Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:48, 15 July 2017 editMarcocapelle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers555,717 edits →Category:Persecution by atheists← Previous edit Revision as of 16:19, 15 July 2017 edit undoXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmtNext edit →
Line 289: Line 289:
::*The '''''Soviet''''' government imposed state atheism in an attempt to remove opposition from religious leaders who were respected by many citizens. The persecution was a Soviet government attempt to silence opposition, and atheism was merely their tool. ] (]) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ::*The '''''Soviet''''' government imposed state atheism in an attempt to remove opposition from religious leaders who were respected by many citizens. The persecution was a Soviet government attempt to silence opposition, and atheism was merely their tool. ] (]) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
::*Thank you, Knox490, for providing yet "another source" which shows it was the Soviet regime forcing atheization upon the populace, not "atheists" as the source of the persecution. And "state atheism" was indeed a goal of the Soviets, which they never actually achieved. And by the way, I didn't "empty a category". Many editors (, , , , etc.) have removed the WP:OR category from articles where there were no reliable sources to support it, and replaced it with actual supported categories like ], ], and ]. If that resulted in an empty category, it is not surprising, as the category was originally created to push an ideological fiction with zero reliable source support. ] (]) 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) ::*Thank you, Knox490, for providing yet "another source" which shows it was the Soviet regime forcing atheization upon the populace, not "atheists" as the source of the persecution. And "state atheism" was indeed a goal of the Soviets, which they never actually achieved. And by the way, I didn't "empty a category". Many editors (, , , , etc.) have removed the WP:OR category from articles where there were no reliable sources to support it, and replaced it with actual supported categories like ], ], and ]. If that resulted in an empty category, it is not surprising, as the category was originally created to push an ideological fiction with zero reliable source support. ] (]) 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
⚫ :::*While it's true that a few users have removed the category, Xenophrenic emptied the category of the vast majority of the articles and . Xenophrenic also engaged in edit warring when he removed the category here, .] (]) 00:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::*That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills. The link you provided shows Marcocapelle commenting about my removal of personal attacks, not categories. And your link to edit warring is instead to a clueless drive-by editor who didn't bother to join the discussion I initiated. There's your edit warrior. And by the way, I didn't "empty a category". Many editors (, , , , etc.) have removed the WP:OR category from articles where there were no reliable sources to support it, and replaced it with actual supported categories like ], ], and ]. If that resulted in an empty category, it is not surprising, as the category was originally created to push an ideological fiction with zero reliable source support. ] (]) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I have seen nothing in this discussion that would change my position from what it was in the previous discussion. This category would lump together disparate kinds of persecution, mostly by state actors who had additional motivations for persecution. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC) *'''Support''' – I have seen nothing in this discussion that would change my position from what it was in the previous discussion. This category would lump together disparate kinds of persecution, mostly by state actors who had additional motivations for persecution. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''-- Xenophrenic makes false (and vague) claims. The "extensively discussed" claims listed under ] were ''no consensus''. While one person (the closer) considered "the current title" to be original research, that hardly makes everything original research. Xenophrenic asks to please "quote me exactly" but gives no reasons for his vote, failing to hint at his "extensively discussed" reason(s) said to be elsewhere. ''']''' '''<sup>]</sup>''' 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC) *'''Keep'''-- Xenophrenic makes false (and vague) claims. The "extensively discussed" claims listed under ] were ''no consensus''. While one person (the closer) considered "the current title" to be original research, that hardly makes everything original research. Xenophrenic asks to please "quote me exactly" but gives no reasons for his vote, failing to hint at his "extensively discussed" reason(s) said to be elsewhere. ''']''' '''<sup>]</sup>''' 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
:* Correction: The previous discussion was closed as '''No consensus - with caveats.''' and the admin closer concluded the arguments provided (Arnoutf, myself, etc.) identified this category as ]. Your comment appears to be nothing more than a personal screed against a fellow editor, rather than about this discussion subject. You "voted" Keep, and yet provided <u>zero</u> policy-based reasoning for it. You provided <u>zero</u> source-based reasoning. So how much attention do you suppose a closer will give to your comment? My prediction: zero. ] (]) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
⚫ :*While it's true that a few users have removed the category, Xenophrenic emptied the category of the vast majority of the articles and . Xenophrenic also engaged in edit warring when he removed the category here, .] (]) 00:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::*ILIKEIT commentary is not helpful. How about a reliable source showing that ] was an example of persecution resulting from atheism? As explained above, the '''Soviet''' government used atheism to silence opposition. Atheists did not use communism to take power—actually, communism used atheism. Until a reliable source says otherwise, the persecution was the same as that from every other totalitarian regime and was not a case of persecution due to atheism. ] (]) 00:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC) :*ILIKEIT commentary is not helpful. How about a reliable source showing that ] was an example of persecution resulting from atheism? As explained above, the '''Soviet''' government used atheism to silence opposition. Atheists did not use communism to take power—actually, communism used atheism. Until a reliable source says otherwise, the persecution was the same as that from every other totalitarian regime and was not a case of persecution due to atheism. ] (]) 00:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Procedural proposal'''. Let's just delete this category as empty and if anyone creates ], which will happen soon I guess, then we can have a fresh discussion that really focuses on the new title. The current discussion is too much confounded by discussing the category under its current name. ] (]) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC) * '''Procedural proposal'''. Let's just delete this category as empty and if anyone creates ], which will happen soon I guess, then we can have a fresh discussion that really focuses on the new title. The current discussion is too much confounded by discussing the category under its current name. ] (]) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
** '''Better Procedural proposal'''. Let's just delete this category because it is empty due to failing ], and because it is ] (see previous close decision), and because it doesn't have a '''a substantial and encyclopedic head article''' (See ]), and because it was a bad-faith, ] creation made in retaliation by an editor engaged in a dispute with another editor categorizing religious persecutions (violating ], which requires that categories be neutral and uncontroversial). Adding to the "Discussion Close Statement" the obvious fact that other categories can always be created seems a little strange - unless the intent is to promote a specific category. (Why you would suggest creating yet another equally problematic category, without mentioning the articles you would attach it to, and without a "head article defining it", and with reliably sourced wording that directly refutes it just 5 paragraphs up on this very page, is baffling to me.) ] (]) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:19, 15 July 2017

< July 3 July 5 >

July 4

Category:Doctors of Law

Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: per long precedent against categorising people by which type of degree they hold. (See an incomplete list of discussions at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Academic_and_honorary_degrees). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
That discussion was long ago. It is quite useful and notable fact of biography, and I do not see any reason not to categorise people by this property. --Glovacki (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Glovacki: What does Doctors of both laws mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: It is a special degree, see Doctor of both laws. --Glovacki (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mathematics and abstraction infobox templates

Nominator's rationale: The "and abstraction" does not add information. Consider the pages it contains, Mathematics infobox templates is more descriptive. Golopotw (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Economic development, technological change, and growth

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a duplicate. The latter also includes "innovation" and both have the "JEL: O" code. Fixuture (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by Muslims

