Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:Doctors of Law[edit]

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: delete. I have listified the Doctors of both laws in Doctor of both laws; interested editors are welcome to add details there. – Fayenatic London 13:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Glovacki: What does Doctors of both laws mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: It is a special degree, see Doctor of both laws. --Glovacki (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both there is a very good reason why neither Category:Academic degrees nor even Category:Doctoral degrees have a sub-category scheme of "people with [type] of degree" - it would be pure category clutter. We'd have "Doctors of science", "Doctors of literature", "People with MBAs", "People with law degrees", etc and then it would be "[Nationality] people with [subject] degrees" broken down into further sub-categories for doctor/master/bachelor level degrees... and the point is that Wikipedia for a very long time, as shown by BHG's link, has not regarded the type of someone's degree as a defining characteristic. BencherliteTalk 18:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom and long-established consensus. Oculi (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- Doctor of law is an unusual degree, which like D. Litt. and D.Sc. are awarded to senior academics, who have a large body of significant published work. It is probably a good indication that the recipient is WP-notable, but that does not justify a category. OCAWARD probably does not strictly apply, but it gives rise to the similar issues. A greater problem is that these degrees are frequently awarded as honorary degrees, which OCAWARD certainly does apply to. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse to appropriate subcats of Category:Academics by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom--Omar Ghrida (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete both but for consensus and precedent reasons, I object to a blanket ban on categories about academic degrees. If a category about people with academic degrees is questioned, supporters of the category remaining/being created must prove that the degree is any of the following: (1) a defining characteristic of most of people who hold it, (2) any subject who has this degree would automatically pass NACADEMIC, or (3) does not need to be deleted under the WP:deletion policy. These criteria were chosen because those are the reasons why people are !voting "delete" in this discussion and in others.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Mathematics and abstraction infobox templates[edit]

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: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Category:Economic development, technological change, and growth[edit]

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: merge. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Category:Persecution by Muslims[edit]

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: no consensus. Note: When closing this discussion, I also considered the related discussions (see below) for Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus. The policy arguments were basically the same, and the same closing rationale applies (just replace one set of examples with another). For any future discussion, I would recommend considering all of the categories jointly to minimize repetition of the same arguments.
Arguments to delete included that the category is non-defining for the articles therein, a non-notable intersection of topics by religion, requires subjective (non-verifiable) categorization judgments, advances a non-neutral point of view, and constitutes an attack on a particular group. Of these, the strongest arguments relate to the potential subjectivity of defining what constitutes "persecution" (but this is a broader issue affecting Category:Persecution as a whole) and, more specifically, "persecution by Muslims". Fundamentally, there is a question of scope: Is this category for persecution carried out by Muslims in relation to some tenet of Islam (likely defining and passes WP:OCEGRS but harder to verify) or just any instance of persecution by people who happen to be Muslim (easier to verify but likely non-defining and fails WP:OCEGRS)? I gave less weight to arguments that the category advances a POV or attacks Muslims as no one explained what POV is supposedly being pushed and I struggled to see the perspective that this category somehow makes a claim about all Muslims.
Arguments to keep basically came down to the topic having real-world relevance ("a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right") and being defining for at least a portion of the articles therein (the "keep but purge" viewpoint). While both arguments are reasonable, neither one satisfactorily resolves the question of scope noted above. It would be hard to argue that the targeting of the Egyptian Copts, Ahmadis in Pakistan, Yazidis in Iraq, or secularists in Bangladesh is anything other than religiously motivated persecution. However, it is equally valid that there is no value in connecting politically motivated repression/violence by Muslims (especially against other Muslims) to the topic of "persecution by Muslims"—as the nom stated, "everyone has blood on their hands". -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    Here are some articles that inform about the above-mentioned issues: [1] [2] [3] [4][5] David A (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- subjective; "persecution" implies some sort of entity, directing the persecutions. Non defining characteristic of "Muslims" as a whole. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Category:Persecution by Muslims and Category:Persecution by Christians have defining Wikipedia articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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"' [6]. That is very sloppy.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (forgot to sign way back in July 5,2017)[reply]
    You're right. It's coming back to me now. The article on Persecution of Muslims was deleted [7] 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)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to the previous discussion on this category which resulted in "delete" and for other observations you made. If anything, it may be more acceptable to rename this category (if it is kept) like what was decided by the Category:Persecution by atheists category below - rename to Category:Persecution by Muslim states or something that emphasizes the states that are officially Muslim, rather than persecution by Mulsims as a movement or individual Muslims.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — 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. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is not actually true that this is, as a whole, controversial, and it is endlessly documented, as our numerous articles show. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom and K.e.coffman. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. With the articles there is definitely a risk of POV so they should only be in this category if they are definitely about persecution and definitely about that being done by Muslims, e.g. Persecution of Ahmadis may be kept. Many other articles may go. I don't have a big problem with keeping the subcategories here (they are not nominated anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Muslims also persecute those who convert from Islam to Christianity. Sharia law prescribes death for men and life imprisonment for women. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Agree with nom and K.e.coffman. Moataz1997 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Omar Ghrida (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Persecution by Islamic extremists This category groups Islamic extremists with all Muslims. It should be deleted for advancing a POV. Eliko007 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to organize the many articles on persecution of homosexuals and blasphemers by Muslims. Holbach Girl (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but if kept strong opposer Omar Ghrida's proposal. The blasphemy laws of Pakistan for example belong here, but to claim they are acts of extremists is just not justified. One article I removed was the one on rape in the Bangladesh independence war. While the people who carried out such rapes were almost all Muslims, the vast majority of their victims were Muslims as well, and the differences were political and ethnic, not in any sense religious. I think in general the problem is that we have no clear definition of what is and is not persecution, the term means different things to different people, especially in the era of people hyping "microagression".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JahlilMA (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I was Christian (I am no longer in the faith) I stayed in Cairo for a while keeping connection with local Christians. They had genuine fear of actions of Fundamentalist Muslims. In the west bank half of my remarkably forgiving friends Armenian family's family were killed in the Ottoman genocides. When the quran contains content including the Sword Verse, a text which (chronologically) was one of the last to be written, it is of value that readers can have easy access to information on violence in Islam. Articles are valuably accessed via both on "Persecution of" and "Persecution by" categories. GregKaye 11:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Persecution by Christians[edit]

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: no consensus; see detailed rationale for #Category:Persecution by Muslims. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [8]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete -- subjective and non-defining.desmay (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom and K.e.coffman. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. With the articles there is definitely a risk of POV so they should only be in this category if they are definitely about persecution and definitely about that being done by Christians towards non-Christians in a consistent manner, so the Capitulatio article may be kept but the other three articles may go. I don't have a big problem with keeping the subcategories here (they are not nominated anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- As a Christian it is a regret to me that Christians have been guilty of persecution, but they have. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reliable source that says that being a Christian leads to persecution? It is the same issue that is being raised in the discussion for deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists below where they are arguing that since atheism means "lack of belief in gods", there can be no atheists doing any persecuting. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete People do not persecute others in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. In fact the teachings of Jesus stand as a stern rebuke to people who act violently. Those who are persecuting are doing so for political or economic reasons. Eliko007 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep as something every encyclopedia should have. As an example, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 4 edited by Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley says on page 157 "One should not overlook the fact that the Christian church itself has been responsible for persecution." Holbach Girl (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source on the same page continues your quote by saying "Persecution by Christians can occur only when the church thinks it should give political shape to the world and when it so identifies itself with the social or political order as to question the latter's autonomy (i.e., when the church regards itself and its form of faith as absolute)." It boils down to "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" politics, not Christian's beliefs or doctrines about Christianity. This is why despite there being many Christians at any given moment, only regional conflicts emerged and eventually ended. The real issues were not related to Christian doctrines since those beliefs are pretty much fixed and constant and yet you have no persecutions that have been consistent, and fixed through time. Furthermore, here is what your source says about the section on the term "Persecution" (p. 156-157): "1. Term - The word "persecution" evokes a number of ideas, including opposition to the Christian shaping of society, hindrances to the exercise of the Christian religion, and the suppression and extirpation of people of Christian conviction. Similarly, there have been many events in Christian history in which Christians have suffered pressure of differing intensity and for different purposes. We cannot give a single definition of what may be recalled and re-counted as persecution for the faith, for it covers the whole period from the primitive Christian community right on to the present day. We must remember that what sounds like a very early phrase - "persecuted for the faith" - does not occur in the NT and that, on closer examination, it proves to be too limited."
If anything, it may be more acceptable to rename this category (if it is kept) like what was decided by the Category:Persecution by atheists category below - rename to Category:Persecution by Christian states or something that emphasizes the states that are officially christian, rather than persecution by Christianity as a movement or individual Christians. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My source is a highly-regarded encyclopedia that says persecution by Christians is a reality, and the Christian church is responsible for it, which is why I said to keep. What kind of religious persecution is done at various times by Christians because they regard its form of faith as absolute, is not what my comment addressed. I only said the category should exist for all the types, political included, where the responsibility lies with the "absolute Christian faith". I haven't commented on the types of persecution. I am certain you are wrong about Christian doctrine being fixed over the centuries. The interpretations of doctrine and the motivations derived from it are more diverse than any subject in history.Holbach Girl (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted more of what your source says on the matter of persecution since you left much of that out and it does not say that people persecuted for Christian beliefs or Christian doctrines - things that make Christians Christians. In other words your source does not say that persecution was ever done just because one is a Christian and it admits that it cannot give a single definition of "persecution for the faith" - basically because it was very limited even in the New Testament. Furthermore, your source explicitly links persecution with politics' not theology or the Bible - "Persecution by Christians can occur only when the church thinks it should give political shape to the world and when it so identifies itself with the social or political order as to question the latter's autonomy (i.e., when the church regards itself and its form of faith as absolute)." It boils down to "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" politics or ideology, not theology. That the Church (which is a mix of secular and ecclesiastical institution) has been involved in persecution is not the same thing as saying that Christians persecuted. For example, most leaders in the US Government, which is an institution, are actually Christians, but it makes no sense to blame their activities solely on their Christian identity. For one thing, the Church did not persecute just because they were Christians. Most of the Church's activities are secular activities such as politics, science, economics, war, law, etc and none of these are tenets of Christian beliefs plus most of the culture of the Church (language, customs, organization, structure, etc) is based on Roman and Greek customs, beliefs and ideas; not Jewish culture (which is where Christianity came from).Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left the whole book out and quoted only what addressed my point. What you quoted from the same book doesn't change my point. Sure there are many kinds of persecution and sure not all persecution by Christians is strictly because of Christianity, but my comment was only about the examples that are. The others you speak of might not fit the category. Persecution of witches would.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like you source says, there is no consistent concept of persecution or definition of it that is applicable to Christians. See the long quote. Also your source links explicitly persecution with absolutist politics, not theology. Jesus was not advancing politics nor was he a politician. So the concept of persecution is meaningless since it shifts all the time. In terms of witches, there is excellent history on the complexity of the issue which involved sorcery and miracles. It was never a linear thing so persecution here fails as a consistent topic too (A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics, & Pagans by Jeffrey Russell - Thanmes & Hudson). The category here merely oversimplfies really complex situations as if theological beliefs lead to any particular behavior.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK good, we are in consensus. The category is useful, because as my encyclopedia source says, "One should not overlook the fact that the Christian church itself has been responsible for persecution." The source also says there are several definitions of persecution. We should only categorize those examples where there is no doubt. I think death by fire qualifies as persecution. The source says there can be many reasons for persecution, including politics. We should only categorize the clearly religion-based examples. I think "She is in league with satan burn the witch!!!!!!!!" qualifies.Holbach Girl (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I agree with you. The category is pretty much useless, controversial, and oversimplifies complex situations. Look at the extensive quotes I provided from your source which show that persecution is political not theological and that the very term is problematic since they cannot give a single definition for the "persecution for the faith" because of the long and complex circumstances in history til today. Furthemroe, the source certainly does not blame persecution on Christian beliefs or doctrines as being the source for any misfortune towards other people. Also the "Christian church" is technical a governmental body which dealt with things not pertaining to Christian beliefs - politics, science, so any activity it does is not fundamentally based on christian beliefs. You cannot ignore the context of what it says about persecution - it is political, not theologically based. An excellent example is witches, they were not targeted out of reading the bible or Christian beliefs, rather social, economic, and ethnic factors played the motivating roles. On needs to understand differences between magic and sorcery since witchcraft was not clearly defined during the witch-hunts and religious authorities were normally skeptical of claims of witchcraft since they could also be sorcery or divine punishment and judgement. It is a long complicated history.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge per 2 reasons cited above Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially if the Muslim catepgry is delted. As I said above, there is no clear, universally agreed upon definition of what persecution is. Beyond this, the way the category is named, as long as the person doing the persecution can be shown to be a Christian it could in theory be applied, even if the motivations for the persecution are entirely ethnic, political or some other things with no clear religious motivation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both categories, "Persecution of..." and "Persecution by...", provide useful routes for accessing article information. GregKaye 11:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Persecution by Buddhists[edit]

