Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 14 - 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:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desmay (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 17 August 2017 (→Category:Persecution by atheists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:24, 17 August 2017 by Desmay (talk | contribs) (→Category:Persecution by atheists)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2017 August 13 Deletion review archives: 2017 August 2017 August 15 >

14 August 2017

Ryan Doolittle

Ryan Doolittle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I think this article passes GNG based on these sources which I don't believe were present in the article at the time. I think the page could be unredirected. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by atheists

Category:Persecution by atheists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Partial Overturn request of the closer's decision to "rename" a problematic category up for deletion to an equally problematic category name. The close statement does not give any reasoning based on Misplaced Pages policy or the arguments presented during the Deletion Discussion, and instead referenced only majority, minority and "substantial number" of editors, which to my understanding is not the way to determine consensus. I've asked the closer if he would discuss his reasoning with me, but was told only that I should go ahead and file this review request. I've labeled this as a "partial" overturn, as the closer effectively (1) deleted the discussed problematic category, and (2) created a new problematic category with a slightly different name -- and it is the (2) part that brings me here. If we need to un-close the discussion until we can get a closure based on policy and reasoned argument, that's fine too. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Endorse fair reading of consensus, there was not a consensus to completely get rid of the concept, but virtually everyone agreed that it was at a problematic name. At an RM this would have been closed by moving it to the option of least resistance which is what was done here, and I consider it appropriate. Before it is pointed out that I edit mainly Catholicism related articles, I want to state that I have no personal opinion on this particular category, and wouldn't mind seeing it be deleted or kept: I can see the arguments on both sides. The question here though is if the close was within the closers discretion and within policy, which I feel it very much was. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response, but I've been hopeful that we can steer clear of the "I feel" responses in this matter. If we are all in agreement that consensus is to be determined by reasoned argument and Misplaced Pages policy, rather than "virtually everyone agreed yada yada this and that", then it should be a quite simple matter to present the actual reasoning behind the decision. Ex.: "The category has been deleted because it violates WP:ZZZ Policy, while the newly created replacement does not violate WP:ZZZ; and further, Arguments #9 and #14 from the discussion, which can be summarized as "______" (and came with reliable source support), were well reasoned and strongly supported deletion, while the counter-arguments #3, #5 and #15 were unpersuasive and unsupported." I've petitioned the closing admin to let me in on his reasoning, but my request was ignored, so I am left in the dark. Since you "can see the arguments on both sides", could you shed some light on what you see as the strongest reasoning (from the discussion, not your own opinion, of course) behind such a decision? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, then let me rephrase: the close was well within the closers discretion. Policy and sourced based arguments existed on both sides. The strong argument on one side was that it was POV-pushing. The strong argument on the other was that there was some sourcing identifying it with state atheism: the view that it was Communism and not state atheism was brought up, but there was significant enough disagreement on that point to avoid a clear consensus in favour of deletion.There was a consensus that it was at least better to move the title based on the sourcing, and therefore it was moved as the path of least resistance: the current category was agreed to be inappropriate, but it wasn't clear the best way to handle it, therefore the closer implemented the move lacking a clear consensus to delete. CfD is unique from many of the other XfD types in that moves are also handled through it. In this case, I think WP:RMCI gives us at least on idea of the best way to handle things, and I think the close was implemented in the spirit of that guideline, particularly the last paragraph in WP:THREEOUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Now I'm not sure we're even talking about the same discussion. Policy based arguments existed on both sides, you say? Can you remind me, please, what policy-based reason was given for "Keeping" the problematic category? One side's strongest argument was "POV-pushing", you say? I know for a fact that out of 30 commenting editors, I am the only one on the "delete" side to mention "POV" or "Point of View" (go ahead, type Ctrl-F and do a word search), and I know that wasn't even part of the strongest three arguments. "The view that it was Communism and not state atheism was brought up", you say? I don't see that as an argument anywhere (and please note the closer never mentioned "State atheism", only "atheist states").I was hopeful that you could indicate the (still secret and unrevealed by the closer) actual policies and/or arguments from the discussion used to close it. Still waiting. One cannot proclaim, as you just did, "There was a consensus that it was at least better to move the title based on the sourcing...", while keeping that alleged sourcing a secret. While keeping the required solid reasoning behind that "consensus" determination a secret, especially in light of the much stronger arguments to simply delete, and several strong arguments against that specific rename suggestion. Where is the reasoned explanation as to why the closer selected that particular one of several rename options, when it still violates policy? The closer still has not shared his reasoning with us (beyond counting heads and votes), and your assertion that there was somehow a consensus to rename over simply deleting - without explaining how such a consensus was determined - doesn't advance our understanding. (I've just now re-read the comments made by all 9 respondents (of 30 total) who mentioned renaming, and I'm just not seeing where the closer found anything close to consensus.) Thank you for the links to the "Requested moves" page, but this was a CfD, and since the closer was never "clear that while consensus has rejected the former title ... there is no consensus for the title actually chosen", I find the suggestion dubious that he was following that process. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I should disclose before I start that I'm not neutral on this point. I'm a thoroughly atheist man. Not the wishy-washy kind who sees no evidence for a God and in the absence of evidence declines to believe: I actively have faith that there is no God. And that Richard Dawkins is the True Prophet. And Daniel Dennett is his disciple. I believe that everything evolutionary processes can't explain today, evolutionary processes will be able to explain tomorrow, and there is no need and no role for a giant imaginary beard in the sky.