Nominator's rationale:This category is controversial. This category fails WP:OCEGRS. This category violates WP:CATVER in that it is not NPOV and seems to be POV pushing. Categories like these seem to have an accusatory tone by oversimplifying people's worldviews and relating them to complex situations. There is a difference in saying "Persecution of..." and "persecution by..." so I think it looks vulnerable to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Also it does not stand up to WP:NONDEF in that the subject is not defined by any meaningful sources. It just looks like it was made in bad taste. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is quite a large category highlighting a genuine problem in the world today. For example, the Yazidis of the Middle-East are in danger of being completely exterminated, there are 10 Islamic countries that have death penalty for homosexuals, and 14 that enforce it against atheists. The entire point of Misplaced Pages is to keep the public informed about reality, not to sugar-coat it to conform to political correctness. David A (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Here are some articles that inform about the above-mentioned issues: David A (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The "persecution by Muslims" and the "persecution by Christians" categories do not have anything defining the persecutions. For instance, none of the articles point to a sacred text or even the religion as the sole cause of persecutions. In fact the "main article" for the Muslim category is one line on the Religious persecution page in the section titled '"Persecution of minorities in Islamic lands"' . That is very sloppy.
You're right. It's coming back to me now. The article on Persecution of Muslims was deleted back in 2012. Some felt that "Persecution of X" was a valid topic but "Persecution by X" wasn't. Apparently some felt persecution should be organized by victims. Ultimately there was no comprehensive book covering all persecutions by Muslims over its 14th century history and the article was deleted but in the discussion you'll notice that there was no opposition to a category, as categories don't require a defining article (or at least they didn't back then.) Thus, I created the category. The category links to a paragraph in the general Religious Persecution article that has wikilinks to persecutions of each victim group. This explains this history. Similar structures exist for other religious groups as persecutors. The categories have an important grouping purpose precisely because there is no article on the topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The controversial nature of the "Persecutions by..." categories is pretty clear since the situation of "persecutions" is incredibly complex. In Islam, early Muslims were persecuted by pagan tribes and yet there is not Category:Persecution by Pagans. Muslims have a complex relationship with Jews and Christians which include even Muhammad's followers taking refuge under Ethiopian Christians while they were being persecuted in Arabia Migration to Abyssinia. It is an interesting part of Islamic history and it shows that the interactions were complex and not reducible to blaming a person's worldview as the source of persecutions. This stuff is very complex. In the Quran there are many positive verses on non-Mulsims and there have been numerous examples of tensions between Muslims too so should we make Category:Persecution of Muslims by Muslims too? It is an endless blame game. We know that everyone has blood on their hands - even atheists have done it, but it makes little sense to blame a worldview like the "Persecution by..." categories are doing. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by Christians

Nominator's rationale:This category fails WP:OCEGRS and is controversial. This category violates WP:CATVER in that it is not NPOV and seems to be POV pushing. Categories like these seem to have an accusatory tone by oversimplifying people's worldviews and relating them to complex situations. There is a difference in saying "Persecution of..." and "persecution by..." so I think it looks vulnerable to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Also it does not stand up to WP:NONDEF in that the subject is not defined by any meaningful sources and the category is too small with very few entries.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The "persecution by Muslims" and the "persecution by Christians" categories do not have anything defining the persecutions. For instance, none of the articles point to a sacred text or even the religion as the sole cause of persecutions.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The controversial nature of the "Persecutions by..." categories is pretty clear since the situation of "persecutions" is incredibly complex. For instance, both Islam and Christianity were both historically persecuted (early Muslims were persecuted by pagan tribes and Christians were persecuted by Jews (like Paul) and Romans in the earliest centuries - and yet there are no Category:Persecution by Jews or Category:Persecution by Pagans or Category:Persecution by Romans. Keeping in mind that in Christianity there is no doctrine of persecution, nor is there a sacred text that exemplifies that people should persecute anyone, nor did the founder of Christianity espouse such views on persecutions (he was persecuted himself and advocated forgiveness not persecution), shows that these events are not reducible to simplifications based on a people's worldview. This can become and endless blame game. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with being a "blame game" as there is no implication on a religion as a whole. I would welcome the categories you mention (by Pagans, Romans, etc.). The Category:Persecution of Muslims by Muslims would be especially useful. Shiites are being persecuted in Pakistan. There are many cases and a category would help the researcher study and compare each cases. This is what a category is for. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that by focusing on the title of "Christians", "Hindus", "Muslims", etc this category is associating those worldviews with persecutions as if they are a defining characteristic. Merely being a Jew and doing "action X" does not mean that one can associate Judaism with the action. Often times, sacred texts or worldviews are not the driving force for persecutions of anyone since the texts and traditions for persecuting are usually nonexistent. Instead, ethnic, political, and economic factors are the main drives for persecutions (coexistence is the norm). Since such is the case, associating persecutions with worldviews ignores the real complex motivations and causes of persecutions listed. Per WP policy, categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.
  • Nonsense. Adding a modifier creates a sub-category. For example, Communist is a socialist who believes in violent revolution. Not all socialists believe in violent revolution. Likewise, there are intolerant Christians, Muslims, and atheists who persecute others. This is a subcategory. Not all Christians, Muslims, and atheists are intolerant. Let the sources dictate sub-categories instead of your POV. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Where are the sources that speak of persecutions by the mere fact that one would be a Christian? It would just as weird to make a category named Category:Persecution by white people since color is not a source of persecution, but rather cultural, political, and economic factors involved. I have never read a source actually says that Christian beliefs or doctrines was the main reason for a persecution of any group of people, especially since relationships among groups overlap and are not uniformly monolithic. Not to mention that Christians have been diverse across time and cultures and also that most of the issues in any given persecution is ethnicity and culture. For instance, the concept of Holy War or even Augustine's Just War theory does not come the Bible (Jews never developed such a concept either). These come from cultural sources like thinking Roman thinking on war and political pressures to defend against Middle Eastern invaders. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The mere fact of adding a differentia to a genus creates a sub-category. The differentia doesn’t apply to all of the genus as you insist it has to. That’s what makes it the defining attributed of a sub-category not the parent category. This is the basis of Aristotelian logic that we’ve been using for 23 centuries. Draw a Venn diagram if it helps you. Add persecutor to Christian and you get the subcategory Christian persecutors. Add persecutor to atheist and you get the subcategory Atheist persecutors. Traditionally one holding belief X only held that others were wrong. When they held that others should not be tolerated they became persecutors, a subcategory. These subcategories aren’t arbitrary or empty as reliable sources show. For Christian Persecutors see Spanish Inquisition. For Atheist Persecutors see USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941). Jason from nyc (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm...the Spanish Inquisition was a complex situation that emerged after 700 years of Reqconquest attempts against the Moors which had dominated the region since 8th century . Around the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Spanish had finally achieved the reconquest. Economic jealousy (similar to anti-immigrant talk today) arose when "Conversos" (Jews who had supposedly converted) began to have economic and political inlfuence and of course concerns over the loyalty of the subjects under the new Spanish rulers (there was word that some crypto-jews were apparently planning to overthrow the crown) was a core issue for the inquisition to even start. Centralizing power and creating a nationalism of sorts was the goal of the inquisition since uncertainty of loyalty of "false converts" was a threat to national security of the new Spain. In a strict sense, it does not seem that theology was the basis for the inquisition and there were mixed responses by the Pope and Christians elsewhere. Like I said the situations are complex and not reducible. The blame probably belongs to Spanish politics and Spanish leaders rather than on "Christians". Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Draw a Venn diagram if it helps you. --Jason from nyc
Okay, let's try that. Here we go! Add persecutor to brunette and you get the subcategory Brunette persecutors. You are right, that did help! It revealed that you are employing a logical fallacy in your argument. You see, the reason we don't create a Category:Persecution by brunettes, and the reason we are deleting "Persecution by atheists", is because such categories wrongly imply persecution because of brown hair or atheism, which is nonsensical. According to reliable sources (including those at USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)), the Soviet communists, not atheists or brunettes, were the source of the religious persecution. We all agree there was religious persecution, but if we are going to categorize "by XXX", then XXX should reflect the cause according to sources, and not one of its effects. That is why we have Category:Religious persecution by communists and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union because sources support those, while the "Persecution by atheists" is empty due to lack of sources. Are there reliable sources which convey that persecution was committed in the service of the Christian God or in compliance with a Christian tenet, commandment, or divine dictate? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't need to establish whether something "leads to" in order to have the category, that would become too POV. We just need to have cases that fit the category well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • True, but by associating persecutions with worldviews it ignores the real causes of persecutions in the first place (e.g. ethnic factors, political factors, economic factors, etc). There already are articles on religious violence, but by associating groups by worldview with persecution, it reduces it to blaming a worldview. For example, if we had a category "Persecution by Americans", it would associate American beliefs and culture as the source of conflicts when being an American was not the main reason for engaging in persecutions with any particular group (i.e. Native Americans, Latinos, and other minorities). Economic, political, and ethnic factors would be more fitting than blaming it on national identity or nationality. Does this help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not about blaming a worldview, it's rather about not neglecting some darker aspects of the history of that worldview, in order to have a full and neutral coverage of its history. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That is already covered in the "Persecution of..." categories and they have more entries. All worldviews have a dark side, but the dark sides are more complex and certainly not reducible to a worldview being the main or core source for it. Look for example at The Troubles in Ireland where Catholics and Protestants were fighting each other. Many had referred to this as a religious conflict because Catholics and Protestants were inded fighting, but it turned out that it was a nationalist and ethnic conflict over the how the Irish lost some land and wanted it back. This is just an example of what I mean.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This category is about violent actions of some of Jesus' followers to suppress other religions or heretics. Whether that is in line with Jesus' teachings is irrelevant for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Christians never engaged in "violence for the sake of Christianity" because the term Christianity does not exist until the 1300s and also because no Christian doctrine or the Bible was used as the main or sole motivator for a specific act of violence. In reading sources form Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, no one made such a claim ever. the sources such as this provide context and it specifies that the cocnept of Holy war did not emerge until the 11th century. 1,000 years after Christ.desmay (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not relevant when the term Christianity emerged. Neither does it matter whether a doctrine or the Bible was used as the sole motivator. The category is about Christian people, not about Christian theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by Buddhists