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: no consensus; see detailed rationale for #Category:Persecution by Muslims. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete -- subjective and non-defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is not actually true that this is, as a whole, controversial, and it is endlessly documented, as our numerous articles show. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom and K.e.coffman. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create three separate subcategories for Japan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar as a sort of containerization of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Christians and Muslims in Burma; Christians in Sri Lanka; etc: it happens. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Buddhists do not persecute people based on the teachings of Buddha, but for political reasons. Persecuting other people in the name of Buddhism is not a thing. Eliko007 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge it's by Buddhists, not inspired by Buddhism. Who knows what inspired them? Regardless, they were Buddhists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Appears to be POV pushing and does not make sense because most of the conflicts listed there are ethnic-related conflicts, especially those related to Sri Lanka. (121.220.76.187 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete While especially the Myanmar issue is a clear case of pwersecution by Buddhists by most definitions, it is Buddhists monks often encouraging it, and it targets Muslims because they are Muslims, there are no clear yes or no answers, and some cases some will call ethnic while others will call religious. The existence of many ethno-religious groups makes such distinctions at times pointless.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both categories, "Persecution of..." and "Persecution by...", provide useful routes for accessing article information. GregKaye 11:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Persecution by Hindus[edit]

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: no consensus; see detailed rationale for #Category:Persecution by Muslims. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete -- subjective and non-defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is not actually true that this is, as a whole, controversial, and it is endlessly documented, as our numerous articles show. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom and K.e.coffman. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow, this is mainly about riots, but it is a coherent category that shouldn't be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but may need purging -- It certainly happens, both against Muslims and Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reason provided by User:K.e.coffman. Eliko007 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge per my reasons in CFD above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not done in the name of Hinduism, so there is no point in having such a category. Appears to be POV pushing. (121.220.76.187 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete because this is a poorly defined term. However the claim that some of the anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence was "not done in the name of Hinduism" is pretty hard to justify. The above 4 should all have the same outcome. Either we keep all four categories, or delete all 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both categories, "Persecution of..." and "Persecution by...", provide useful routes for accessing article information. GregKaye 11:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Former users that were percecuted by wikipedia-admins[edit]

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 Talk 12:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia and probably wanted to illustrate a point by creating this category and adding himself to it. SoWhy 09:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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[edit]

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: merge astronomers, microbiologists and physicists; keep scientists. The rest were withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support but natural philosophers, not scientists, though parented in the scientists tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option B
This is what I believe the alternative proposal should look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Renaming the target would require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • Comment to @Marcocapelle: option A has the edge over B; but before it could be implemented, please explain why you think these selected small categories should be pruned, out of the many in Category:17th-century people by nationality and occupation. That looks to me like a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme which is the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Persecution by atheists[edit]

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: rename to Category:Persecution by atheist states and repopulate. There is a clear majority in favor of deleting this category, but not a clear consensus to delete; however, even among editors preferring to keep the category, a substantial number are amenable to refining the category to specify that the relevant remit of the category is persecution by states that are officially atheist, rather than persecution by atheism as a movement or by individual atheists or subnational atheist groups. bd2412 T 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
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)[reply]
CORRECTION: The previous discussion was closed as No consensus - with caveats. This category has been identified as original research.[dubious – discuss]
  • Support though with the side comment that some of the past content may be preserved in a new Category:Religious persecution by secular governments, as has been proposed in the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POINTy creation by anti-atheist POV-pusher, cause of no end of trouble for the project earlier this year. The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and their request for ROPE denied for a multitude of reasons: this being their pet project (Has anyone else ever added it to an article? Is there an easy way to check?) it seems unlikely to ever see use again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 talk \\ 13:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
You know the Soviets were officially (and personally) atheistic. Pot: kettle.Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • 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 [9] - 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. [10] - "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete and for consistency also delete the "persecution by Christians" article for consistency otherwise it smacks of hypocrisy and POV. Knox490 (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There were some excellent arguments by some of the keep voters.Knox490 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete (per Snow): As already extensively discussed, this cat was determined to be an original research-created subcategory of Category:Religious persecution not supported by reliable sources. Articles previously mis-categorized under this cat have since been more accurately re-categorized. As for other subcats of Religious Persecution (by Muslims, by Christians, et al.), they can be separately reviewed for their compliance with reliable sources, of course. Indeed, some have now been added to this page (above). Xenophrenic (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with "State atheism" as the defining article of the category. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read that article, it says "State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism [...]" (emphasis added). Such states may also be anti-clerical to a point were certain religious believers were persecuted but anti-clericalism and atheism don't necessarily go together; in fact one can be anti-clerical and religious at the same time (see the article I linked). Regards SoWhy 18:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Uh..Just an FYI. Paul Froese actually does state, in a research paper [11] - "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [12] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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 [see McGowan, Dale (7 September 2012). Voices of Unbelief: Documents from Atheists and Agnostics. ABC-CLIO., and Fremont-Barnes, Gregory (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760–1815. Greenwood Press]. 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia in service of a personal crusade. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, atheism per se is not a dogma-based organised movement--87.2.118.56 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not relevant here. It's about acts, not about beliefs. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It's actually not legitimate. It's a creation of original research, as determined in the last discussion, and it is empty. And it fails WP:CATDEF, which requires that categories be neutral and noncontroversial. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Category:Persecution by atheist states Agree with desmay. Moataz1997 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is it? Keep it, or create that new category? And based on what specific sources? And desmay has been shown to be an unreliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 talk \\ 05:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia articles. (Wikipedia policy prohibits citing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 ([13], [14], [15], [16], 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)[reply]
  • 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 ([17], [18], [19], [20], 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)[reply]
  • Delete – 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(talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 chat 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: The previous discussion was closed as No consensus - with caveats. and the admin closer concluded the arguments provided (by 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
If you want policy-based reasoning to keep a category, maybe you should start by first giving a policy-based reasoning to drop the category. All you have really done is misrepresent a "no consensus" discussion.[failed verification] If you look at what the admin closer wrote then we have to say that he/she did not conclude what you claim. tahc chat 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want policy-based reasoning to keep a category... - STOP; please troll at a different discussion page. "What I want" is irrelevant to this discussion; it has already been made abundantly clear by Wikipedia that categories must conform to policy (see WP:CATDEF, WP:CATVER, WP:OCEGRS, etc.). Competence is required - and that applies to reading comprehension as well. Perhaps you should ask the closer, User:Black Kite, who has the more accurate interpretation of their close decision. If I read your accusation correctly, you just accused the closing admin of closing based on his own personal POV instead of what he read in the ridiculously long discussion. Until then, I'm afraid I'm all out of troll food. Xenophrenic (talk)
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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 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)[reply]
  • Agree with Procedural proposal per Marco. 18:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support procedural proposal/Delete. It's empty. I actually agree with the current category's concept, but right now it is empty. Please alert me about any other discussions about this subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During the same edit where I !voted, I also made edits to the HTML and markup of some of your comments. The syntax was screwing with the markup all the way down the page and my syntax highlighter saw it. Thanks.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose that -- The procedural proposal does not solve the problem. I would prefer Keep and populate (but largely as a container category - USSR promoted state atheism, but so did its satellites in Eastern Europe. China, North Korea, and certain other Communist states still persecute Christians. This is thus a genuine category, but to keep original research out of it, we need to exclude court cases in the West, where atheism may (or may not) be a motivation for what some Christians perceive as persecution. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per your observation that "USSR promoted state atheism, but so did its satellites", a Category:States that promoted atheism might not be opposed, because there is actually reliably sourced support for it (see the Soviet State creation and control of the League of Militant Godless to promote atheism through propaganda and education, or the Albania addition to their 1976 State constitution that atheism would be promoted). And per your observation that Communist states still persecute Christians, we already have Category:Religious persecution by communists. However, what we are discussing here is the non-genuine WP:OR "Persecution by atheists" category, which misleadingly implies to our readers that the motivation for persecution is a lack of belief in gods (atheism). Reliable sources simply do not back up that artificial construct. You yourself appear to be demonstrating the same WP:Synthesis (others here refer to it as original research): You take two facts (Soviet communists promote atheism -&- Soviet communists also persecute religions) and then synthesize those in your head to "Golly, Soviets must be persecuting religions because the Soviets lack a belief in gods! Let's call it 'persecution by atheists'!". No, Wikipedia policy doesn't allow you to create your own fiction by misleadingly combining two facts. When your synthesis was brought to your attention in the previous deletion discussion, you disappeared - never to be heard from again. So I am going to ping you @Peterkingiron:, because problematic reasoning really should be addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution of believers in anything other than atheism was state policy in USSR and in its satellites. It is still state policy in China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. We are actually discussing Category:Persecution by atheists, not atheism, the very name you suggest! I have no objection to being essentially a parent only container, because I think it will be difficult to find cases where persecution is randomly perpetrated by individuals, without being state-sponsored. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that, "Persecution of believers in anything other than atheism was state policy in USSR and in its satellites" is both unsourced and nonsensical as phrased. One can't really "believe in the absence of belief in gods". The reliably-sourced reality (Ramet 1993) is that the state policy in the USSR was persecution of any social institution (including religions) which competed with, or were not under complete control of, the communist ideology. We already have the "parent container" of Category:Religious persecution, so you are not being clear as to why you think there should be a "Persecution by atheists" sub-category, when such a name misleadingly implies the persecution is caused by atheists. Is there some undisclosed reason of which we should be aware? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Category:Persecution by atheist states. As discussed before, there are many references to state atheism:
Here are some citations from the article on Religion in the Soviet Union:
Thus the USSR became the first[1] state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5]
And here is a quote from a certain atheist named Vladimir Lenin, also taken from the article Religion in the Soviet Union.
State Atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