    And now that I've nailed my colours to the wall on that point, I should also disclose that I think that there should be a category for persecution by atheists. We can and do persecute people; and, if it's right and proportionate that we have discrimination against atheists and Category:Discrimination against atheists and Category:Persecution of atheists because a few nations do persecute atheists and have done in the past, then we also need to acknowledge that Iosef Stalin was a thing that happened.

    But even though I feel the category should, logically, exist, I do have some concerns about this or any other closure based on that particular debate. It was bad-tempered and confused and acrimonious, full of accusations, and not very source-oriented. (There are good sources and some were mentioned but the debate fell short on reasoned analysis of them.) I think we need to re-do the debate, only better, so the closer gets a more satisfactory discussion to close. Don't re-open that one because by its sheer length it's well-defended against anyone new joining in. Start again from scratch, ask the previous participants to produce a condensed version of their best arguments, and put up some neutral notices in appropriate venues to attract previously uninvolved editors.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Your personal disclosure has inspired me, so to respond in kind: I've been baptized, circumcised, attended catechism as a child, conducted Bible studies in my youth, married a wonderful Seventh Day Adventist - by a minister, mind you, not by a civil servant, and I led the recital of grace at a crowded family Christmas dinner just last year. I like long walks on the beach, and my favorite commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." With that out of the way, I'd like to address the crux of your comment: " can and do persecute people." No doubt, because they are no different than anyone else. Some atheists also fudge on their taxes, fail to make complete stops at Stop Signs, and watch too much television. The point is that none of these actions are caused by their lack of belief in supernatural gods (their atheism). That includes the many despicable acts and persecutions by Stalin. That is according to reliable sources, even many of the few cited by the 'Keep' editors. Even your "True Prophet" Dawkins observes,
    "Hitler and Stalin were atheists. What have you got to say about that?" The question comes up after just about every public lecture that I ever give on the subject of religion ... It is put in a truculent way, indignantly freighted with two assumptions: not only (1) were Stalin and Hitler atheists, but (2) they did their terrible deeds because they were atheists ... assumption (2) is false. ... What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.
    Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively, dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism... The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008 - Pgs. 278; 315-316
Your "we have 'Persecution OF atheists' so it is only fair that we also have 'Persecution BY atheists'" suggestion is well-intentioned, but it is a false equivalency, not logical, and not supported by reliable sources. Persecution of atheists is a thing, while persecution by atheists is not. So how many times do you think we should argue about the "Persecution By atheists/atheism/atheist states" meme in deletion discussions? Once? (Deleted) Twice? (Deleted) Three times? (Cat determined to be Original Research ... and, ...with hindsight I would definitely have closed the CfD as delete. Perhaps someone should re-file the CfD given what has happened since. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)) Four times? You are suggesting a 5th discussion, starting yet again from scratch? I think the more sensible solution would be to step off this merry-go-'round, scrap the problematic category, and then develop specific "religious persecution" categories based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Thoughts? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the flaw in this line of argument is the idea that because a thing doesn't exist, we shouldn't have content about it. That doesn't stand up ---- we're an encyclopaedia; we inform and educate; users self-direct what they want to be educated about; so we need content about things that people search for. Hence the need for articles about bigfoot and moon landing conspiracy theories and, if you'll forgive the religious allusion, intelligent design. People search for stuff about atheists persecuting believers so we need content about it even if the content is purely to debunk ---- because people expect it to be there. And because of that expectation, I think you'll find that if we delete this category, it will be re-created by a good faith user, and we'll have to have the discussion again. Surely it's better to have a category? ---- I also drafted a reply to your remarks about whether atheism really does make some people persecute, which I found very interesting, but I have decided not to post it because it isn't central to my point in this particular debate. I'd welcome a conversation in user talk about that if you have a mind?—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A 'thing that doesn't exist' is a concept, and a concept has a creator and a purpose/use. That is fine if all this information is there for the reader, but a category mentions neither, and I think you'll find that most articles in this 'field' don't, either, and that is a sure sign that those who promote said concept are trying to present it (as a claim) as fact/reality. Such practices are dishonest, non-factual, and have no place in any encyclopaedia. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Those who promote the concepts of bigfoot or intelligent design are trying to present them as fact/reality as well. Dishonest people are trying to promote non-factual content about bigfoot, and yet I see that category:Bigfoot is alive and well and full of subcategories. If, as you say, this isn't true then it's still important that we tell our readers what's verifiable and what isn't. Simply put, in logic this line of argument doesn't connect with a need to delete the category.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For your comparison to be valid, your category example would have to be named something like category:Bigfoot attacks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Atheists exist, and bigfoot doesn't. So if you're right that persecution by atheists never happens, then "persecution by atheists" would be a first-order nonexistent thing, while "attacks by bigfoot" would be a second-order nonexistent thing. See?—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what adding 'orders' to it changes: if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. All there is to denote is the claim itself, the fact that it is nothing more than a claim, and the origin of the claim. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
...the idea that because a thing doesn't exist, we shouldn't have content about it. --S Marchall
That isn't what I (or ThePromenader, I believe) was saying. Of course we can have content (read: "articles") about myths, legends, allegations, fairy tales, and other potential fictions, as long as the reliable sources exist to warrant such articles. Bigfoot is a thing, albeit probably only myth or legend. It exists as a legitimate subject, with a legitimate, detailed and uncontroversial head article, and that is why it has a category. "Persecution by atheists" is not a thing, and neither is "Persecution by atheist states", which is why they do not (or should not) be promoted with Misplaced Pages categories.
People search for stuff about atheists persecuting believers so we need content about it even if the content is purely to debunk... --S Marshall
No problem, and no disagreement here -- but you are talking about the creation of an article, not a CATEGORY. Categories are different from articles, in that they consist of just a couple words, located at the bottom of pages, with zero context, explanation or "debunking". Because of this, Misplaced Pages requires that categories must be unambiguous, uncontroversial and must maintain a neutral point of view. (See WP:CATVER for additional explanation.) There is a policy-based reason we don't have Category:Murders by black people, Category:Pedophilia by gay people, etc., even though minimal fringe sources can certainly be found to support such constructs, and the "Persecution by atheists/atheism/atheist states/(__insert atheist-related-description-here__)" is no different.
... if we delete this category, it will be re-created by a good faith user, and we'll have to have the discussion again. Surely it's better to have a category? --S Marshall