Nominator's rationale:This category violates WP:CATVER in that it is not NPOV and seems to be POV pushing. Such categories carry an accusatory tone. This category is controversial and looks like it is quite vulnerable to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and also it violates WP:NONDEF in that the subject is not defined by any meaningful sources. Furthermore, it does not have a "main article" for this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by Hindus

Nominator's rationale:This category is controversial. This category violates WP:CATVER in that it is not NPOV and seems to be POV pushing. Categories like these seem to have an accusatory tone of complex situations as if a worldview leads to particular malevolent intent inherently. In fact it looks like it is quite vulnerable to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and also it violates WP:NONDEF in that the subject is not defined by any meaningful sources. Furthermore, it does not have a "main article" for this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Former users that were percecuted by wikipedia-admins

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: WP:SNOWy delete — xaosflux 12:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm pretty sure there is no persecution of users by "wikipedia admins". Category created by a user who is fed up with Misplaced Pages and probably wanted to illustrate a point by creating this category and adding himself to it. SoWhy 09:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

17th-century Dutch people by occupation

Option A
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, again a series of scattered Dutch history categories created by User:Hocimi. Note, perhaps "scientist" is an anachronistic target, but we have scientists categorized as such in earlier centuries as well, so let's leave that discussion for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Option B
This is what I believe the alternative proposal should look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider the alternative option B
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support Option B save that the scientist target should be "natural philosophers", not naturalists, a term that does not have quite the right meaning - amateurs studying fauna and flora in general. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (as nom) I still prefer option A, as the more conservative one. As noted, both options require a follow-up nomination to satisfy Peterkingiron's request regarding natural philosophers, but the core of that follow-up discussion should be how to treat the 17th-century (and earlier-century) scientists. In option B we are already confounding the Dutch subcategory before we have had the chance to discuss the structure in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by atheists

