Talk:Persecution of atheists

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
	This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Atheism Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Younus Shaikh

Shouldn't the case of Younus Shaikh be included on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.208.87 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggest merge

Merge with discrimination against atheists, of course.

Agree, the only difference is that this one has more historical examples than Discrimination. This page should be a redirect I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, since as per what is written in the "Persecution" section of this talk page, the only instances of persecution in this article are the instances in Iran. The rest are discrimination or apparent OR. The treatment of those "who change or renounce their religious faith" is already covered on the Religious freedom in Iran page in the Restrictions on religious freedom section. More can be added there, but the one sourced sentence here on it is obviously far too short to merit its own article. Madridrealy (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed the merge. The only thing left to do is cleaning up double-redirects. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

May be this article isn't NPOV, but as it is written it certainly seems that way. Perhaps it is only in need of a cleanup. A Cleanup which I cannnot provide. This Article reads less like an encyclopedic entry on Persecution of a group, and more like a strange tirade against the U.S. and the Supreme Court. Just my 2 cents... anyone else have an opinion?

I think it reads fine, and I think the cases mentioned are very interesting, and I often wonder why my country (not american) didn't go through equivalent processes yet. Also, it might look like a tirade against them, but to me it looks like they have a tirade against atheists, so I guess it evens out. PHF 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not even close to NPOV- I'm placing a disputed tag on the page. The problem is not so much content-wise, but that this is allegedly an article about the "persecution" of atheists. Disapproval and distrust doesn't even come close. Perhaps there is a place for a discussion of these issues in the general Atheism article, but their place here is manifestly POV. The only category whose inclusion isn't POV is the Historical one, and there are issues there as well. Gabrielthursday 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that since I put the disputed tag on the page, the article has been further expanded with more information which does not amount to persecution. Please take a look at the other Persecution articles. I haven't edited it yet because I want to give people a chance to defend the current structure, but I certainly will strike the aforementioned sections if there is not some discussion of why they ought to remain. Gabrielthursday 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anyone step forward, I'm going to proceed in two steps- I'm removing material that is principally concerned with unfavourable attitudes towards Atheism. I'm also placing political restrictions on atheists in a separate category. I don't think these political restrictions rise to the level of persecution, but I solicit different views on the subject. Essentially, I think there has to be some deprivation of civil liberties, rather than a mere prohibition on direct participation in government. Gabrielthursday 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that, simply because they have a different beliefs than you, atheists should be deprived of (some) civil rights? Shadoom 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think obviously Gabrielthursday meant in regards to whether the situation is considered persecution or not. Not whether it should take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be expanded

Though all the information in this article seems good, I think it needs more information. A lot of what the previous writer said is correct: because it lacks information, it does seem like a tirade against U.S. policies and not NPOV. The simple way to fix this is talk more widely about current world views on atheism, and to include more opinions of those who disagree with it. I don't have much information myself, and request that people add to this article.

Well, I couls suggest something to be added, I would like to see a mention on Nazi Germany persecution of atheists. PHF 04:50, 12 June 2006

(UTC)

Wait, is Atheism a religion or not? Its in a catagory of 'persecuted religions', but I always thought of atheism as a rejection of religion. Wikiwarlock 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "persecuted group" section of the "religious persecution" series of articles. Nowhere is it stated to be a religion, anymore than the Soviet Union (which is also on the list) is a religion. -Silence 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Atheists" versus "atheists"

I've reverted the move to capitalising "atheist". I've discussed this over at Talk:Persecution_of_Heathens#Heathens_is_a_proper_noun_and_capitalized_word.3F, but in future I believe it should be discussed here, especially as people seem to be using arguments for "heathen" which do not necessarily apply here. To summarise my point of view:

"Atheist" is not a proper noun, whilst words like "Christian" are, so there is no inconsistency - the consistency should be with Wikipedia standards, which says words should be lower case unless the word is a proper noun. Hence it is inconsistent to capitalise "atheist".
Liftarn said "You can't have different standards for different religions" - atheism is not a religion, and it is pushing a POV to describe it as such. Mdwh 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is, but just wanted to say that it is not at all unfounded, see [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502222/posts]. PHF 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de la Barre

