think for the first time. Omitting the refs for simplicity, the text was:

The Nazi Party was known for its persecution of Christian Churches; many of them, such as the Protestant Confessing Church and the Catholic Church, as well as Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses.

That text is clearly inappropriate as it has nothing to do with this article. Further, the text does not fit with the paragraph where it was placed. Factoids should not be added to articles unless they are pertinent to the topic. Another curious aspect of the edit concerns the two references which appear to have been copied from another article, but that can be ignored for the moment.

The added text was removed and re-added on 28 February 2017. That used WP:CENSOR as a justification in its edit summary. Referring to WP:CENSOR is a common mistake which can be avoided by reading the linked policy and understanding what it says. Removing the text is good editorial judgment, not censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)