Nominator's rationale: Empty category which also fails WP:OCEGRS. Previous discussion closed as no consensus, but I believe it's a good time to revisit given that the category is unused and is unlikely to be so in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
CORRECTION: The previous discussion was closed as No consensus - with caveats. This category has been identified as original research.
I can't help wonder how many related socks may have participated in that last discussion. I see several registered accounts commenting below who have hardly any edits since the last discussion. I'm hopeful the closer will exercise due diligence. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Several users voted to keep the category in last discussion: User:Lepricavark, User:Majoreditor, User:John Carter, User:LoveMonkey, User:Laurel Lodged, User:Eliko007, and User:Ramos1990. You are making a serious claim. All of the users who voted to keep the category have been genuine. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Golly gee Renzoy, did you just inappropriately canvass a bunch of editors to this discussion because they previously "voted to keep the category"? As I said before, "I'm hopeful the closer will exercise due diligence." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Atheists are not a homogeneous group and their only defining feature is a lack of belief in deities, so they can by definition not persecute people. That's like having a Category:Persecution by people who don't collect stamps. Certain people who are also atheists can persecute people but not because they are atheists. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Some regimes have committed persecution, but where is the reliable source that asserts such persecution occurred because of atheism? WP:OCEGRS includes "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." That is, this category is a made-up intersection because it would not be possible to write an article about persecution by atheists that satisfied WP:N and WP:V. A couple of sources mention the fact that some leaders of dictatorial regimes have persecuted others, and the leaders have not had a religious faith. That is merely asserting the obvious, namely that dictators persecute opponents regardless of the religious beliefs of the dictator. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: per above. About as pertinent as Category:Persecution by people with auburn hair. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per the long discussions at the last CfD. There was some talk of an alternative, but nobody followed up. Instead, those arguing to keep simply persisted as though there was consensus to keep (without "caveats"). Not going to bother repeating the various arguments from the other CfD unless necessary. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep and repopulate; consider renaming for clarity Look, we have Category:Persecution by Christians even though they are also heterogeneous, and the reality of dogmatic atheism on the part of various communist/Marxist governments is inarguable fact, as is the various massacres and executions which used to be listed—accurately—in this category. What's tendentious is how this category keeps getting emptied by people defending atheism from its most evil advocates. And as for auburn hair, persecution of albinos is a thing. This category perhaps ought to be smaller than it once was, but it has been emptied to deny the truth of official persecution in the name of an officially atheist state. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Inspiring, but please give some reliable sources that have written about persecution by atheists. Such sources would justify an article on the topic, and that (per WP:OCEGRS) would justify the category. Until there are sources, the category is a made-up intersection. Re auburn hair, this discussion is about persecution by atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The policy of the Soviets, and their acts, are extensively documented, and I really have to think you know that; as anyone can see from the previous go-'round, we have plenty of articles. If there is a problem, it's with the word "persecution", not with "atheists" or any other group/faith/religion/philosophy/whatever label. There is no arguing that various documented acts were done in the name of some religion or atheism: the only arguable, POV issue is whether or not it was OK. The direction this is taking is suppressing the whole notion of persecution at all: if "persecution by" is a problem, so is "persecution of", and for the same reason. As a Christian, I don't think it is actually controversial that there has been persecution of Jews by Christians, in the name of the Christian religion. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What you are arguing for is actually Category:Persecution by Soviets because their ideology (as Soviets, not atheists); see also Marxist–Leninist atheism. So a Category:Persecution by Marxist–Leninist atheists might also make sense, since that is and was an ideology that promoted antireligionism. Another potential category might thus be Category:Persecution by antireligists. People cried "In the name of god" or "for communism" but I don't think there is a single time anyone cried "for athe!" before doing something. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that "The policy of the Soviets, and their acts, are extensively documented" - and we have categories for those acts (Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Religious persecution by communists, etc.). But "Soviets" aren't under discussion here. Under discussion is the nonsensical Category:Persecution by atheists, which implies individuals were driven by their lack of belief in gods (atheism) to persecute fellow human beings. Your equating "atheist" to a faith, religion, "whatever", reveals an ignorance of this subject matter. When you assert, "There is no arguing that various documented acts were done in the name of some religion or atheism", you attempt to conflate an absence of belief in gods with religion, and you demonstrate that you fail to understand: atheism, unlike religions, is merely an adjective and has no "commandments" on what to do or not do, and no texts, scriptures and books dictating whom to shun, stone to death, cast out, sacrifice, lop off a hand, or otherwise persecute people. You've been asked to provide reliable sources showing that "an absence of belief in gods" is the cause and reason behind persecution, but you have ignored the request, or perhaps you JUSTDIDNTHEARIT. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mangoe: Please don't duck issues with debating tricks. Just produce "reliable sources that have written about persecution by atheists". Not Soviets. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You know the Soviets were officially (and personally) atheistic. Pot: kettle.Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Some were, many were not. Some "claimed" to be when they were expected to be outwardly "officially" atheist. But they were also officially Russian, and officially revolutionary, and officially communist, and officially lots of things, but I think you know Johnuniq was asking you for reliable sources indicating "atheism" as the cause of persecution. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete All of these "Persecution by..." categories are quite problematic and the same things said of atheism here apply to all the other "Persecution by..." categories on Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Muslims, etc. Namely, these are all contorversial categories; by definition none of these groups has persecution embedded in it nor is persecution a defining feature of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or Atheists; none of these categories are NPOV, they do not meet criteria for Misplaced Pages policy on categories, etc. I have put the rest of these categories up for deletion since they are not useful and they make broad associations that other have complained about atheism here, which apply to the rest (Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims). Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete IF other similar "Persecution by.." categories are removed, otherwise Keep for consistency Other editors, including me, provided numerous reliable sources on persecution by atheists in a last discussion - some of them are in BOLD. I originally advocated to "keep" at that time since the other categories like Persecution by Hindus, Persecution by Buddhists, Persecution by Christians, and Persecution by Muslims were not being contested the same way the Persecution by atheists category was. I found that to be a double standard. This time around I have decided to nominate them all for deletion since the other categories suffer the same issues as this one and many arguments heard here apply to those other categories (e.g. by their definitions none of these groups identify with persecution so why is this category here...the worldview is not the source of persecution...etc). I hope that there will be some all around consistency this time in either direction. But just an FYI. The idea of atheists doing some persecuting is not really original research since reliable sources are available (e.g. - "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs. This article seeks to explain why atheists, with the full support of a totalitarian state, were unsuccessful in secularizing Russian society." and oh, I see others have provided other sources too below). But I still argue for consistency either way. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The source cited just now by Ramos1990 indicates the Soviets & communists as the source of persecution, not atheists, which were the source of propaganda. We already have a "Persecution by communists" category for this. The Froese source says that the "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union" and work toward a secularized society, just as they have continued to do in much of the Western world until present day, while the "The Communist Party" destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders..." - or, in short, persecuted. So a category named "Religious persecution by a communist party" does have at least one source to support it. The Froese source does not support the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" creation, however. The Froese source mentions "persecution/persecuted" exactly six times, and every time attributes it to Soviets / Communists - not atheists or atheism. What the "totalitarian state" did to persecute religion with the hopes to create an atheistic society was indeed beyond normal secular government, and this Froese article correctly places blame for actual persecution (unlike our misleading category under discussion) on the communists, not atheists: systematic religious persecution began in the 1930s and reemerged periodically according to the whims of Soviet leadership -- religious practices became the scapegoat of the Soviet ideological machine -- In addition to liquidating religious advocates, the Soviets also promoted religious ignorance -- Soviets undermined their own purpose by so brutally persecuting religious leaders and defacing religious symbols -- as Soviets faced death from a foreign invader, religious persecution was put on hold -- Soviets found that religious rituals and holidays were the most difficult outward expression of religion to suppress ... Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Copied here today from previous discussion: Xenophrenic (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Ramos1990 says "reliable sources on persecution by atheists" were presented in the last discussion. They were not, and the closing admin determined the "persecution by atheists" was a work of original research. Ramos1990 says there are other sources below, but they, too, are not reliable sources conveying "persecution by atheists". I agree with Ramos1990 that all categories should be treated consistently: if they are well supported by reliable sources, keep them, and if they are based on improper conflating and original research, delete them. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