Not if this discussion we have now is closed properly. In conjunction with the closer's determination in the previous discussion that the category is a construct of Original Research, a proper close here will ensure that future good faith editors creating similar categories based on fringe notions will have their POV creations speedily deleted. Also, please review WP:CATGRS, and note that Misplaced Pages requires additional care and sensitivity when creating categories regarding atheism, as opposed to categories on Bigfoot. Do you think there is still a "flaw in the argument"? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I really do, on two grounds. Firstly, for the sake of argument I've been stipulating that atheists don't persecute people, and showing that that doesn't lead to deleting the category because a thing doesn't have to exist for us to have a category about it. That remains true. A thing can be unambiguous, uncontroversial, and nonexistent. We have categories for such things and I've linked them. There may well be an excellent argument for the category to exist as a redirect to category:Allegations of persecution by atheists, but I can't find anywhere in the arguments presented thus far an unavoidable pathway from "doesn't exist" to "delete". Secondly, although I've been stipulating that atheists don't persecute people I don't believe it. We do, and we have, and there's a small but genuine body of literature documenting it.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the "body of literature" does not exist. Sure, there are websites where someone with an obvious agenda writes their opinion that atheists persecute people, or really misguided accounts of history by very non-reliable sources that suggest there was some difference-in-kind between the way Soviets suppressed religious figures compared with how they suppressed all opposition. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • S Marshall, it appears that the confusion here is mostly due to our understanding of certain words and phrases. When I say that "persecution by atheists" doesn't exist as "a thing", I mean it isn't a concept seriously considered by reliable sources -- unlike your examples of Bigfoot, moon landing conspiracies and intelligent design. When you say they "don't exist", I think you mean they have been "debunked", while when I say it "doesn't exist", I mean as a notable intersection or defining characteristic covered by reliable sources. As for an unavoidable pathway from "doesn't exist" to "delete", simply refer to our Misplaced Pages policies. Clearer now? One more bit of phrase confusion: "atheist don't persecute people". Please note that no one here says that. Anyone can persecute people, duh. What is being said here, by reliable sources no less, is that persecution is not done because of atheism (an absence of belief in gods). You've seen those 20 or so quoted sources secretly hidden under the "collapse" bar in the CfD discussion, right? Misplaced Pages creating a category called "Persecution by atheist whatever" blatantly violates Misplaced Pages's requirement that Categories Must Maintain A Neutral Point Of View. The meme that persecution by atheists is a thing, presented in Misplaced Pages's voice via a Category tag, is ludicrously not neutral, and also certainly not "uncontroversial". With this clearer understanding of the issue here, are there any remaining "flaws in the argument"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So just to be clear -- your position is that all the sources in Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War, USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928), USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941), USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964), USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1987), League of Militant Atheists and Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc are POV and unreliable? Should we AfD the lot of them?—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. No one has argued that religious persecution hasn't occurred - it certainly has, so we should have articles about it. Plenty of sources in the far-from-perfect articles you've just mentioned convey that religious persecution happened. Or as you so aptly quipped, "Stalin was a thing that happened." Now there is a certain determined contingent of folks who insist that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., inflicted their depredations upon people because those people were "believers", and because the perpetrators lacked that belief in gods. You, S Marshall, have also claimed to lack such beliefs, so tell me (since we're being absurd now), have you marked on your calendar when you will be confiscating church property or exiling a priest from your country? No? Isn't your atheism compelling you to do so? Enough fun; back to our sources. Some people have read in reliable sources that the Soviets had as one of their goals the creation of a society without religion (fact), they have also read that the Soviets have imprisoned clergy (some were even executed), appropriated church lands and wealth for public use, and removed the teaching of religion from public education (fact), and they have read that many of these followers of the Stalinist or Leninist flavor of communism were atheist (fact). People have then taken these facts from these reliable sources and synthesized them into their own incorrect conclusion that the cause of the persecution must be that the perpetrators were atheist. In reality, closer examination of those very same sources revealed that the persecutions had nothing to do with belief in, or lack of belief in, gods. I can go into great detail (again), reliable source by reliable source, on what each says was the real reason and motivations behind the actions, but I'm not supposed to do so in this venue. Perhaps at a user page, as you previously suggested, if you are still interested? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to "Delete" with a caveat that there was discussion of a possible alternative category name, but no consensus here to do so. If this category is deleted, that doesn't stop someone from creating a new category for "persecution by atheist states", which someone else can then take to CfD to have a more focused discussion of that category. With this close, it looks like there was consensus for rename, which would therefore make nominating the new category for deletion difficult.