References

  1. ^ "Revelations from the Russian Archives: ANTI-RELIGIOUS CAMPAIGNS". Library of Congress. US Government. Retrieved 2 May 2016.
  2. ^ a b Kowalewski, David (October 1980). "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences". Russian Review. 39 (4): 426–441. doi:10.2307/128810. JSTOR 128810 – via JSTOR.
  3. ^ Ramet, Sabrina Petra. (Ed) (1993). Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press. p. 4.
  4. ^ Anderson, John (1994). Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-521-46784-5.
  5. ^ "Anti-religious Campaigns". Loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
  6. ^ Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
The point is the both atheist governments and atheist individuals were responsible for persecution of religions and religious individuals. To suggest this classification is OR is wrong-headed. Majoreditor (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand, Majoreditor. Did you even bother to read the two quotes you pasted here? The USSR had an objective to eliminate religion (not "atheists"). That is why we have Category:Religious persecution by communists and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. And what our Religion in the Soviet Union article really says is: Thus the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of existing religion, and the prevention of future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm). According to the sources (including those you just cited), the persecution was done by the Soviet communists, not "by atheists", and "state atheism" was the goal they hoped to eventually achieve. And as one of your sources states, The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It was the state doing the persecution, not atheists - and it was political expediency, not an absence of belief in gods (atheism), that drove the persecution of religions, including which religions to target, and when to persecute and when to prop up and support. Please use more care when reading and quoting sources. If you have sources which actually support the WP:OR category "Persecution by atheists", please produce them. You'll be the first to provide such sources, as of the date of this posting. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the obvious observation that the persecution was as part of a state sponsored activity that was about the elimination / removal of external influences in societies that could otherwise disrupt the Communist ethos. Communism does not need to be Atheistic, so to conflate Communism and Atheism as immutable is a massive red herring. The suggested to change of "persecution by atheistic states" doesn't make any sense either. The idea that a state sponsored religious ideology is the defining feature of sweeping persecution is a very slippery slope towards some very inclusive categories (for instance, "persecution by Christian states" is going to accrue an awful lot of content as everything is done by nominally Christian nations in the west). The starting point for this whole piece should be with a clear rationale behind the category. It fails on that front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncorde (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who replied to my comment below critized me for not citing academic sources, but the comment that I am replying to here does not cite any references nor does it even link to Wikipedia articles.
But, to get to the substance, Majoreditor pointed out above (and referenced), state atheism is an essential part of communism, at least the type applied by the USSR. Marx also advocated for the dissolution of religion in The Communist Manifesto. If it is true that some types of communism (that diverge from Marx, Lenin, and probably all historial examples of communism) tolerate organized religions, that also strengthens the "keep" argument because as communism would not need to be atheistic, and since state atheist governments are not necessarily communist, this category is independent of the persecution by communism category.
Either way, this category that we are debating over is not synonymous with communism. The dechristianization of France during the French Revolution is a notable example of a non-communist atheist state persecuting people of various religions.
Also, because we have a well-defined list of atheist states, worries that this category will become very inclusive is nonsense. Maybe we could rename the category to Category:Religious persecution by atheist states -- this might help reassure editors worried of a too-inclusive category, but I don't think there is anything to worry about regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Majoreditor pointed out above (and referenced), state atheism is an essential part of communism, at least the type applied by the USSR --1990'sguy
Not exactly. The sources brought by Majoreditor say that "state atheism" was one of the goals of the Soviet's ideology.
Marx also advocated for the dissolution of religion in The Communist Manifesto. --1990'sguy
Not exactly. Marx was rather ambivalent toward religion, expecting that it would disappear of its own accord. Lenin and Stalin, however, were more proactive in their efforts to suppress, control and ultimately eliminate religious influence from Soviet society - but not because Lenin and Stalin were atheists.
If it is true that some types of communism (that diverge from Marx, Lenin, and probably all historial examples of communism) tolerate organized religions... --1990'sguy
If it is true? Just so you are clear, it is fact that historical Soviet communism has varied in its treatment of religion, depending on political expediency and whether specific religious institutions pose a threat or fall in line. This fact alone reveals the silliness of the "by atheist" and "by atheist state" meme, as a regime doesn't "believe in gods" when dealing with some institutions, then "not believe in gods" when dealing with others, then "believe in gods again" when war breaks out, etc.
The dechristianization of France during the French Revolution is a notable example of a non-communist atheist state persecuting people of various religions. --1990'sguy
No it isn't. Now, let's compare reliable sources, shall we, instead of comparing your personal beliefs with what actual reliable sources say. Produce specific reliable sources, and let's discuss.
And by the way, we don't "rename" empty categories. If you wish to create a new (and apparently equally problematic) category, which is what you are suggesting, you should go about it the proper way: establish a head-article by the same name, replete with reliable sources uncontroversially supporting the construct, then check to see that similar categories do not already exist. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making unsubstantiated assertions does not help to advance this discussion. If you claim "many well-documented cases" of something, please produce the documentation (the actual reliable sources, not links to Wikipedia articles) for examination. As for the Wikipedia articles you've linked, the sources found in them do not support "Persecution by atheists", else they would be categorized as such. In some of your examples, there is indeed Category:Religious persecution, but it is not caused by atheism, as implied by the category you are struggling mightily to keep. In others, there is indeed Category:Religious persecution by communists, which also had a goal of state atheism, but the cause of the persecution was not atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most other editors, whether they !voted delete or keep, did not cite any sources or articles. Many made simple statements. By citing Wikipedia articles (and a lot of them), which are well-sourced, I am going beyond editors of both sides in this discussion. Besides, other editors above cited reliable sources above on how atheist governments attempted to wipe out religion (of course, you rejected this basically because the articles made clear that the atheists were affiliated with various governments, such as the USSR). Your statement that religious persecution by communists was "not caused by atheism" is false. Atheism is a central tenet of communist and Marxist ideology, and that is the reason why communist governments attempted to wipe out religion. It was atheists persecuting religious people, and their atheism was blatant, along with their attempts to wipe out religion. I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional response, but you seem to have overlooked (avoided?) the key points of disagreement in this discussion. As evidenced above, those supporting this delete proposal are citing (or agreeing with the citing of) not articles (which is useless here), but Wikipedia policy that the WP:OR category violates. Specifically: WP:OCEGRS, WP:CATVER, WP:CATDEF, and WP:Synthesis & WP:Original Research. Those voting "keep" avoid mentioning the policy violations, and as you've observed, have only made simple statements which basically amount to "me too!" for what I can only conclude are personally held ideological motivations. I've petitioned each editor to support their positions with reliable sources or policy-based reasoning -- and I am still waiting. I hope I am not running into the same thing with you.
Now you have linked to 5 Wikipedia articles (and 2 more "possible" articles) to what end, again? Of course the articles you linked are "well-sourced", but those sources do not support "persecution by atheists" - which is the whole point of this discussion. I asked you to produce actual reliable sources which succinctly convey "persecution by atheists" - and once again you have not. Surely you can find some in those well-sourced articles you linked? If not, you'll likely be grouped by the closer of this discussion as yet another editor arguing based on their ideological POV rather than reliable sources as required.
editors above cited reliable sources above on how atheist governments attempted to wipe out religion --1990'sguy
False. Editors above cited sources on how totalitarian regimes, some of which also happen to be atheistic, have sought to suppress, control and even eliminate competing influences over society, including religious institutions -- and then they took those sources and ran the information they conveyed through their personal ideological filters and came up with the original research conclusion: atheism is the reason why communist governments attempted to wipe out religion. Which is, according to reliable sources, nonsense. An absence of belief in gods doesn't compel individuals or groups to confiscate Church property, arrest or exile priests, or remove religious influence from government. According to reliable sources, that is a result of totalitarianism and political control, not of people who lack a belief in supernatural deities.
Your statement that religious persecution by communists was "not caused by atheism" is false. --1990'sguy
That isn't my statement. That is the statement of reliable sources. An example given above: 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 - and before you think that Chicago University Press-published source is a one-off position, there are dozens of similar conclusions by reliable sources (see the collapsed list of sources in the previous discussion for a larger sample).
It was atheists persecuting religious people, and their atheism was blatant, along with their attempts to wipe out religion. I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. --1990'sguy
Oh yes you do know how it can be clearer: provide the reliable sources to back it up. Otherwise, you are just providing more hand-wavy nonsense from your own POV (c'mon, you know how it works at Wikipedia - cough up the sources, or retract).
you rejected this basically because the articles made clear that the atheists were affiliated with various governments, such as the USSR --1990'sguy
Incorrect. Please read more carefully. The very same cited reliable sources rejected it because they made clear the source of the persecution was the totalitarian government, such as the USSR, and the motivation was political, and not because the totalitarian government was populated with people who also didn't believe in supernatural deities. If you have reliable sources which say otherwise, please produce them. (Sorry to keep pressing for sources, but that is how Wikipedia works.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my points above, I know that categories such as Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union and Category:Religious persecution by communists exist. However, this category here is still useful because it can include the cases of persecution by secular and/or (depending on whether we choose to move the category) atheistic governments that do not fall under communism (such as religious persecution in Nazi Germany, France, and Mexico). The other categories that I mentioned can be sub-categories of this one. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the Nazi Germany example? Here is what it says at your link: Christian leaders were sometimes persecuted for their anti-Nazi political activities. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy, were murdered for their suspected ties to the Polish Resistance or left-wing groups, or for sheltering Jews (punishable by death). That is why the religious persecution under Nazi Germany is not categorized as "Persecution by atheists".
When you suggest "moving" the category, I assume you mean creating a new category, as the one we are deleting is already empty with nothing to move. I am curious as to what you would name your new category, and what additional utility it would provide over, say, "Religious persecution by communists". You suggested, This category could be re-named (and it might be a good idea to do so, or possibly to change it from "atheism" to "secularism"), but that is convoluted and beyond confusing. First, the category we're deleting is "Persecution by atheists", not "by atheism". Second, "secularism" is the separation of religion from government, and says nothing about beliefs in gods, while "atheism" is the absence of belief in gods, and says nothing about religions or government. That you would readily suggest swapping one for the other hints to me that there may be a lack of comprehension of the subject matter, or a confusion in terminology at the very least. Tell me, would your new category also run afoul of reliable sources (like Kołakowski quoted above), just as the one being deleted has? Or will it be unambiguous and supported by reliable source, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Nazi Germany, the link I shared above makes very clear that Hitler had a goal of wiping out Christianity (which was the dominant religion; Judaism would also be wiped out, obviously, under Hitler's plans; and Islam was nonexistent in Germany at the time) from Germany after the second world war. Some prominent Nazis, such as Martin Bormann and, I believe, Joseph Goebbels, were atheists who strongly opposed Christianity and Judaism. That is what I meant.
Regarding possibly renaming the category, I am open to differing suggestions. That is why I was ambiguous. I think Category:Religious persecution by atheist states might be a good choice, as other editors have also essentially suggested. In addition, it may also be a good idea to create a separate Category:Religious persecution by secular states. These categories identifies the persecutors as entities rather than individuals, so there would be less pov/ambiguity issues with them. It is very clear which nations maintain policies of state atheism or secularism, so reliable sourcing is not an issue. Thanks for asking me and giving me a chance to think it over a bit more. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. You may as well say "Religious persecution by English speaking states" is a valid criteria for a category, or "Religious persecution by nominally irreligious states". Associating some grouping mechanism with a state does not indicate that the persecution has anything to do with the manifestation of their political beliefs. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that communist nations did not persecute religions due to their Marxist/atheist beliefs? Of course, religion and politics are not totally separate categories -- they rarely are -- but it is clear that atheism played a central role in the communist persecutions, along with the persecutions during the French Revolution. The category that we are discussion is by no means as trivial as those such as "Religious persecution by English speaking states" as you mentioned, for example. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is not to mention that we know which states are/were atheist states. If any of them persecuted religious groups, we can add them to the category. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re: Nazi Germany, I see you are now walking back your assertion that it has any correlation to "persecution by atheists", and was instead an example of "a goal of wiping out Christianity", which has nothing to do with atheists. Atheism ≠ anti-religious (indeed, many atheists are also devoutly religious, and simply do not believe in deities). Whether Goebbels & Bormann were atheists (you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it), doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. We're not discussing whether or not those who committed religious persecution also happened to be atheist, we're discussing "persecution by atheists", and the source of the religious persecution under Nazi Germany had nothing to do with atheism.
Regarding possibly renaming the category, I am open to differing suggestions. --1990'sguy
We're not renaming an empty category, which would be nonsensical. If you would like to create a new category (or multiple categories) to further sub-categorize entries in the Category:Religious persecution category, we can certainly do that eventually -- but we'll follow Wikipedia's policies when doing so.
we know which states are/were atheist states --1990'sguy
Uh, you linked to "State atheism", not "atheists states" - and they are not the same. And neither of them is related to actual "atheists" (the category under discussion). Let's try to keep this discussion on-topic, shall we?
We are still waiting for your required reliable sources which support the WP:OR category of "Persecution by atheists". Will you fail to produce them, as has every "keep" editor so far in this discussion? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that "every 'keep' editor so far in this discussion" has "failed" to produce reliable sources in support of this category. That is a blatantly false claim. Majoreditor cited numerous sources in favor of this, and User:Ramos1990, who has voted "delete," also cited reliable sources in favor of atheistic persecution. I have not seen any other editor, of either side of the discussion, who has provided sources at all. I actually provided wikilinks, more than nearly every other editor. Xenophrenic, would you please cite sources that oppose this category?
Please explain how "State atheism" and "atheist states" are different, rather than simply stating it. Also, when we are talking about governments run by atheists (such as in the USSR, etc.), this category is entirely appropriate. Nobody arguing for "keep" is arguing that this category is supposed to describe examples of atheists just wildly running around and persecuting religious people. That's silly. This category describes persecution by atheist governments, such as Christians who persecuted others did so through the government. Besides, I made clear several times already that this category can be renamed to Category:Religious persecution by atheist states (which describes state atheism). In no way is this discssion going off topic, at least on my part. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 1990'sguy, please read more carefully. I said reliable sources which support the WP:OR category of "Persecution by atheists". User:Majoreditor & Ramos1990 listed sources which did not support that construct. They did, instead, attribute the persecution to totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet communists. Now if you believe I've missed such a source, please provide it.
You say those supporting deletion of this WP:OR category haven't provided sources -- uh, sources for what? What would you have them produce a source on? As for explaining English language constructs, "atheist states" is supposed to be a description of a "state" or government, while "state atheism" is supposed to be description of an ideology, and neither are atheism or atheist; they both relate instead to religion, and neither relate to the problematic category we are discussing. When you assert "we are talking about governments run by atheists (such as in the USSR, etc.), this category is entirely appropriate", you ignore that these same governments are run by "communists", "totalitarians", "revolutionaries", "despots" - and when you create a "Persecution by atheists" category, you are misleadingly conveying to our readers that the source & cause of the religious persecution is atheism, rather than what the reliable sources say: the Soviet ideology, for political ends.
As for sources to the contrary, see Kolakowski above, or these from the last discussion... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources conveying that persecution was not "by atheists", but by the totalitarian regimes and dictators who tried to suppress or abolish religion and usher in an atheistic society.
Many of these same sources also identify the "by atheists" meme as a popular myth propagated by theists, theologians and religious apologists. --Xenophrenic
For good people to do evil doesn't require only religion, or any religion, but simply one of its key elements: belief without evidence--in other words, faith. And that kind of faith is seen not just in religion, but in any authoritarian ideology that puts dogma above truth and frowns on diseent. This was precisely the case in the totalitarian regimes of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, whose excesses are often (and wrongly) blamed on atheism.
— Faith Versus Fact - Jerry A. Coyne - Viking Publishers, 2015; Pgs. 220
Although it was not fully successful in its mission, the Soviet-led antireligious campaign might have had some lasting effects, as the proportion of atheists and nonreligious in post-Soviet societies remains quite high even in the absence of scientific atheist propaganda and coercion.