From part of the conclusion, "The failure of scientific atheism in Russia is interesting because it had every advantage. First, the Soviet government generously financed atheists while brutally suppressing religious advocates. For this reason, scientific atheism should be considered the equivalent of a religious monopoly. Second, scientific atheism was promoted throughout Soviet Russia in schools, work-places, and the community. Finally, scientific atheism offered rituals, ceremonies, and the promise of a utopian society as a direct alternative to religious offerings.The most generous estimates of atheistic belief show that less than one-quarter of Russians were atheists and this number dramatically drops to around 5 percent of the population after the fall of communism. In other words, scientific atheism was surprisingly unsuccessful when one considers all its competitive advantages." Atheists were communists in power who made the policies and had the poltical power to do as they pleased and they certainly promoted their ideology. The source even says on p.46 "On some level, the failure of the Soviet political and economic system explains why scientific atheism never replaced religion. Because scientific atheism was inextricably tied to Communist ideology, the inability of that ideology to sustain a viable political and economic system also produced its inability to sustain committed believers."" Some other stuff is in the conclusion section too "Many of these problems stem from the fact that scientific atheism was an ideology imposed on a population from official channels. Communists did not attempt to engage the hearts and minds of would-be converts but expected individuals to simply bend to patently superficial beliefs. In fact,Communists forbid any active discussion concerning the weaknesses of scientific atheism even in the attempt to improve them. The ultimate indication that atheism never inspired the Russian people is that it virtually disappeared after the fall of communism. In this, scientific atheism closely resembles the weakness and impotence of monopoly religions that rely on political favoritism for subsistence and become apathetic to the needs of their congregations." The government could have been neutral and that would give validity to the Soviet/Atheist distinction you made (Forese does not make such a distinction and uses the terms interchangeably), but it clearly took a side - they even made the League of Militant Godless to promote atheism for the state to the masses. One can be Communist and any worldview in principle, but the worldview pushed in that region was atheism and it was the government's ideology. Otherwise, there would be no focus on atheism to speak of and it would be treated like any other modern government which separates church from state. Hope that helps clarify.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with your blue text, as it does NOT convey that atheists are the source or cause of persecution. In fact, it says the Soviets were the source of the religious suppression and persecution, just as it was the Soviets pushing atheism on a resisting populace. Atheism is an effect, an end-result, it is not a cause. It is not enough to find sources which have the words "persecution" and "atheist" on the same page and then paste them here in blue -- you need to actually read and understand what the source is saying. the Soviet government generously financed atheists while brutally suppressing religious advocates. Clearer now? scientific atheism was an ideology imposed on a population from official channels. Communists did not attempt to engage the hearts and minds of would-be converts". Please read your sources more carefully. What I do have a problem with is your interpretive editorializing of your quoted source; your personal opinions slipped in between the sourced blue text. Froese certainly does not use the words 'atheist' & 'Soviet' interchangeably, as you assert. That appears to be only in your mind. And your statement, "the worldview pushed in that region was atheism and it was the government's ideology" is not only false but nonsensical. Atheism is not a worldview, nor a philosophy of life, nor an ideology (Krueger 1998), although it is a popular religionist tactic to misleadingly assert so. Do you have any reliable sources that convey that "atheists" were the cause of persecution, instead of Soviets-Communists-Other totalitarian regimes? As of this posting, there isn't a single one mentioned on this page. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could identify those arguments for us. Even just one; perhaps point to the argument you feel is the most convincing? As the closer of the last discussion noted, "I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is"." There have been no new reasons given in this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"State atheism" isn't atheism, and is a misnomer. "State atheism" is a term created and misused to describe a regime's policies toward religious institutions, while "atheism" simply describes a person's absence of belief in gods. Please remember that categories must be unambiguous and noncontroversial, and you've just demonstrated that this one is neither. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The category Persecution by Atheists is nothing more than a grouping of those atheists who are intolerant of religion to the point of trying to suppress it. It isn't all atheism or the claim that atheism must be repressive. Clearly the prime example of atheist persecution of religion is the suppression of religion by Communists. Now the vast extent of Communist repression was not on a religion basis but that doesn't refute the fact that Communists were atheists who forcibly suppressed religion. This alone warrants the category and it is unambiguous. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please at least skim WP:Overcategorization because categories are not supposed to be an intersection of features—not unless reliable sources have written about the intersection and its significance. Sources are needed because it is not relevant whether editors are convinced that "persecution" and "atheists" belong together. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The suppression of religion by communist authorities is extensive and volumes have been written about it. It clearly isn't "Small with no potential for growth," "Narrow intersection," "Arbitrary inclusion criterion," or any of the other trivialities mentioned in WP:Overcategorization. Now one can quibble about what to call the category but it is not minor or narrow. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The burden of providing a source is on editors who believe this category should be kept. To repeat, what sources have written about persecution by atheists? Please provide citations showing that some independent sources have made that connection. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
See the sources in State atheism or in the articles of Category:Religious persecution by communists. Knock yourself out. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't that hard but I assume that the fact that Lenin was an atheist and that the Soviet government had an official policy of atheism and that they imprisoned killed and otherwise harmed people to this end is going to be rationalized around, particularly by "refuting" arguments that nobody has made. Look, it is irrelevant that atheism isn't an organization; neither is Buddhism, and the multiplicity of churches amounts to the same thing. It doesn't matter if most atheists didn't think like the Soviets. The reality of state atheism as a policy in the USSR, especially in its early days, is well-documented, well enough documented that I have to expect that all the "show me the citations" folks here already know about it and are arguing in bad faith in the pretense that they don't. Perhaps an argument can be made that all categories about persecution should be deleted because the word carries moral connotations, but seeing as how the various articles exist in the first place because people did actually think it was wrong to do these things, which is how they got to be notorious, I see a problem with doing that. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think he said "reliable" sources, so I think we can do better than a book by the leader of the Theos advocacy think-tank for the propagation of theology. But even the section you linked in that source attributes the "persecution" to the Soviets, rather than to "atheists". While some here would love to pin the source of the persecutions of religion by the Soviets on "atheists", it is an historical fact - according to the very sources being cited here: Peris, Husband, Marsh, Froese - that the Soviets were motivated to suppress the religious institutions because they were political enemies in the competition for influence over the citizenry. Not because the Soviets were atheists. Are you aware that the Soviets also propped up the Orthodox Church when it suited political ends? (No, they didn't suddenly "find Jesus".) Were you aware that many of the League of the Godless were actually devout Buddhists, and were sponsored by the Soviets when it was politically expedient? {No, they didn't didn't suddenly become "pro-religion".) The misleadingly-named and nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" category is not supported by actual reliable sources, because it implies that the source of persecution was the absence of belief in gods. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I’m not unsympathetic to an argument presented here by those objecting to the category. This is the idea that from atheism (holding that evidence for God is lacking) nothing follows. There are no ethical or political implications. Let’s call this the defining concept. The category’s proposed name merely tells of that some atheists (or better anti-religious people) sought to forcibly suppress religion. These were totalitarian collectivists. Most atheists are not. The category doesn’t imply the notion that atheism rejects morality and leads to oppression and persecution. This view, common among religionists, sees atheism as something more than simply being unconvinced—let's call this the total worldview concept. Jensen’s book is interesting but he seems to accept the total worldview thesis.
You’re completely right, Mangoe, that the “reality of state atheism as a policy in the USSR … is well enough documented.” Denying it is tantamount to holocaust denial. But for those who want to review, the Category:Religious persecution by communists has links to the literature. The four article that breaks down Soviet persecution by period is a good place to start. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The category’s proposed name merely tells of that some atheists (or better anti-religious people) sought to forcibly suppress religion. --Jason from nyc
There! With that one sentence, you displayed the perfect example of why the category under discussion is being deleted. You just conflated "atheists" with "anti-religious people". While some people in the various anti-religion campaigns for which we have Misplaced Pages articles may have been atheists, some (probably even more) also may have had black hair. If you wish to create a Category:Persecution by anti-religious people, a description you just admitted is "better", you might avoid violating our WP:OR policy.
The category doesn’t imply the notion that atheism rejects morality and leads to oppression and persecution. --Jason from nyc
False. It absolutely implies atheism leads to persecution, which as we know from reliable sources is a false implication (but one advanced by some religionists). So why would you support a category name which perpetuates that myth? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The mere fact of adding a differentia to a genus creates a sub-category. The differentia doesn’t apply to all of the genus as you insist it has to. That’s what makes it the defining attributed of a sub-category not the parent category. This is the basis of Aristotelian logic that we’ve been using for 23 centuries. Draw a Venn diagram if it helps you. Add persecutor to Christian and you get the subcategory Christian persecutors. Add persecutor to atheist and you get the subcategory Atheist persecutors. Traditionally one holding belief X only held that others were wrong. When they held that others should not be tolerated they became persecutors, a subcategory. These subcategories aren’t arbitrary or empty as reliable sources show. For Christian Persecutors see Spanish Inquisition. For Atheist Persecutors see USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941). Jason from nyc (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Draw a Venn diagram if it helps you. --Jason from nyc
Okay, let's try that. Here we go! Add persecutor to brunette and you get the subcategory Brunette persecutors. You are right, that did help! It revealed that you are employing a logical fallacy in your argument. You see, the reason we don't create a Category:Persecution by brunettes, and the reason we are deleting "Persecution by atheists", is because such categories wrongly imply persecution because of brown hair or atheism, which is nonsensical. According to reliable sources (including those at USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)), the Soviet communists, not atheists or brunettes, were the source of the religious persecution. We all agree there was religious persecution, but if we are going to categorize "by XXX", then XXX should reflect the cause, and not one of its effects. That is why we have Category:Religious persecution by communists and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. And by the way, I never said that "differentia must apply to all of the genus", so you are arguing against a straw man position I never took. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
If reliable source said that brunettes persecuted blondes on the basis of hair color, we’d be talking about it. Reliables sources do say that people have persecuted other people on the basis of belief. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Reliables sources do say that people have persecuted other people on the basis of belief.
Yes, they do indeed -- and those are being discussed in the deletion discussions about various religions above. But this section is about Persecution-by-atheists on the basis of an absence of belief in gods, which is not conveyed by reliable sources, and that is why the related category is empty. You've been pressed to provide specific reliable sources that say otherwise for our review, and each time you have balked. I consider that in itself to be informative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is it? Keep the category? Or create a new category called "Persecution by atheist states"? And for your fiction "persecuted non-atheists", you'll need to provide actual reliable sourcing that indicates the origin of the persecution. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
And I'm fairly certain K.e.coffman had no "agenda" against Apollo The Logician when he nominated this problematic, original research category for deletion. Hey wait a minute, I see that you have commented above at the various "Persecution by -religion-" category discussions, and you said As the Category:Persecution by atheists category is in the process of being deleted, this one should be as well. All of these categories are inherently problematic and seem to be attack pages. Yet you said keep this original research category?! You're agenda is showing, and I don't think a closing editor is going to take you seriously. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is it? Keep the category? Or create a new one called "Persecution by atheist states"? Do you intend the new category to be for states that persecuted, and also happened to be "atheist", or did you intend it to be for states that persecuted because they were "atheist"? I'm asking for clarification because your assertions below about France, et al., run counter to the reliably sourced historical fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
duplicate text