This was not a discussion of "persecution by atheist states," it was a discussion about "persecution by atheists", and there was a consensus that the latter is an inappropriate category to have. Rename is a viable outcome, but I think that here the rename was a result of searching for middleground, but there wasn't actually consensus for this alternative. In both this and the previous CfD, some participants talked about different possibilities for renaming, and a handful of participants engaged in detailed debate over those. However, I see no consensus to establish a category "persecution by atheist states", and in fact several of the users advocating for that were SPAs (as with the last CfD). I don't want to give the impression this was an unreasonable or supervotey close, to be clear, and want to thank BD2412 for taking on a close all but certain to be a bit messy regardless. To me, leaving it as an evaluation of consensus regarding this category without prejudice against creation of one of the discussed alternatives is the way to go. With a clear alternative title, discussion can be more focused on it. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to "Delete", but more for the (yet unclear) judgment method than for the outcome. Were we to base all judgements on vote-counting and 'proposed alternatives' without examining the quality of the arguments presented, any majority with an evidenceless agenda could push anything at all on Misplaced Pages. Of course those who 'must' have their evidenceless or selective-opinion-based accusation-category present on Misplaced Pages in some form (to make it 'truth') can always just start another category under another name (and should it be equally invalid, face opposition once again: tiring, but hey), but without a Misplaced Pages-administrator 'endorsement' that someone less interested in fact could (fallaciously) cite as 'precedent' in those future discussions. PS: it turns out that that cited 'move consensus' doesn't exist, no matter how one 'does the math'.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Side Note: Categories and article titles are claims without reference, and I see much abuse of this on Misplaced Pages: if one creates an even nonsensical yet accusatory category (say, 'blonde assassination tendencies'), they can populate it with perfectly factual articles (articles about X blonde assasinating X person on X date) and it would 'technically' pass all Misplaced Pages-rule tests, but remain a baseless accusation all the same; the same goes for article titles that are populated by verifiable data that do not directly (or at all) support the title claim. Also, categories and page titles don't mention the source of any claim they make: if the source represents only a minority in an overall larger body of consensus or evidence, the title presented as-is seems, to the reader, to be 'global, accepted fact'; this is yet another 'dishonesty loophole' much-exploited on Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure where to address this problem, so, although it's larger than this discussion (but still related to it), I thought it worth noting here in case it's read by someone better-informed than I. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep or rename the article Militant atheism and get rid of the redirect for "militant atheism". Misplaced Pages very much needs a "militant atheism" article and that is the preferred solution. Chinese militant atheists in the Communist Party of China have affirmed to be in their political party you must be an atheists. And the Chinese government is actively persecuting Christians. Vladimir Lenin of Marxist-Leninist communism (Soviet Union communism) said: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could." The tie between atheistic communism and the persecution of the religious is strong and plentiful. Knox490 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pssst: this is a Deletion Review, not a venue to continue your "Keep" arguments. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As a Pandeist, being a minority theological of you, I experience persecution by atheists on a quite frequent basis--usually through mocking misrepresentations of my beliefs. It is theoretically absolutely possible for a communist state to be theistic. The coincidental confluence of communist states with atheism means that persecution by an atheistic communist state is persecution by an atheist state. A non-state organization of atheists can choose to be equally persecutory towards another religious group where it possesses power. Anyway, since there was never any consensus formed for deletion of this category, if it was overturned, that would necessarily result in a keep of the category, and so it seems fair that the closer created a next least worst resolution. Even some folks who preferred deletion were agreeable to the resolution reached. It is telling that the only votes to overturn here come from the most strident opponents of a category in the original discussion, and not from neutral observers. Pandeist (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear that people have mocked your beliefs, but that is because those people are rude (or bigoted), and not because they are atheist. (I've just checked the definition of atheist to be sure, and there is no requirement that they mock anyone for anything. Atheists simply do not believe in gods. Any "mocking" done is the result of something else; my guess would be bad parenting.) I've a friend with Pandeistic views who has been chided by a Baptist acquaintance; I've never thought to ask if it felt like "persecution". States/regimes/governments (and non-state groups) can certainly persecute anyone or any group, and I doubt anyone would argue against that fact. But even the Soviet Union at the height of their anti-religious campaign, as reliable sources and history show, didn't persecute because they lacked a belief in gods. This discussion is about a category that implies religious persecution by atheists because of their atheism, which doesn't exist, and is a nonsensical concept on its face when you consider it. You've stated, "there was never any consensus formed for deletion of this category", which is of course only your opinion - one shared by the closer of the discussion, and not shared by several other editors above. And the only way to accurately determine the consensus is to review the reasoned arguments and policies upon which the close decision was founded - but such information is thus far not being shared for some reason. (And by the way, we don't implement "next least worst" solutions if they, too, violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • One friend chiding another is a far cry from a group of strangers ganging up to belittle somebody's entirely reasonable theological beliefs over the Internet. Anyway, as to the above, it is essentially a mathematical outcome. Consensus is pretty much universally defined as "general "agreement. Even our own Wiktionary defines consensus as "a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members," or "general agreement among the members of a given group or community." This means pretty much everybody agrees, not