In the midst of gaining power, the Bolsheviks began an antireligious campaign seeking to disestablish influential religions like Eastern Orthodoxy, to nationalize all church property, and to transfer responsibility in providing public services (such as birth, marriage, and death registration) from church to state organizations. Seeing religion as antithetical to the modern project of socialist political and economic development, revolutionary leaders thought it necessary to disentangle religious institutions from the state and to create conditions in which religion was deemed irrelevant to society's members.

The timing for an antireligious campaign seemed ripe in the late tsarist regime as an increasing portion of the population, especially in Russia, was disenchanted with the close role the Russian Orthodox Church bore with the state. ... Thus, even though the Soviet regime would be the first regime ever to devise a campaign promoting atheism, a general skepticism (at least with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church) was already present at the eve of the revolution. ... Seeking immediate separation, the newly established Bolshevik leaders provoked an antireligous campaign that often involved violent, coercive actions. This initial campaign was followed by a relatively calm period (although intimidation tactics and arrests of clerics continued), which focused on propaganda and socialization. ... The conflicts during the Civil War era, however, were eventually seen as counterproductive to the cause of establishing an atheist socialist society. Thus, most of the 1920s witnessed a shift from directly coercive measures to gradual measures to socialize citizens as atheists.

In 1925, the Party established the Soviet League of the Militant Godless (or, Militant Atheists) to organize a systematic program against religion. ... The League of the Militant Godless was conceived as an association of volunteers who were committed to promoting "scientific materialism" through eductional activities like lectures, reading circles, and promotional materials. The League's creation symbolized the Bolshevik regime's attempts to shift the antireligious campaign away from coercion to socialization. However, this shift toward a more passive antireligious campaign was not supported unanimously.
— Atheism and Secularity (Vol. 2) - Edited by Phil Zuckerman - Praeger, 2010 - Pgs. 46-47
A fundamental tenet of Marxism-Leninism is that religion will ultimately disappear. If it began to seem unlikely to do so, the authorities would naturally adopt measures to promote its disappearance, since its continued presence was a rebuke to the claims of the ideology. The above impulse was reinforced when the system developed into full totalitarianism (in the USSR, from the late 1920s): the internal compulsion of such a system demanded the liquidation of any social institution (not just religious) which was not under its complete control.
— Religious Policy in the Soviet Union - Edited by Sabrina Petra Ramet - Cambridge University Press, 1993 - Pgs. 4
If God defines what is good and what is evil, then those who follow God's commands are morally justified to commit similar atrocities. History shows the result: holy wars, burning of heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil War, witch hunts, cultural genocide, brutal conquests of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans, ethnic cleansing, slavery, colonialist tyranny, and pogroms against the Jews eventually leading to the Holocaust.