@Johnuniq closer examination of the numerous academic sources provided (Peris, Blainey, Husband, Marsh, Froese, Painter, etc) show extensively that there were active attempts by atheists, with the help of government power, to actively persecute religious people and institutions and also to actively promote atheism to the masses (via atheist organizations, literature, legislation, teaching atheism in school, proselytizing for atheism, etc) to enforce worldview-control, not just political or economic control.--desmay (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC) all the historical reliable sources provided (none of which were from religious apologists - by the way - but by practicing historians), clearly relate atheists and/or atheism with goals that affected the destiny and unfortunate fate of religious people and religious institutions. The support of the state simply helped accelerate the attempts to reach atheist influenced anti-religious goals. One source, Pew, even showed increase in religiosity and decrease in irreligiosity and atheism after fall of the USSR which indicates some relief from repression since switching occured. Painter, who is an active historian reviewed such a claim a found it to be historically incorrect in light of historical scholarship.desmay (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Some source - "STORMING THE HEAVENS: THE SOVIET LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS" by Daniel Peris (Cornell University Press) - The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization" By Paul Froese (University of California Press) - "The New Atheist Denial of History" by Borden Painter (Palgrave Macmillan) - "Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932" by William B. Husband (Northern Illinois University Press) - The Pew Research Center which shows that after the fall of communism religious identification increased because of atheist repression of religion during the Soviet rule.-
all the historical reliable sources provided (none of which were from religious apologists - by the way - but by practicing historians), clearly relate atheists and/or atheism with goals that affected the destiny and unfortunate fate of religious people and religious institutions. The support of the state simply helped accelerate the attempts to reach atheist influenced anti-religious goals. One source, Pew, even showed increase in religiosity and decrease in irreligiosity and atheism after fall of the USSR which indicates some relief from repression since switching occured. Painter, who is an active historian reviewed such a claim a found it to be historically incorrect in light of historical scholarship.
@Johnuniq closer examination of the numerous academic sources provided (Peris, Husband, Marsh, Froese, Painter, etc) show extensively that there were active attempts by atheists, with the help of government power, to actively persecute religious people and institutions and also to actively promote atheism to the masses (via atheist organizations, literature, legislation, teaching atheism in school, proselytizing for atheism, etc) to enforce worldview-control, not just political or economic control.--desmay (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Painter, the ordained priest and religion-apologist, and former historian again? I think we can probably find higher quality sources here. As for Peris, Husband, Marsh, Froese, they all convey that the various religious "persecutions" were done by the Soviets for political and societal influence reasons against a competing institution, not because the persecutors were atheist, which is what the category misleadingly implies. (And each of these sources were raised in the previous discussion.) "active attempts by atheists, with the help of government power, to actively persecute religious people is a fiction not supported by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Uh..Just an FYI. Paul Froese actually does state, in a research paper - "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs. This article seeks to explain why atheists, with the full support of a totalitarian state, were unsuccessful in secularizing Russian society." Perhaps desmay was paraphrasing the quote?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That source is an advocacy website and fails WP:RS. No one has produced a source that is reliable for interpreting historical events and which writes about persecution by atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The research paper is not for or by the website, they merely linked it since it is from an academic journal. Here is original article link in the journal from the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. So of course it is a RS. He also has book on it from another academic publisher. Hope that helps clarify.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that Froese does state that, but it indicates the Soviets & communists as the source of persecution, not atheists, which were the source of propaganda. We already have a "Persecution by communists" category for this. The Froese source says that the "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union" and work toward a secularized society, just as they have continued to do in much of the Western world until present day, while the "The Communist Party" destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders..." - or, in short, persecuted. So a category named "Religious persecution by a communist party" does have at least one source to support it. The Froese source does not support the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" creation, however. The Froese source mentions "persecution/persecuted" exactly six times, and every time attributes it to Soviets / Communists - not atheists or atheism. What the "totalitarian state" did to persecute religion with the hopes to create an atheistic society was indeed beyond normal secular government, and this Froese article correctly places blame for actual persecution (unlike our misleading category under discussion) on the communists, not atheists: systematic religious persecution began in the 1930s and reemerged periodically according to the whims of Soviet leadership -- religious practices became the scapegoat of the Soviet ideological machine -- In addition to liquidating religious advocates, the Soviets also promoted religious ignorance -- Soviets undermined their own purpose by so brutally persecuting religious leaders and defacing religious symbols -- as Soviets faced death from a foreign invader, religious persecution was put on hold -- Soviets found that religious rituals and holidays were the most difficult outward expression of religion to suppress ... We need to stick to what the sources say, not our personal original research interpretation of what the sources say. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, we already have a category for persecution by communists. An additional category, on top of the communist one, could contain e.g. the persecution of Catholics by the Mexican government in the 1920s and by the Spanish government in the 1930s. However I'm not sure whether the Mexican and Spanish regime at that time can be characterized as "atheist", so I would be hesitant to support this rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @User:Marcocapelle According to many sources (such as - Haas, Ernst B., Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress: The dismal fate of new nations, Cornell Univ. Press 2000) the Mexican government in the 1920s was characterized as an atheist state. In addition, there have been other acts done by atheist states, including the simultaneous promotion of atheism and persecution of Roman Catholics by the French government (1789–1799), which was the first instance in the world of such a thing . Both of these are non-Communist states that upheld a doctrine of state atheism. It is therefore inadequate to categorize this is Persecution by communists. The persecution of atheists category is thus needed. desmay (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The Haas source doesn't mention religious persecution originating from a Mexican "atheist state", it mentions that the atheist state was targeted. Was there anti-clericalism in Mexico at that time? Yes, but it wasn't because of an absence of belief in gods, it was a reaction against the political and societal control and subjugation imposed by the church. As for revolutionary France, no, there was certainly anti-clericalism, but an "atheist state" was never established. They had some interesting atheistic "clubs", and the Cult of Reason made headlines for all of a week. But I'll bite - page number for the McGowan and Fremont-Barnes sources, please? Sorry to hold your feet to the flame, but we can't allow you to distort history on Misplaced Pages in service of a personal crusade. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The source characterized the state as atheist. This category is a made-up intersection (WP:OCEGRS) unless reliable sources characterize some events as persecution by atheists. Dale McGowan is not a reliable source for establishing a link between persecution and atheism. People have been persecuted by Americans—should there be a category persecution by Americans? Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The point being made is that you've made a leap from "a source characterizes the state as atheist" to "persecution by atheist states"; which implies that "atheist state" is the cause of persecution. That is a leap that needs to be conveyed by reliable sources. (There are also the other usual problems: "atheist state" doesn't have a main article, "atheist state" was actually the desired end goal, not the source, etc.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If you guys are struggling to come with a new sub-category name to further categorize "Religious persecution" articles, why not go about it the way it is supposed to be done? Pick just a few sample articles (has to be 2 or more) and determine what the common factor is based upon the preponderance of reliable sources, which should suggest an appropriate name. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, atheism per se is not a dogma-based organised movement--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there is some relevance to the IPs statement. "Persecution" is an act, true, but when you add "by XXX" you introduce beliefs (in the case of religions, not in the case of atheists). I think that was probably the point being made. Actual atheism has no associated dogma. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Is a legitimate member of the Category:Religious persecution tree. Perhaps rename it.2A02:2788:1036:6D5:6954:3163:A3CA:EDCA (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Category:Persecution by atheist states Agree with desmay. Moataz1997 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Many totalitarian regimes exist that persecuted Christians and Muslims. Many were were atheistic. In the case of Communist Russia/China/Cuba from the 1920's onward, this was a coordinated philosophical effort. Eastern Catholic Churches were seized and turned over to Orthodox authorities. The Chinese government still outlaws Roman Catholicism, instead sponsoring the Patriotic Catholic Association. Im favor renaming the category "Persecution by atheist states".Omar Ghrida (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move to Category: Persecution by atheist states Several users here have demonstrated historical examples where militant atheists, in the name of atheism, have persecuted those who refused to covert to atheism. This was the case when Mexico, the USSR, the First French Republic, and other countries even today, like China, persecute religionists. Eliko007 (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Your claim that "Several users here have demonstrated historical examples where militant atheists, in the name of atheism, have persecuted those who refused to covert to atheism" is patently false and unsupported. Please point out just one of these alleged examples. Your hand-wavy generalizations based on your personal misperceptions aren't helping to advance the discussion here. (And as for your assertion that "countries, even today, persecute religionists", I don't think anyone is debating that. It's the problematic "persecution by atheists" under discussion. And your link about China makes clear that it is the party doing the persecuting, even though it can be described as Marxist, atheist, ideological, and many other things. So let's see what you've got that is based on policy and reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - So we have, in many ways, a very similar collection of arguments and non-arguments to the last CfD. We also have a similar number of new users finding CfD. I'd encourage whoever reviews this at the end of 7 days to consider whether relisting would really attract new opinions... — Rhododendrites \\ 05:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In all the “persecution” categories there’s an understandable worry about misuse and POV-pushing. This is a danger in articles on social though in general. We have to live with it. We have ample articles based on reliable sources that describe persecution by both religious and anti-religious regimes. That there were other basis for persecution as well doesn’t erase the persecution based on belief. Reliable sources support this description. I gave two examples above, Spanish Inquisition and the USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) but Religious intolerance was the norm for human history. Tolerance on a sustained basis and in a full sense was rare. The Romans exhibited tolerance of all religions that reciprocated by showing respect for their civic gods. It wasn’t until the late 17th century in Holland and England that tolerance would take root again. All of the categories above can easily be populated with articles supported by impeccable sources. We need categories to collected articles that help the researcher contrast and compare instances of intolerance. To do so by perpetrator makes more sense than by the victim as it is the perpetrator that is the cause. Given the vast number of well-supported articles, all the “persecution” categories are well justified and most have years of consensus as a result. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We have ample articles based on reliable sources that describe persecution by both religious and anti-religious regimes. --Jason from nyc
That is spot-on, and that is why we have categories under which we can group those anti-religious regimes (see, for example Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union).
All of the categories above can easily be populated with articles supported by impeccable sources. --Jason from nyc
By "above", I assume you mean "Persecution by (_insert religion here_)" categories. This section, however, is about the "Persecution by atheists" category, which is not about a religion or a belief. When you say "by religion", you are indicating a person who is by definition motivated by beliefs, adheres to a set of tenets, is guided by specific commandments, acts in the service of a higher being or power, and is instructed to behave in a particular way toward others. By contrast, being "atheist" does not come with motivations or tenets or commandments or expected behaviors or a being to serve. You keep pointing to the USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) as an example of "religious intolerance", and I cannot disagree. It would fit well into the existing Category:Religious persecution by communists and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union categories. However, according to the sources within that article, it does not fit into the OR-manufactured "Persecution by atheists" category. To the contrary, the sources in the article actually convey that the persecution was by the Soviets (many of whom no doubt identified as atheist, among countless other descriptions). The imposition of atheism upon a resisting populace was part of the persecution by Soviets, not the cause of it. If you know of actual reliable sources which explicitly convey that atheism is the causative reason behind persecution, and not an effect or desired result of it, I would very much like to see them. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You give us an arbitrary criteria that a belief system or philosophical position must explicitly include among its list of dogma the commandment to persecute before we consider persecution based on a belief. That persecution may not be universal among adherents isn’t relevant. We don’t dismiss the notion of white racism because not all whites are racists, or British imperialism because not all British are imperialists, or greedy crooks because not all greedy people are crooks, or hate crimes because not all haters commit crimes, etc. If reliable sources are a basis of articles that tell us beliefs have been used as the basis for persecution regardless of how logical or illogical the persecutors are, than so be it. I trust the reader will look at the articles I linked to above and see that this is so. I can not reproduce the totality of the articles for discussion here. It is up to the editors of those articles to nominate them for inclusion to the categories. The categories of persecution by religion have exists for years and the editors of article have reached on consensus on several articles to include in those categories. I’m confident that the editors will reach a consensus to populate persecution by atheists if we allow the category as the articles are clear. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You give us an arbitrary criteria that a belief system or philosophical position must explicitly include among its list of dogma the commandment to persecute before we consider persecution based on a belief. --Jason from nyc
I've done no such thing, and please quit trying to misrepresent what I've said. I've merely reminded you that "atheist" has no such "list of dogma". This category under discussion was created not based on need or utility, but in pointy ideological retaliation during edit warring with another editor who was busy categorizing instances of persecution committed in the service of a deity or religious commandment. It is not a legitimate category constructed from reliably sourced information. You hope that if only we would just "allow the category", surely editors will "reach a consensus to populate" it. I hate to break it to you, but this problematic WP:OR category has been "allowed" for more than a year and a half, and remains empty - because the articles are clear. I've pressed you several times to produce your Reliable Sources showing that this category should exist as an uncontroversial and unambiguous (actual 'criteria') construct. You've refused at every turn. Am I to conclude that you are insisting the category should exist based only on ideological point of view instead of reliably sourced scholarship, and you are "confident" other editors will eventually come up with the sources I've been requesting of you? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said the sources are in the articles USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) and State atheism and I wasn't going to review those whole articles. I ask the closing editor to read those articles. We have multiple cross reference categories for all our topics. Of course, we should have regime categories (under which government), geographical categories, as well as ideological categories (under which policies), etc. Reliable source do all of this. The articles clearly explain the policies and attitudes that drive the policies. I'd prefer the phrase "anti-religious" but most of the sources in the articles refer to the regimes as atheist. As we are repeating ourselves, let me just end by objecting to your questioning my good faith. As someone who is anti-religious but opposes state suppression, it takes no pleasure to record the acts of intolerant regimes. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
We are indeed repeating ourselves. I keep repeatedly asking you to produce the required reliable sources to support your problematic category, which has already been identified by the closing administrator in the previous discussion as original research, and called an "attack" category by editors. You keep repeatedly refusing to produce even one such reliable source, and have now (if I understand you correctly) admitted that you don't have any reliable sources, and you are instead pointing to a couple of poorly written Misplaced Pages articles. (Misplaced Pages policy prohibits citing Misplaced Pages articles as "reliable sources" for good reason, you know.) And you can't be troubled "to review those whole articles" for actual sources to support a personal conclusion you've already formed in your head, but you'd rather put that burden on the closer of this discussion instead? I've never questioned your "good faith" (pun intended?), but I've certainly questioned how you could argue for keeping a category while at the same time admitting that you aren't going to make the slightest effort to provide sources showing that it should exist at all. I, on the other hand, have reviewed the sources (I own most of them) in those articles you linked, as have many other editors (see the past deletion discussion), and they do not support this WP:OR category. And statements from you such as, "I'd prefer the phrase 'anti-religious' but most of the sources in the articles refer to the regimes as atheist" and "The category Persecution by Atheists is nothing more than a grouping of those atheists who are intolerant of religion to the point of trying to suppress it", hint at a disturbing lack of understanding of the subject matter. You are confusing "atheist state" with "state atheism" (which isn't atheism at all); and "atheist" ≠ "anti-religious", and in fact, many of the atheists in the Soviet regime were also openly, devoutly religious, even while they propagandized against specific religious traditions. And you seem to forget that "those atheists who are intolerant of religion to the point of trying to suppress it" were also tolerant enough to endorse and prop up religion, according to the very sources in the articles you linked. That's not "persecution by atheists", it's totalitarian persecution by a despotic government, and it is selective based on political expediency, not on an absence of belief in gods. But you would know of all these contradictions if you had bothered to read the sources in the embarrassingly bad Misplaced Pages articles you linked. As for "recording the acts of intolerant regimes", I'm with you, and so are the reliable sources -- but we're not discussing that. This is a discussion about misleadingly recording those very same acts instead as the make-believe "persecution by atheists", which reliable sources refute. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Persecution by atheists" is an artificial construct created through original research and synthesis to misleadingly convey a causative correlation between the absence of belief in gods and persecution. This construct goes against what the preponderance of reliable sources actually say, which is that the source of persecution is the totalitarian regime, and the imposition of atheism upon the society by the totalitarian regime is just one of the many effects of the persecution. As historian Leszek Kołakowski clearly explains, and historian Adam Michnik reiterates,
    The despotic form of government, and in particular the persecution of religion, derives not from the atheistic but from the totalitarian nature of communism, which makes it act as if structurally driven to eradicate all forms of collective life and all aspects of culture not imposed by the state. -Kołakowski