where there is a slim majority in agreement. And so, if there is no consensus here, then we are right back to the old category. Pandeist (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • overturn to keep, but failing that, endorse outcome The problem I see in this is the rather Solomonic solution of trying to adjudicate the question of whether persecution by governments in the name of suppressing religion in the name of atheism counts as persecution by atheists. This collapses into the question of whether persecution by officials for official purposes counts as persecution by the holders of the stance to which they ascribe, an issue which also came up in the other "persecution by" categories. What drove the discussion, though was the assertion that the beliefs of atheists are special, so that it doesn't count when persecution occurs in the name of atheism because atheism isn't an organized thing. My impression is that the rename that ended up with is not what anyone asked for, so in that wise I have to push for overturn; but deletion of the category entirely because somehow none of the activity involved had something to do with atheism: that's a POV problem. Maybe we need to find another name for that association, but it was certainly there, and claims about the nature of atheism (which aren't representative of scholars of religion, BTW: they tend to treat it in some respects as like an unorganized faith system) aren't material. rethinking this Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Mangoe: A minor point re: "the rename that ended up with is not what anyone asked for". Six different editors in the discussion (Renzoy16, Desmay, Omar Ghrida, Eliko007, Majoreditor, and Moataz1997) specifically asked to "Keep and Move to Category:Persecution by atheist states"; a seventh, Marcocapelle, voted to delete "with the side comment that some of the past content may be preserved in a new Category:Religious persecution by secular governments", which is pretty close to that. Two other editors, Mangoe and 1990'sguy, supported renaming without specifying a new name (though it was clear in context that they meant the rename as proposed by the others). I didn't come up with the rename out of thin air, but from the considered responses in the discussion, which represented the majority of editors voting "keep" in some fashion. bd2412 T 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    Six different editors suggested a move (while voting for an as-is 'keep' that they knew wouldn't stand to testing, thus the suggestion), and your eight total (to consider against the 14 votes for outright 'delete') can in no way be considered 'consensus to move' (with admin 'help', to boot!). And still, even after repeated questioning, you only cite (convoluted) vote-counting as a rationale for your decision without addressing in the least the validity of the content (category name) being contested. Misplaced Pages can do without judgments like that, because, as I said elsewhere, it allows anyone with a majority to 'push' whatever agenda they please, no matter how non-factual. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • bd2412 is correct that Mangoe misread the discussion: "Persecution by atheist states" was indeed offered as a category name, and not by bd2412. "Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes" and "Religious persecution by secular states" were also offered as alternative category names. I would really like to hear the reasoning (without mentioning numbers, votes or majorities) behind the conclusion that (1) consensus to rename out-weighed consensus to simply delete, and (2) consensus to chose "atheist states" as a rename target out-weighed "secular states" or "totalitarian regimes". Mangoe also misread the discussion and automatically assumed that "persecution occurs in the name of atheism", as an actual fact to be automatically assumed, when the discussion clearly conveyed that reliable sources refute that unsourced assertion. Mangoe also let slip that Religion scholars (in fact, most religionists, religion apologists, theologians, and some Misplaced Pages editors) "tend to treat in some respects as like an unorganized faith system" or a competing religion to be denegrated, which is of course a mischaracterization. Creating categories to perpetuate that myth violates policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As noted previously in this discussion, there was no consensus to delete. There was, however, a clear consensus that a change to the status quo ante would be favored. Among the possibilities offered, "atheist states" was by far the most frequently mentioned, and is basically synonymous with the other alternatives, and not exclusive of them. It was also documented in the discussion that there have historically been "atheist states" (we have a Category:Atheist states, after all), and there have been instances of persecution of practitioners of religions or religious institutions in these states by organs of the state. That is a reasonable basis for a category encompassing such instances. bd2412 T 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if there was no consensus to delete (and even this description hinges on an ambiguous 'interpretation' of consensus), the very reason for the deletion motion was totally ignored. At least now you admit that you side with the category's claim, but what you have done is grant the minority opposing the deletion the 'same claim to a lesser degree' that they themselves suggested, all while ignoring the deletion-supporting majority and the reason why (and demonstrations of (lack of) evidence supporting) the delete motion was opened in the first place. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I do not "side with" the category's claim; I am merely pointing out that evidence supporting the existence of the category was produced during the discussion. The fact that the proponents of deletion of the category were unable to persuade a clear consensus of participating editors—despite certain participants vociferously challenging every comment to the contrary—is not subject to remediation by appeal to the strength with which the desire for that outcome was felt. As for the interpretation of consensus, that is a very difficult thing indeed, particularly in extended discussions like the one at issue. Fortunately, my interpretation is informed by the experience of closing hundreds of these discussions. If you feel as well qualified, you are, of course, welcome to seek adminship yourself. bd2412 T 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not misunderstand; I'm trying to bring you to understand a point, one that you've done your best to skirt so far, but we're getting you slowly there. So, that 'evidence supporting the existence of the category', did it check out? Can one find it in any mainstream reference, and does it reflect historical consensus? No? Okay, that demonstrated, does the proposed alternative name (never mind that this shouldn't even be an option) check out as well, and if it doesn't, does it at least include the origin of the claim? No? So why are you endorsing it, especially since they represent the minority opposition (with no case) in this?