I've removed the de la Barre reference, as I've been unable to find a reference to him in fact being an atheist, or that suspicions of atheism were the cause of his persecution. Gabrielthursday 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I agree with the removal of the de la Barre section. However, the section on the US experience seemed relevant and I am puzzled as to the seconds complete removal (although it could use some size reduction). JoshuaZ 00:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds=section's? I don't claim that the deleted material is inappropriate for wikipedia- but I certainly believe it to be inappropriate for this article. It just doesn't amount to the type of persecution described in the other persecution articles. Perhaps attitudes towards atheism could be included in the main article, or in a separate page, akin to Anti-Christian prejudice. Although a weak article overall, I'll cite this statement from that article as indicative of the proper distinction between prejudice, discrimination and persecution: "prejudice is a form of religious intolerance; it may be simply a mental or emotional attitude, or it may lead to stereotyping, discrimination, or even – in extreme cases – to persecution of Christians." Because of the deleted sections' inclusion, the article appeared to engage in a form of special pleading- that persecution of atheists has a lower threshold than other groups, and is thus POV. Ironically, the appearance of special pleading actually reflects poorly on atheism.

The question of where the political discrimination section ought to end up is an interesting question. If it were part of a larger narrative involving actual persecution, I'd say it should probably remain. However, given that there is no such connexion, and is not itself persecution, it should end up with the other deleted sections wherever they roam.

Perhaps a new page titled "Bias against Atheism" or "Bias against Atheists"? I believe such a page could be broad enough to include discussion of everything from attitudes towards atheism to discrimination towards atheists.

I don't think we're necessarily that far apart here, and I hope we can come to a compromise. Gabrielthursday 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable. I suggest we wait a few days to see if any other editors have any objections to that since it would be a major change to the article. Comments would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I think a separate article should be made, I think it would be more appropriate.Goatan 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. Chiming in to suggest Discrimination of atheists as thename for the new article. Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a long time now. Are you just going to leave the NPOV tag on and completely forget about moving the removed information to an appropriate place? Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment to do it, you of course or more than welcome to. JoshuaZ 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political restrictions

I've removed the section on political restrictions, which dealt with (mostly inoperative) religious requirements for political office in the modern US and Victorian England. Even where operative, this is discrimination rather than persecution, and belongs in the article on discrimination against atheists instead. --OinkOink 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that for the sake of not doing a half-assed job, you will try to incorporate that into the proper article, right? Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the material on the state constitutions is already in Discrimination against atheists (though it's not clear how inoperative fossilized language in state constitutions even constitutes discrimination). The remaining material about Mr. Bradlaugh cannot be added until a reference is found. (It would have to be removed here on that basis alone.) I'll see if I can find a reference this weekend. Yours Truly in the struggle against half-assed jobs :-) --OinkOink 15:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool =) Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague statement on Islam

The statement that atheists do not have a right to life "under Islam" seems problematically vague to me. As everyone surely knows, there are numerous forms of Islam, and many of them would not hold to this teaching. Would anyone object if I changed that statement so that it reads something like, "Non-believers - atheists - do not have 'the right to life' according to the Islamic beliefs held by the Iranian government."? ChrisHack25 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)ChrisHack25[reply]

I wouldn't care, but it'd be best if someone could cite some Quranic verses supporting this view. --RucasHost 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says the same thing in the Human Rights in Iran article. Pyromania152 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyromania152 (talk • contribs)

In response to the views of RucasHost, it is a serious error to assume that the views of Islam, which vary considerably from Moslem to Moslem, are restricted entirely to the teachings of the Koran, despite its tremendous significance. If such passages exist, however, they certainly should be cited as evidence. Having recently read a translation of the Holy Book, though, I seriously doubt that such passages can be found. Mbrutus (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of athiests, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case this article would be about three sentences long by my count. The Iran part is the only sourced instance of actual persecution on this page. Madridrealy (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination=Persecution?

I added discrimination to the beginning because that is what all of the cited instances of persecution on this page were referring to except reference number 4 and arguably reference number 1 (which actually said nothing about persecution or discrimination at all).Madridrealy (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Discrimination against atheists which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]