Theists try to counter all this by pointing to the mass-murdering atheists of the twentieth century: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha, and Kim Jong-Il, as if this somehow justifies the religious mass murders that they can hardly deny. Hitler is usually included in the litany, but he was a Catholic. Indeed, the Cathollic Church never excommunicated a single Nazi, but in 2010 it excommunicated nun Margaret McBride for allowing an abortion that was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

Religion scholar Hector Avalos has studied documents from the Stalin era that only recently became available. He points out that there is no documented statement in which Stalin justified his actions by saying something such as, "I don't believe in God, therefore I am committing violent act X." On the other hand, in all the examples we saw above of terrorists associated with some religion, you can find direct statements of the form, "God wants X, therefore I am committing violent act Y." Avalos says, "We cannot find any direct evidence that Stalin's own personal agenda killed because of atheism."

Now you might argue that while Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism, his godlessness failed to provide any restraint on his behavior. But then, neither has godliness provided much restraint to the murderers of history.

Avalos does not deny that Stalin committed many antireligious acts. But the predominant acts of violence committed dring the period 1932-39, called the Great Purge, or the Great Terror, were clearly political in nature. Religion played a minor role. If a church went along, it was left alone. If it objected, it was persecuted along with everybody else who refused to cooperate.
— God and the Folly of Faith - Victor J. Stenger - Prometheus Books, 2012 - Pgs. 254-255
Neither religious belief nor religous disbelief is a guarantee of good behavior. Incentives like greed, power, anger, resentment, fear, or desperation can overwhelm the moral incentives listed earlier in the previous section, which can make an atheist or a believer behave badly.

Still, plenty of people in both camps spend an enormous amount of energy trying to paint the other side as immoral by using the bad behavior of famous monsters--dictators or criminals drunk on greed, power, anger, and all the rest--as an indictment of everyone who shares the monster's religious (or nonreligious) label.

But using the horrendous acts of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, or Adolf Hitler, or Fred Phelps to draw conclusions about the average Ned Flanders Christian is a stretch. Likewise, thinking that Idi Amin or Osama bin Laden are any reflection on the moral character of my Muslim neighbors ignores all the other variables that made the famous monsters what they were.

The same applies to Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and other atheists with immoral behavior to answer for. Like the religious villains, their actions say more about unchecked power than about their opinions of gods. And drawing conclusions about what it means to be an everyday atheist from Stalin is as silly as doubting the ethics of a passing Quaker because Torquemada lost his moral compass.
— Atheism For Dummies - Dale McGowan, PhD. - John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd., 2013 - Pgs. 257
"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
To view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Just as the failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system. From the mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any particular positive beliefs. One's positive convictions are quite distinct from the subject of atheism. ... The practice of linking atheism with a set of beliefs, especially moral and political beliefs, allows the theist to lump atheists together under a common banner, with the implication that one atheist agrees with the beliefs of another atheist. And here we have the ever popular "guilt by association." Since communists are notoriously atheistic, argue some theists, there must be some connection between atheism and communism. The implication here is that communism is somehow a logical outgrowth of atheism, so the atheist is left to defend himself against the charge of latent communism. This irrational and grossly unfair practice of linking atheism with communism is losing popularity and is rarely encountered any longer except among political conservatives. But the same basic technique is sometimes used by the religious philosopher in his attempt to discredit atheism.
— Atheism: The Case Against God - George H. Smith - Prometheus Books, 2010 - Pgs. 21-22
While most theists accept that religion has resulted in much unnecessary suffering and history, they argue that atheists, notably Stalin, Mao and Hitler, killed more people in the twentieth century alone than were killed for religious reasons in all the previous centuries put together. ... [Religious Studies Professor Hector Avalos] found no evidence that Stalin killed because of atheism. Rather, the data indicate that Stalin's genocide was driven by the politics of forced collectivization.
— The New Atheism - Victor J. Stenger - Prometheus Books Pgs. 115-116
Myth 27: Many Atrocities Have Been Committed in the Name of Atheism This sort of claim is often made by theists. (Several are named, including McGrath) ... Isn't it interesting that the list of evil-doers always seems to begin with Hitler followed by Stalin and Pol Pot--sometimes with Mao Zedong added for good measure? ... It's standard operating procedure for Christian apologists. ... Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were actually atheists, but they acted in the name of their positive belief systems, not in the name of a liberal critique of religion. ... Other dictatorships that committed their share of atrocities were certainly not driven by atheism. For example, Franco's Spain was controlled by an expressly Catholic idology. Similar comments could be made about other fascist movements and dictatorships, most notably Ustashi in Croatia. ... the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and to Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. ... Can we find any grain of truth in this myth? Yes. There were persecutions of churches ... however, Stalin and other communist leaders were more concerned with the political influence that organized churches could exercise than with the substance of any particular beliefs, or with an insistence that their populations renounce belief in God. The Soviet regime viewed the churches and their leaders as political rivals that had to be neutralized for it to succeed in its goals. ... Similar comments can be made about the regime of Mao Zedong. ... A similar pattern of utter ruthlessness, combined with attempted economic transformation on an apocalyptic scale can be seen in the conduct of the Khmer Rouge regime ... While we do not doubt that religious people were often targeted as enemies of all these regimes' grandiose plans, this was usually because churches and other religious authorities (such as those related to Confucian tradition in China) were seen as actual or potential sources of resistence. ... None of this followed from mere atheism, and instead far more comprehensive political and economic ideologies were relied upon.
— 50 Great Myths About Atheism - Russell Blackford, Udo Schüklenk - John Wiley & Sons, 2013 - Pgs. 147-149
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot possessed a complete hatred of anyone opposed to their communist ideals. Those who dared to challenge communism were simply removed. They were atheists, certainly, but like most atheists this fact meant little to them. That they did not believe in God was something that they had in common, but equally all three men had dark hair. Nobody is suggesting that hair colour has fuelled their genocidal tendencies. The driving force for their persecution of religion was communism. It was also the driving force for their persecution of all land-owners, political opponents, intellectuals, and dissenters. Their motivation was not atheism, it was communism.
— The Atheists Are Revolting! - Nick Gisburne - Lulu Press, 2007 - Pgs. 140
Before we can proceed, it is critically important to realize that the entire "debate" in Western civilization about atheism and religion has been conducted in religious, and more specifically theistic, terms. Two gross, and false, assumptions have driven this debate. The first is that religion, and more specifically theism, is the default position: most people are religious/theists, and atheism is the exception: something not only to be explained but to be opposed. The second is that religion is theism, and therefore atheism is "a-religion" and "anti-religion." [...] humans are not "natural theists"; that is why it takes so many years of teaching and indoctrination, so much institutional weight, so much colonization of experience, to instill the concept of theism. Humans are natural atheists -- not in the sense of attacking god(s) but in the sense of lacking god(s). No newborn human has any ideas about, let alone any "beliefs in," god(s) -- or for that matter, any other religious entities. [...] No human is born a theist. Humans are born without any god-concepts. Humans are natural atheists. [...] The second and more pernicious source of error is the attribution of "belief" to atheists, sometimes literally the insistence that atheism is a belief. Theists certainly, and atheists occasionally too, will say that atheism is a belief -- the belief that god(s) does (do) not exist. This is a familiar and seductive way of thinking, since "belief" is such a ubiquitous and powerful concept. Surely, Christians argue, belief is universal and essential to religion; still more, religion is only one kind of belief. Theists often go so far as to call science a belief-system, to equate all knowledge with belief. [...] The relevant point for current purposes is that absence of belief, even active rejection of a belief, is not itself a belief. [...] Atheism, as we have established, is not a "belief" that there is no such thing as god(s) but a default or a reasoned lack of any such belief.
— Atheism and Secularity (Vol. 1) - Edited by Phil Zuckerman - Praeger, 2010 - Pgs. 1-8
First of all, there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism.  A state can ban religion, but it cannot ban atheism because it is not a belief, a faith, a set of doctrines or dogmas and cannot be imposed on anybody.  Atheism is an absence of belief, and you cannot ban something that does not exist.  I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion.  They say it takes faith.  They accuse us of hating god.  Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. This chapter, however, will deal with the claims about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mass Murder and Broken Relationships.  We'll start with the people mentioned, and, as far as I'm aware, none of them said "I don't believe in god, therefore I will slaughter lots of innocent people". ...

Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism.  It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country. For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god.  At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant.  The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god.  Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort.  Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch.  Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist.  He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait.  He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.
— A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet Earth - Al Stefanelli - UAF Publishers, 2011 - Pgs. 230-234
ATHEIST REGIMES The first ever officially declared atheist nation in the world was Albania under the role of communist dictator Enver Hoxha ... The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was also explicitly atheistic ... Finally, we must acknowledge North Korea, one of the worst nations on earth today in just about all respects ... North Korea maintains a state sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being the worship of the dictator. ... there is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic ... we know that when power is held undemocratically, the result will always be negative. Fascism, totalitarianism, communism--all such forms of national dominance have been based on might and repression, rather than freedom and liberty. ... [Gregory S. Paul's] research has consistently shown that the correlation still holds: the least theistic democracies fare better on nearly all indicators of social well-being than the more theistic democracies. ... This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society.
— The Oxford Handbook of Atheism - edited by Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse - Oxford University Press, 2014 - Pgs. 506-508
Finally, people use the Stalin/Hitler card in an attempt to argue that the worst dictatorships in recent times have had atheists at their helm (Hitler was more likely a deist if not a theist). However, even granting this argument's assumption, these men didn't act like they did because they were atheists. That is, their nonbelief in a deity didn't dictate particular actions they took. (This would be akin to arguing that Pol Pot—who was a bad man—didn't believe in leprechauns, you don't believe in leprechauns, therefore you're as bad as Pol Pot.) Their systems were horrific precisely because they resembled faith-based systems where suspending warrant for belief is required (as is the wholesale adoption of an ideology, like Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc.).
— Manual for Creating Atheists - Peter Boghossian - Pitchstone Publishing, 2013 - Pgs. 164
... a crucially important matter when looking at any country in terms of its religiosity: is it a dictatorship or a democracy? When religion is repressed by a dictator—that is, when a nonelected cabal or individual fascist takes over a country and attempts to forcibly abolish belief in God—such a country cannot be assumed to be truly void of religion. When we are dealing with a situation of governmentally forced atheism, what we might call "coercive" or "imposed" atheism, we cannot assume the people themselves have actually lost their faith in God.
— Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment - Phil Zuckerman - NYU Press, 2008 - Pgs. 21-22
Is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that morality needs religion, that atheists are simply bad human beings who treat their fellow man worse than religious people do? If so, where is the evidence? The almost invariable answer to this question one receives from religious stalwarts is a specious one, so specious that those Christian writers who peddle it are either very misinformed or deliberately lying. They cite the horrors of Hitler and Stalin, claiming both were atheists. But where is the evidence that Hitler, an altar boy as a Catholic youth, later became an atheist? The definite weight of the evidence is that he did not. ... less than nine months before he killed himself in his Berlin bunker, he proclaimed that his miraculous survival from the previous day's attempt on his life "only confirmed my conviction that Almighty God has called me to lead the German people to victory." ... The anti-atheists feel they have their strongest case against atheism in Stalin, an avowed atheist. Being a Marxist and communist, of course he was an atheist. But everyone knows that in the movement toward communism led by Lenin and a young Stalin in Russia and resulting in the Russian Revolution of 1917, atheism was but an ancillary tenet to the main engine behind the movement--the redistribution of wealth through a class struggle that would bring about the collapse of capitalism. And Stalin was simply a brutal dictator who wanted total control over the physical and economic lives of all Russians, their religious belief being way, way down the list ... the tyranny of Hitler and Stalin, as well as Mao Zedong, had nothing to do with religion. To say that Stalin was evil because he was an atheist is to say that people who are atheists are likely to be evil, a preposterous suggestion.
— Divinity of Doubt: The God Question - Vincent Bugliosi - Vanguard Press, 2013 - Pgs. 226-229
A challenge for understanding secularist activism includes the question of how to conceptually categorize such diverse subgroups in terms of a "collective identity" or "collective interest." ... As one atheist author noted, "atheism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an "atheist mindset" or an "atheist movement." Atheism per se hasn't inspired and doesn't lead to anything in particular because it is an effect—not a cause—and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God, ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. The newborn baby lacks a belief in God, as does the Postmodern Nihilist, the Communist, and the Objectivist—but each for entirely different reasons having dramatically different implications. So lumping all of these together under the "atheist" label as if that were a meaningful connection is profoundly confused.
— Atheist Awakening - Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith - Oxford University Press, 2014 - Pgs. 104-105
As Kolakowski argued: "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." The distinction is a critical one. It is not atheism as a philosophy, says Kolakowski, 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."
— The Church and the Left - Adam Michnik - University of Chicago Press, 1993 - Pgs. 251-252
Xenophrenic, a lot of these sources are books written by atheists promoting/defending atheism, repeating atheist talking points, and attacking theism. I don't think many of them can be considered reliable sources (don't get me wrong, there are some good and reliable sources in your list). I don't see why these works (such as by Dale McGowan) are relevant because I am not attacking all atheists as people who inherently persecute others more than other groups, and I am not saying that theists do not persecute as much as atheists (contrary to George H. Smith, I did not say that "communism is somehow a logical outgrowth of atheism"). I am arguing that cases of persecution in atheist nations is sufficient and direct enough for a Wikipedia category.
Some of these sources, such as by Michael Ruse and Russell Blackford, admit that the states in question were atheist states. Many more admit that the people in question were atheists. Their issue with blaming the persecutions on atheism is that atheism was not their primary stated reason for the persecutions. That's fair, but they still ran explicitly atheistic states that explicitly opposed religion. You can look at people of other religions -- Christianity, Islam, or Roman paganism, for example -- who persecuted others. Maybe they did not accurately or at all represent their religions, and it is clear that there was much politics and economics behind religious policies in history for all religions. But the fact still remains that these were explicitly atheist states persecuting religious groups. Officially, their ideology was the reason for the persecutions.
Phil Zuckerman states that the USSR early on tried to "shift the antireligious campaign away from coercion to socialization." However, it still remains that coercion once existed as a method, and that persecution remained in the USSR after 1925 (as he seems to hint at at the snippet as the end of the excerpt). Three more anti-religious campaigns (the articles describe them as religious persecution) occurred in the Soviet Union: 1928–1941, 1958–1964, and 1970s–1987. Sabrina P. Ramet's work seems to confirm my view that this category is appropriate. It admits that the abolition of religion was central to communism. I never said that this category was intended to document only atheists whose motives were "pure" (no ulterior motives involved). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As reliable sources convey, the "Persecution by atheists" meme is quite popular among religionists and apologists for religion, but is unfounded. We've already discovered that the category by that name was created as a retaliatory response by an editor engaged in edit warring with another editor who was adding content to articles about religious persecution committed in the name of a god or religious scripture. Also in evidence is the fact that whenever this category is raised for deletion because it is unsupported by reliable sources, simultaneous cries always arise by apologists for religion that we should also delete categories of "Persecution by [insert religion here]", too. Unfortunately, many religions come replete with commandments to act, and deities to serve, as causes for persecution, while "atheism" has none of that. I've repeatedly asked you for reliable sources that support the obviously problematic "Persecution by atheists" construct. You've balked each time. I've just now had occasion to visit your User Page to leave a note and came across this:

Sometime — I don't know when, and don't ask me any details because I cannot know them — Wikipedia will cease to exist. So, all our editing will come to naught, at least it seems. But I also know that God's Word, the Bible, is the opposite of Wikipedia, at least in this respect. As unpopular it is to believe this in our present culture, I know that the Bible contains absolutely no errors or mistakes — regardless of what topic or genre it has to do with. I also know that God and His Word will remain forever, as the verse here clearly states. We humans always try to achieve greatness and glory, and I can see that throughout history. There is the Tower of Babel, the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Alexander the Great's empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and I can name countless others. There have been many leaders who have tried to achieve greatness — Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi, and many, many more — and ultimately failed.
My point in all this is that all of these were temporary and didn't last, but God, who created all things and controls all history, will remain forever. Whose side will you be on? --1990sguy