    The distinction is a crucial one. It is not atheism as a philosophy, says Kołakowski, but totalitarianism as a system, "without regard to its ideological costume -- racist, communist, or religious -- that today poses the gravest danger to Christian values and culture." -Michnik
The category also fails WP:OCEGRS which states: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. For example, Category:LGBT murderers. Attempts to create a head article have been made before, usually resulting in this: Historical persecution by atheism or Historical persecution by atheists (see deletion discussion 1 and deletion discussion 2), and it is hard not to view the creation of this problematic category as an end-run around past community consensus. Per WP:CATVER: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Articles have been checked against this Misplaced Pages requirement, resulting in an empty category. In addition, the category fails WP:CATDEF, which states: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. This problematic category was created as a pointy response during an edit dispute over "persecution by religion" categories, with little consideration as to what cited sources actually said. Creating an equally problematic "by atheist state" category isn't a solution, as it suffers from most of the same problems and issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the source being offered in support of keeping the category clearly states:
  • " The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism”..." (emphasis mine).
It still looks like original research / synthesis to suggest that "Prosecution by atheists" is a thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- another source "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences" by David Kowalewski, The Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441 "The Soviet policy of state atheism (gosateizm), albeit inconsistently applied, remains a major goal of official ideology. Massive state re-sources have been expended not only to prevent the implanting of religious belief in nonbelievers but also to eradicate "prerevolutionary remnants" already existing. The regime is not merely passively committed to a godless polity but takes an aggressive stance of official forced atheization. 'Thus a major task of the police appartus is the persecution of forms of religious practice. Not surprisingly, the Committee for State Security (KGB) is reported to have a division dealing specifically with "churchmen and sectarians."" Xenophrenic the category was populated until you emptied the category of all of the articles.Knox490 (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The Soviet government imposed state atheism in an attempt to remove opposition from religious leaders who were respected by many citizens. The persecution was a Soviet government attempt to silence opposition, and atheism was merely their tool. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Knox490, for providing yet "another source" which shows it was the Soviet regime forcing atheization upon the populace, not "atheists" as the source of the persecution. And "state atheism" was indeed a goal of the Soviets, which they never actually achieved. And by the way, I didn't "empty a category". Many editors (, , , , etc.) have removed the WP:OR category from articles where there were no reliable sources to support it, and replaced it with actual supported categories like Category:Religious persecution, Category:Religious persecution by communists, and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. If that resulted in an empty category, it is not surprising, as the category was originally created to push an ideological fiction with zero reliable source support. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills. The link you provided shows Marcocapelle commenting about my removal of personal attacks, not categories. And your link to edit warring is instead to a clueless drive-by editor who didn't bother to join the discussion I initiated. There's your edit warrior. And by the way, I didn't "empty a category". Many editors (, , , , etc.) have removed the WP:OR category from articles where there were no reliable sources to support it, and replaced it with actual supported categories like Category:Religious persecution, Category:Religious persecution by communists, and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. If that resulted in an empty category, it is not surprising, as the category was originally created to push an ideological fiction with zero reliable source support. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I have seen nothing in this discussion that would change my position from what it was in the previous discussion. This category would lump together disparate kinds of persecution, mostly by state actors who had additional motivations for persecution. — jmcgnh 22:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep-- Xenophrenic makes false (and vague) claims. The "extensively discussed" claims listed under January_19 were no consensus. While one person (the closer) considered "the current title" to be original research, that hardly makes everything original research. Xenophrenic asks to please "quote me exactly" but gives no reasons for his vote, failing to hint at his "extensively discussed" reason(s) said to be elsewhere. tahc 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Correction: The previous discussion was closed as No consensus - with caveats. and the admin closer concluded the arguments provided (Arnoutf, myself, etc.) identified this category as original research. Your comment appears to be nothing more than a personal screed against a fellow editor, rather than about this discussion subject. You "voted" Keep, and yet provided zero policy-based reasoning for it. You provided zero source-based reasoning. So how much attention do you suppose a closer will give to your comment? My prediction: zero. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ILIKEIT commentary is not helpful. How about a reliable source showing that Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union was an example of persecution resulting from atheism? As explained above, the Soviet government used atheism to silence opposition. Atheists did not use communism to take power—actually, communism used atheism. Until a reliable source says otherwise, the persecution was the same as that from every other totalitarian regime and was not a case of persecution due to atheism. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural proposal. Let's just delete this category as empty and if anyone creates Category:Persecution by atheist states, which will happen soon I guess, then we can have a fresh discussion that really focuses on the new title. The current discussion is too much confounded by discussing the category under its current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Better Procedural proposal. Let's just delete this category because it is empty due to failing WP:CATVER, and because it is WP:Original Research (see previous close decision), and because it doesn't have a a substantial and encyclopedic head article (See WP:OCEGRS), and because it was a bad-faith, pointy creation made in retaliation by an editor engaged in a dispute with another editor categorizing religious persecutions (violating WP:CATDEF, which requires that categories be neutral and uncontroversial). Adding to the "Discussion Close Statement" the obvious fact that other categories can always be created seems a little strange - unless the intent is to promote a specific category. (Why you would suggest creating yet another equally problematic category, without mentioning the articles you would attach it to, and without a "head article defining it", and with reliably sourced wording that directly refutes it just 5 paragraphs up on this very page, is baffling to me.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)