The 'inability to sway' is a foregone conclusion when one is dealing with people who won't examine evidence even when they're buried in it, and the here and now is a reflection of those 'hundreds of past decisions'; it's not the other way around. No doubt I will be an admin one day, most likely during my retirement years. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, your numbers are a bit off. There were not fourteen votes for "outright delete", but twelve. Three "delete" votes came with a caveat: Marcocapelle, "with the side comment that some of the past content may be preserved in a new Category:Religious persecution by secular governments"; Ramos1990, "Delete IF other similar 'Persecution by..' categories are removed, otherwise Keep for consistency" (the other categories have not been removed, making this a "Keep"); and Mr. Guye, "I actually agree with the current category's concept, but right now it is empty". Laurel Lodged also did not vote "delete" but voted, "Agree with Procedural proposal", which was a proposal that expressly acknowledged that "Category:Persecution by atheist states" could be made, and discussed later. I can assure you that we're not "slowly getting" to the point where you'll convince me that twelve straight "delete" votes is two thirds of the 29 who participated. bd2412 T 11:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm slowly getting you to address what you skipped in your 'selective' judgment, a point that you totally ignore in your answer thath seemingly tries to deflect from it, and you're the one bringing up numbers, not me: my point was to demonstrate that what you called 'consensus for a move' could not be consensus no matter how many times you repeat your 'math'. So, rather than answer my points, you retreat to selective-reality refuge-in-ambiguity square one.
And what's going on here is clear, but to make it even more so: if the claim you support were a factual one, you could just say: "look guys, it's a real thing, a term used widely in every encyclopaedia and historical consensus, so you have no reason to contest it." But you have done everything -but- that, and even ignored a demonstrable majority to give a minority of evidenceless-claim pushers what they want (and repeating your math still does not make it add up to 'consensus to move'). And, as metioned below, some of those 'keep' (but if that fails, rename) votes were SPAs, but that doesn't seem to figure into your 'calculation' (or even your writ) even now. In all, your judgment in this is demonstrably selective and convoluted, yet you dig in all the same... that is not honest behaviour. Again, it is your judgment that I am calling into question here (reminder: because even if delete passes, anyone can start a new category): Misplaced Pages has a hard enough time being taken seriously as a source, largely because of soapboxing agenda-pushers, and you're aiding and abetting them here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
If you think that some of the votes in this discussion were by SPA's, please present evidence to this effect, and please WP:NOTIFY the accused editors. Since we have otherwise come to circular argument, I see no further point in engaging with you on this topic. The discussion speaks for itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
How can a discussion be circular if you refuse to address anything? Once again, you focus on but one point of my writ in ignoring all its questions. And you many-times counted these votes to justify your move (even though the total is not enough to justify anything at all). So here you ignored the majority, validated neither claim nor vote of the minority (yet granted an even fewer of these their 'back up plan' should their opposition fail), made no justification for your decision outside of a convoluted-explanation 'math' that doesn't add up at all... well, not only have you demonstrated your own bad judgement, but by refusing to address any of these points (with only partial-reality distract-answers), you've demonstrated an intellectual dishonesty (that coincides quite nicely with the contested claim's). And hey, none of my points is my 'opinion', they are a demonstration of fact: test any and all of them for yourselves. Agenda-serving 'because I say so (and damn the facts)' judgements such as yours are the last thing Misplaced Pages needs. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I am merely pointing out that evidence supporting the existence of the category was produced during the discussion. --BD2412
Could you point out, specifically, that evidence? I do see a couple of attempts to provide such evidence, but those were soundly refuted (just as some almost exact attempts were refuted as synthesized Original Research in the previous closed discussion), but I don't see any actual evidence in support. Even if actual legitimate evidence were introduced now, it would only serve to elevate the issue from refuted to "controversial and contested", and Misplaced Pages doesn't allow controversial categories to be created that advance such a one-sided POV. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit self-serving to assert that those "attempts" were "soundly refuted" when the proposed refutation is merely your own argument against those points—argument which failed to persuade the editors against whom they were made? Editors seeking a change to the status quo ante bear the burden of persuasion. That burden was not carried here. My close was merely an acknowledgement of that fact. bd2412 T 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess we won't know until we examine this mysterious supporting evidence you claims exists -- and that you claim I (or anyone else) failed to refute. Start small and easy: just present the very strongest piece of evidence from the discussion (generously assuming there is more than one piece) upon which you supported your decision. That is why this review was opened, after all. I don't intend to re-litigate the whole damn thing over again; I just want to understand what reasoning actually supports your close decision. (Alternatively, we can skip past "reasoned arguments" requirements for now and examine your "policy-based arguments", and hear your reasoning on how your newly-created category doesn't also violate WP:OCEGRS, WP:CATDEF and WP:OR. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Six different editors in the discussion (Renzoy16, Desmay, Omar Ghrida, Eliko007, Majoreditor, and Moataz1997)... -- Even if the number of !votes carried weight (vs. the policy arguments each brought), 3 of those 6 are effectively SPAs, with few other edits to other subjects (and they were not the only SPAs participating here)... — Rhododendrites \\ 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't even think to look (nor did the 'deciding' admin, obviously). Thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing was overlooked here; the assertion is flatly incorrect. None of these editors fits within WP:SPA; in fact, most of them have literally thousands of edits across the various Wikimedia projects. However, @Rhododendrites: since you have made this accusation, I would welcome you to please WP:NOTIFY these editors so that they can have a fair opportunity to speak for themselves against this charge. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's clever. Did you just cite a user essay in lieu of directly asking someone to ping several editors likely to support your position? By the way, I also recognize editors who are effectively SPAs in the CfD discussion (and no, I won't be pinging any specific editors for you either), but you miss the salient point of his comment: the number of votes you manage to accumulate to nod in unison with you is not relevant. We need to see the Misplaced Pages policies & the well-reasoned arguments that support your as yet still unsupported close decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
A very well-regarded essay. Do you think that it is appropriate to make accusations against other editors behind their backs? bd2412 T 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't the venue to charge a specific editor of inappropriate behavior, and neither I, nor anyone else, has yet done so. There are Administrator noticeboards for that, should the need arise to single out editors. We need to see the Misplaced Pages policies & the well-reasoned arguments that support your as yet still unsupported close decision. Can we get to that now? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It is highly inappropriate to identify six editors by name and say that "3 of those 6 are effectively SPAs", which levels a vague insinuation of inappropriate behavior against all six of them. This is particularly so where none of the named editors is an SPA. I suspect you would act differently towards such an insinuation if your name was included in such a list. As for the policy supporting my close decision, WP:CONSENSUS, and TonyBallioni has already pointed to WP:THREEOUTCOMES. It has also already been pointed out that the consequence of overturning my close will merely be that Category:Persecution by atheists will be restored. bd2412 T 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure decision to rename: in the original CfD, while most people on both sides found the original name to be problematic, there was no consensus to delete the category outright. Numerous editors voiced support for renaming the category to essentially what the current name is. The current category name solves all the problems of the original name -- we can easily track and verify acts of religious persecution by official states that officially endorse atheism without violating NPOV or any other relevant guideline. We have similar categories, such as Category:Religious persecution by communists. These categories do not imply that atheists (or communists) are inherently more inclined to violence and persecution than other religious/political/etc. groups. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 1990'sguy, when you step in here and declare (as if it were actually true) that "there was no consensus to delete the category outright", without presenting the required Misplaced Pages policy and/or reasoned argument to substantiate that dubious claim, you are not helping to advance this discussion any more than the closing admin is when he makes that same dubious claim without explanation. In addition, your assertion that "The current category name solves all the problems of the original name" has already been shown to be false, as both names equally and grossly violate Misplaced Pages policy (WP:OCEGRS and WP:CATVER at a minimum), so it surprises me that you would even try to claim such a thing. Creating a category "Persecution by (__insert any variation involving atheism here__)" absolutely DOES "imply that atheists are inherently more inclined to violence and persecution". Did you think readers would not catch your denial of that? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • endorse many atheist states have historically persecuted people of faith in accordance with that doctrine.

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. 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) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)