I think I must respectfully disengage from you for the remainder of this discussion. I've seen where it leads. I do appreciate your participation and input. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, am I being asked to disengage because I happen to hold theologically conservative Christian views? You were the one who cited numerous atheist apologist authors such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Victor J. Stenger, Dale McGowan, and George H. Smith, as evidence that this category is inappropriate. Also, your comment may violate WP:PERSONAL, which states that personal attacks include "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one of these new sources are by an expert historian. Historian Jeffrey Burton has written "The antitheist argument boils down to this: a Christian who does evil does so because he is a Christian; an atheist who does evil does so despite being an atheist. The absolute reverse could be argued, but either way it's nothing but spin. The obvious fact is that some Christians do evil in the name of Christianity and some atheists do evil in the name of atheism." in https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Myths-About-Christianity-Answering/dp/0830834664/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500430681&sr=1-1&keywords=exposing+myths+about+christianity He also talks about the 110 million killed by atheists and says "The atheist response to these facts is to concede that some atheist leaders were vicious - but it wasn't their atheism that made them vicious. However, all of these atheist totalitarians were determined to destroy religion for the simple reason that they knew it competed with their own claims to total authority and power. Violent ideological programs of all sorts have something in common: they whip up hatred and indignation, they repress differing opinions, they strive to annihilate opposition, and they look for scapegoats to dehumanize people."--desmay (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Jeffrey Burton Russell, but yes, the whole line of argument here keeps coming across as a kind of special pleading: the Soviets and other communists were admittedly atheists, and had as part of their cause the advancement of atheism over religious beliefs, but somehow, that doesn't count because atheists are special. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Desmay, the only "new" sources (historian Leszek Kołakowski and historian Adam Michnik) are indeed expert historians, and arguably more well-versed in this particular subject than your author of History of Heaven, Jeffrey Burton Russell, so I'm not sure what you are going on about - Russell isn't a sociologist, which would be the more germane discipline to cover persecution of social institutions. And by the way, you omitted something when you quoted him. "The antitheist argument boils down to this: a Christian who does evil does so because he is a Christian; an atheist who does evil does so despite being an atheist. The absolute reverse could be argued, but either way it's nothing but spin. The obvious fact is that some Christians do evil in the name of Christianity and some atheists do evil in the name of atheism. The solution is to put Christ above the world and love above power." Desmay, by citing Russell, you've just reinforced what more than a dozen reliable sources (cited above) have conveyed: totalitarian regimes and dictators tried to suppress or abolish religion and usher in an atheistic society, and the "by atheists" meme is a popular myth propagated by theists, theologians and religious apologists like Russell. Even Russell as you quote him, while noting that various totalitarian dictators were also "atheist", acknowledges that the reason for the persecution of various religions was "for the simple reason that they knew it competed with their own claims to total authority and power." Was it your intent, desmay, to provide even more support for abolishing the problematic "Persecution by atheists" category, or was that inadvertent? Even if you agree with Russell's unsupported (he never gives an actual example, and Inter-Varsity Press doesn't fact-check such things in their publications) assertion that "some atheists do evil in the name of atheism", you just proved that is a contested and controversial claim by religionists. That puts the Category:Persecution by atheists in direct violation of WP:CATVER, which requires categories to be neutral and uncontroversial. So, thank you?
@Mango: Your assertion that someone (or anyone) has argued "that doesn't count because atheists are special" has to be an attempt at humor, rather than ignorance of the arguments actually in play. As you noted, it is persecution by "the Soviets and other communists, some of whom were promoting - or at least expecting - an atheistic society. Where is there "special pleading"? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophrenic, this discussion has nothing to do with atheist memes, and it is not appropriate to demean Russell. He received his PhD from Emory University, a very presegeous school, and he is employed by the University of California, Santa Barbara, which is a large public research university. This is not the profile of a third-rate historian. Besides, as I noted above, most of the people you cited in favor of your position were blatant atheist apologists such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Victor J. Stenger, Dale McGowan, and George H. Smith. These people have credentials far below that of Russell.
Besides, we are not saying, and it is not supposed to be the case, that the persecutions in this category were motivated purely by atheism. It is rare in this world to have a purist like that. Most people have ulterior motives for what they want. Just because these ulterior motives exist does not mean that the ulterior motives were the only motives. The motive of advancing the particular relgious belief (in this case, atheism) still existed. The points brought up by the other users does not advance your arguments. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awaiting the reliable sources I requested from you, before I re-engage with you. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other users, who I have already identified, have provided plenty of reliable sources. Besides, it is clear and well-documented that these were atheist governments persecuting religious people because they were religious (ulterior motives exist, but this motive is still present). This is what makes the category appropriate. It doesn't get much clearer than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reliable sources to support your position. Got it. I'm sure the closer will take that into account. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the numerous reliable sources presented by others in favor of this category. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I've reviewed each of them (see above). Since you don't have any sources to support your "by atheists" cause of persecution, feel free to select one from this page you think will support your position and we can review it together. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xenophrenic, you are misrepresenting WP:CATVER when you state that it "requires categories to be neutral and uncontroversial." WP:CATVER states that "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." Controversial categories are not prohibited -- they should just be treated with care. Yes, this category is controversial, but it is entirely appropriate and sourced and, despite what you say, is neutral. Yes, it can be renamed (I and others have suggested it numerous times above) in order to cause less confusion and make it clearer, but it is neutral. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awaiting the reliable sources I requested from you, before I re-engage with you. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other users, who I have already identified, have provided plenty of reliable sources. Besides, it is clear and well-documented that these were atheist governments persecuting religious people because they were religious (ulterior motives exist, but this motive is still present). This is what makes the category appropriate. It doesn't get much clearer than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, me not providing my own sources is not a valid excuse for you avoiding replying to my observation above that you misinterpreted WP:CATVER. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reliable sources to support your position. Got it. I'm sure the closer will take that into account. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the numerous reliable sources presented by others in favor of this category. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I've reviewed each of them (see above). Since you don't have any sources to support your "by atheists" cause of persecution, feel free to select one from this page you think will support your position and we can review it together. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“During the course of de-Stalinization … it was decided to intensify atheistic work. N.S. Khrushchev announced that by 1980 … the religious worldview would have been displaced by the scientific one. Active atheistic activities were begun, including, in addition to methods of propaganda, the discrediting of clergy and official interference in church affairs. … Khrushchev conducted a policy of destroying Orthodoxy; thousands of churches … were destroyed … In this same period, for the scholarly support of atheistic work, departments of scientific atheism were created in many universities and higher educational establishments. In 1964, an Institute of Scientific Atheism was founded. … “ p9-11 “… seven decades of state atheism, active antireligious ideology, policy and practice. Thousands of synagogues and all [Jewish] religious schools were closed …” p165 Religion and Politics in Russia: A Reader, edtied by Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer of Georgetown University. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is yet another example of the Soviet government using atheism as a tool to repress religous authorities in an attempt to silence dissent. Would a keep voter please respond to that issue which has been raised several times—what reliable source says the persecution originated with atheism rather than, say, communism? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're admitting they were "using atheism as a tool to repress religious authorities." That makes them atheist persecutors of religion. Period. Originated? You ask “what reliable source says the persecution originated with atheism rather than, say, communism”? Communism is an economic system that believes in the collective ownership of the means of production. We’re not talking about economics. The source didn’t talk about economics. It talks about how the Soviets were atheists who repressed religion. This is how the source describes their policy of furthering the official belief of atheism to the exclusion of all others. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Category:Persecution by blondes because that would be a made-up intersection. No source talks about the topic of blondes and persecution so WP:OCEGRS would prevent creation of the category as it would not be possible to write an encyclopedic article about persecution by blondes. In the same way, there is no article about persecution by atheists because that is not something that atheists are notable for. Communists were not driven by an urge to impose their "beliefs"; they saw that religious leaders could cause trouble, and they looked for a tool to suppress religion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a made-up category because sources talk about their furthering atheism and suppression of religion as one and the same thing. Even you noted that as atheists they repressed religious authorities. Why they became that way has to do with evolution not ontology. Whether it was X, Y, or Z that led them to this state explains evolution, how that state of being came about. It doesn't explain it away. They were atheists who were intolerant of religion. They were atheist persecutors; that's their state of being; that's who they were. That justifies the category. They were intolerant about everything. Communism is an economic system that believes in the collective ownership of the means of production. They were intolerant of private ownership. In art they supported Socialist Realism and were intolerant of other styles. In religion ... Jason from nyc (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, Jason, thank you for providing a reliable source for consideration. That is a refreshing change from the unsubstantiated hyperbole in support of the "Keep" comments so far. However, having now carefully read the source you provided, it does not support the conclusions you have drawn. The parts you quoted do confirm that atheism was propagated under the Soviet regime (a fact I don't think anyone has disputed in this discussion), but it does not convey that the anti-religious persecution in Russia was committed "by atheists" as the source of the persecution. I believe that was what Johnuniq was saying as well. Your source clearly identifies the origin of that persecution as the Soviet regime. From the Introduction: In post-Soviet cases, given the extremes of Soviet repression of religion and closures of churches, synagogues, and temples, driving many people with sincere faith underground, I think the term revitalization is all too appropriate. And from page 1: Kira Tsekhanskaia's review of Russian Orthodox and other religiosity covers the history of Soviet repressions and provides interesting survey data revealing the tenacity of religious faith despite prodigious efforts of the Soviet regime to eliminate or marginalize it. Now you seem to be going beyond what your source says, and declaring your personal conclusion that "They were atheists who were intolerant of religion. They were atheist persecutors; that's their state of being; that's who they were. Uh, no. And your source doesn't say that. To the contrary, your source explains that it wasn't belief in gods the Soviets were intolerant of, it was competition for control over society that it feared. Per page 5-6 of your source: Under Soviet power, religious convictions were considered the private affair of citizens. However, since religious organizations were suspected of hostility toward Soviet power, local surveys were carried out periodically with the aim of identifying their influence on the attitudes of various social groups. This information was then used to develop antireligious propaganda. And by the way, your source states that the communists actually came in droves to the churches, even the NKVD (secret police) were having baptisms done, attending services, even Soviet officers packed the churches during Easter services and other occasions (see pages 8-9, your source). Perhaps they were just part-time atheists? Nonsense. It was Soviet policy that dictated how various religious institutions and their followers would be handled, including any treatment which qualifies as persecution.
The reality about religious persecution in the USSR (and virtually every totalitarian regime), and this is supported by the reliable sources - including the one you just introduced - is that it is committed due to political expediency, at the whim of despots and tyrants for the purpose of maintaining power and control. It has nothing to do with an absence of belief in deities (atheism). As explained in your newest source, while the early Soviet "atheists" were busy suppressing the Orthodox Church, they were also teaming up with the less influential religious sects as allies against the autocratic influence of the dominant Orthodox church. In addition, between 1939 and 1943, the number of churches in the USSR was increased by more than 300%, with Stalin's blessing (See Decree 1325), and doubled again by 1946. This rather demonstrates the ignorance behind statements placing blame for the persecution on atheists. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it suited them at various times of crisis to permit the building of churches, does not mean that there was not persecution either side of the crisis periods. In the ancient world, the number of churches built increased greatly, despite the persecution by pagans. So increased quantities of churches does not equate to zero persecution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are exactly correct, but no one has ever argued otherwise: Persecution of religious institutions absolutely did happen in the USSR. That isn't the dispute here. The disagreement we're discussing is whether the persecution was "caused by - because of - in the name of" the lack of a belief in supernatural deities (atheism), or was the persecution "caused by - because of - in the name of" socio-political Soviet Marxist-Leninist communism (totalitarianism). Reliable sources trace the persecution to the totalitarian regime, not to "atheists". Arresting or exiling clergy as enemies of the state, or as pawns of a foreign power, is not an "atheist" activity - it is a "totalitarian" activity. When churches are confiscated by the state and converted to gymnasiums, libraries, or warehouses, and their lands and property are repurposed for public use, you won't find such things under the definition of "atheist". That is totalitarianism at work. There is nothing in the definition of "atheist/atheism" that says they take over churches, mosques and temples; arrest, exile or otherwise persecute believers in supernatural beings; control or restrict the rights of people to believe what they want, etc. That is why the nonsensical WP:OR category of "Persecution by atheists" is being deleted. Now look at the definition of totalitarianism. Let me know if there is still any confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being committed by the Soviet regime doesn’t refute that persecution wasn’t committed by atheists. “Soviet” is just a proper noun. The regime was officially atheist and my quotes above show that these were intolerant atheists that went beyond their need to destroy the Czarist regime. Look at the quote about persecution of the practice of Judaism. That religious persecution wasn’t complete, waxed and waned, and some were hypocrites doesn’t eliminate the fact that there was widespread persecution based on belief and practice. Here’s how one source puts it: “Understandably the Bolsheviks regarded the Church as a political opponent against which it was necessary to struggle. Certainly this was understandable during the acute phase of internal conflict. But later, after the civil war had ended, in time of peace, they continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them. This was no longer understandable or justifiable. Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time.” from “Gorbachev: On My Country and the World” by Mikhail Gorbachev. [21] Everyone agrees that the Orthodox Church sided with the Czars and was clearly in the enemy’s camp during the revolution. At the same time reliable sources would agree with Gorbachev that “atheism took rather savage forms” long after the revolution and I cited reliable sources on Khrushchev’s suppression not only of Christianity but Judaism (and we can add Islam). It went beyond the Orthodox Church during the revolution. As totalitarians they suppressed the antithesis of their views and practices in all areas. They were control freaks. Atheism was just one state policy where intolerance took hold. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Words have meaning.
You begin your response by exclaiming, “Soviet” is just a proper noun. No, it is not just a proper noun. When sources speak of the Soviet regime, and its Soviet policies and Soviet doctrines, these are components of the Soviet Union. Reliable sources attribute persecution to the totalitarian nature and policies of this regime. Another word: atheist, is simply someone who lacks a belief in gods, and atheism is that very same absence of belief in gods. There are no policies, doctrines, commandments or other attributes specific to atheism. When you say things like, "The regime was officially atheist", you are saying the regime lacked a belief in gods - which is just a very convoluted way of saying the regime isn't a theocracy. It says nothing about organized religions. And another word you use below, you accuse me of Cherry picking a source. I've linked it here for your benefit, as you seem confused as to its meaning. At no time have I suppressed information, or left out contradictory information when citing a source. With that cleared up, let's directly address some of what you've said:
...committed by the Soviet regime doesn’t refute that persecution wasn’t committed by atheists... --Jason from nyc
I think you meant "was" committed by atheists. Whether or not some of the people committing persecutions were "atheists" is not in dispute. The odds are that some were (though we can never be absolutely sure who, as we cannot peer into people's minds), but the odds are some were also lactose-intolerant, and others were afraid of heights. None of these, however, include a motivation to persecute people.
...my quotes above show that these were intolerant atheists that went beyond their need to destroy the Czarist regime... --Jason from nyc
As already shown, your quotes above do not show that. They do, however, show specific persecution by a totalitarian regime for totalitarian political reasons. (And please be careful with word usage: "intolerant atheists", you mean intolerantly lacking a belief in gods? If someone is intolerant toward Greeks or Religions or Gays, it has nothing to do with them also being atheist.)
Look at the quote about persecution of the practice of Judaism. --Jason from nyc
I have. Once again, you have not provided evidence of persecution of Jews because the persecutors lacked a belief in supernatural higher beings.
Gorbochev... --Jason from nyc
Regarding your Gorbachev quote, he claims the Orthodox Church was justifiably persecuted as a political enemy early on, but then later it mysteriously stopped being an enemy of the Soviet regime, so any further hostilities must be attributed to "atheism took rather savage forms"? I confess that I can't imagine what a savage absence of belief in deities looks like, compared to a less savage absence of that same belief. What I do know from reliable sources is that many religionists try mightily to advance the utterly false notion that an absence of belief in gods will motivate a person to commit evil deeds, so I suppose hearing something similar from a "failed politician/country leader" about the "tragedy of the Orthodox Church" should not be surprising. Another failed politician/country leader (Bush) has said about atheists, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." There is a reason why we don't cite such as reliable sources on factual matters. Please let's stay with sociologists and historians, preferably academics under peer review.
...reliable sources would agree with Gorbachev that “atheism took rather savage forms”... --Jason from nyc
Would they? Then let's see them please. Remember that savagery by someone who also happens to be atheist ≠ savagery by someone because he is atheist, which isn't really a thing - and that is already reliably sourced.
As totalitarians they suppressed the antithesis of their views and practices in all areas. They were control freaks. --Jason from nyc
Yes, and our categories should reflect this totalitarianism as the source of intolerance toward other views (including religions and other social institutions) in all areas. You'll recall I coined Category:Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes above. Numerous reliable sources agree that "totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties." Xenophrenic (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now let’s consider your preferred source. Micknik is concerned that “fundamentalist” Christians are willing to accept authoritarianism to eliminate Communism thereby becoming repressive themselves. You cherry pick his quote of that “it is not atheism as a philosophy … but totalitarianism.” This only explains that it wasn’t only atheism but their general nature to further all their beliefs by repressing the antithesis as practiced by others. It doesn’t follow that they didn’t come to believe theism wasn’t toxic. Micknik’s concern is to oppose the conservatives who believe atheism has to be harmful, not just that the regime became totalitarian about it. “For Christians … fighting for their rights in a totalitarian state, they compromise themselves morally if they do not base their claims on … pluralistic principles … rejection of all totalitarianism regardless of ideology. For although that ideology might be atheistic, it can just as easily be religious.” Here is his crucial point: “The belief that atheism is the essential flaw of communism necessarily leads to false solutions. … Fundamentalists … by attacking atheism and ignoring the totalitarian context lead people to believe … that totalitarianism would not be reprehensible” in the service of Christianity. He is right that both theists and atheists can be intolerant of other beliefs and practices. This warrants all categories that gather articles on the intolerants (ex. totalitarians) in each camp who persecute on the basis of belief. Micknik is merely reiterating that neither theism or atheism must lead to repression of the other but either may become the criteria of a totalitarian regime as they imagine the doctrine of the others as toxic. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll recall, I criticized and corrected your misunderstanding of a cited source above, especially when you began to interject your own unsupported (synthesized) conclusions. Now I find you doing the same thing yet again.
...your preferred source. Micknik... --Jason from nyc
Not my "preferred source", just one of nearly 2-dozen provided in this discussion saying the same thing. And what you have just mangled is actually more sourced to Leszek Kołakowski than Michnik, but let's review...
Micknik is concerned that “fundamentalist” Christians... and Micknik’s concern is to oppose the conservatives who...
Whoa. No. As an intellectual who is beholden to neither the Church, nor the totalitarian regime, Michnik is not concerned with "opposing" either. And Michnik is not contrasting fundamentalists with atheists; if you'll read with more care, you'll see he is contrasting two groups within the same Catholic Church - fundamentalists & liberationists - but that seems to have been lost in your ellipses. And you don't seem to be aware that the "cherry-picked" (not) passage I quoted was not from the book proper, but from an essay appended to the book. Written a dozen years after the book, it has a central focus of Kołakowski's work.
This only explains that it wasn’t only atheism but their general nature to further all their beliefs by repressing the antithesis as practiced by others.
That is incorrect, and further, I don't see that asserted anywhere in the source. If you feel I am missing something, please specifically identify where in the source this is conveyed. If this is another extended personal interpretation of yours, I'm afraid we'll have to discard that. (Note: If you are working from incomplete online excerpts, I own the book, and would be willing to help you access and verify some content, within reason.)
He is right that both theists and atheists can be intolerant of other beliefs and practices.
Again, he doesn't assert that. Synthesis again? Tsk. Let's review again what I actually quoted, without ellipses:

As Kolakowski argued: "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." The distinction is a critical one. It is not atheism as a philosophy, says Kolakowski, 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."

So according to Kolakowski (why you are going on about Michnik escapes me), totalitarian communism, not atheism, is the source of the danger - particularly the religious persecution. If you can cite where in the source Kolakowski contradicts that common-sense assertion, do it, or your unsubstantiated "cherry-picked" accusation will remain unsubstantiated. He does note that a totalitarian system can be either religious or communist, but please don't mistake that as saying "both theists and atheists can be intolerant of other beliefs and practices", because that is straight from the mind of Jason, not Kolakowski or Michnik. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing Michnik's book here [22] as you referred to it previously. He does quote Kolakowski but my analysis is of Michnik's views. I summarized them accurately as is evident by reading the link. You continued to cherry pick (as you did with my source.) Jason from nyc (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, Jason, "my analysis is of Michnik's views" is not a reliable source for our use on Wikipedia. That is why we have policys prohibiting it. As for your refusal to substantiate your "cherry-picking" allegation, that was expected. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since your own personally synthesized (and frankly laughable) analysis is prohibited by policy, here is instead a direct quote of Michnik's views on the relationship between Church & State, and the source of the hostility. Without ellipses or fictitious "analysis":
From the very beginning, relations between the Church and the socialist movement were extremely poor and marked by mutual animosity. Both sides made accusations that are diffcult to evaluate clearly so many years later. For the Church, the socialist program was a violation of the principles of God's natural law, and thus a harbinger of spiritual nihilism. In hindsight it would appear that such accusations, so derided by socialist writers, were not so completely absurd. They deserve careful reconsideration even today. According to the socialists, meanwhile, the Church was hostile to social reform, maintained close ties to the earthly oligarchy, sought to dominate and control all spheres of secular life, and was intolerant of both non-Catholics and nonbelievers. As a result of their negative assessment of the political role of the Church, the socialists became hostile to religion as such and adopted atheism as their programmatic credo.
Once again reliable sources confirm that persecution of the church was a result of the Church's politics, competition over control over society, and connection to the oligarchy -- NOT their belief in a deity. If you keep reading through the next page, there is an itemized litany of factors provoking hostility toward the Church, and belief in a god isn't one of them. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In many situations throughout history, the Church (along with other institutions of other religions) has been very political. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church had been favored by the Tsaric government (I'm not sure on the details, but I think it was a state church). Of course the Church was a political threat -- however, it still is religious persecution -- it is rare when a religion is completely separated from politics. I could point to the religious wars in Europe with Roman Catholics vs. Protestants. They viewed the other side as a political threat along as a religious one. That does not make persecutions, such as the expusion of the Huguonots in 1685 for example, a non-religious persecution. I think it is clear that the philosophical/religious beliefs of the communists (in this particular example; we could also consider the French government in the 1790s) played a large role in the persecutions along with political concerns. Numerous editors have backed that view up. If it is still not clear, we can simply rename the category to something along the lines of Category:Religious persecution by atheist states. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation that there was Category:Religious persecution during the Russian and French revolutions is not contested here, and such events are already categorized as such. Likewise, your observation that religious institutions are frequently political enemies of various states and regimes, and therefore suffer persecution, is also not contested here - and is supported by all reliable sources cited so far. Your comment goes off the rails, however, when you stray from reliable sources and instead rely on what "you think": "I think it is clear that the philosophical/religious beliefs ... played a large role in the persecutions along with political concerns. As noted above, your personal beliefs on the matter are incorrect according to reliable sources. We've reviewed each of them, including those cited by your "numerous editors" (see above), and each confirms the political nature as the source behind the religious persecution, and refutes the "by atheists" as a cause. "Since you don't have any sources to support your "by atheists" cause of persecution, feel free to select one from this page you think will support your position and we can review it together." And by the way, just a procedural reminder, we don't rename empty categories. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - It is weasly and disingenuous to the extreme to describe a totalitarian regime as 'something' without even mentioning the fact that it is... a totalitarian regime; doing so is a not-even-disguised attempt to denigrate that 'something'. There is further irony in the fact that both the 'oppressed' and the 'oppressors' in this accusation demanded total, unquestioning subservience of their subjects... in other words, one totalitarian regime kicking out their competitor other. What's more, this accusation-'category' is a Christian-apologist meme exclusive to Christian-apologist sources, and one that flies in the face of overwhelming historical consensus that these regimes were totalitarian in nature before anything else. And it is for the one making the 'atheism=(bad totalitarian whatever)' accusation to demonstrate that their accusation is indeed mirrored by historical consensus, and all involved here know that it isn't. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping this category has *zero* to do with Christian memes. When I saw this disucssion and commented on it, memes of any kind never entered my mind. Also, much historial evidence has been presented by several different editors confirming that these persecutions were carried out by atheists because of their atheism. This does not contradict the fact that ulterior motives existed, and we are not denying that these regimes were totalitarian regimes by having this category and thus admitting they also adhered to state atheism and persecuted religious believers. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
evidence has been presented by several different editors confirming that these persecutions were carried out by atheists because of their atheism. --1990'sguy
False. We would love to see such evidence. Please produce it (or re-produce it, if it is somewhere on this page), and let's review it. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Anyone can cherrypick and pontificate and protest that a claim is 'true' until they're blue in the face, but if fact is not on their side, all that hand-waving and noise-making is a pointless exactly that. If the claim is 'true', any mainstream reference (encyclopaedia britannica, e.g.) would echo it, as would the majority of historical references. In this case, they do not, not not not and not, and we all know this, and your agenda is clear, so please stop trying to waste everyone's time. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They all share one ideology: communism. It's more persecution by communists than atheists. Atheist militants probably do exist but these are more political human rights abuses than religious ones. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Delete. Too much to read, but the elephant in the room no one talks about is this category is thinly-disguised bigotry or hate-speech against anyone who doesn't share your belief in God. Nothing but a good way to try to make readers think not believing in God is responsible for evils and ills in history.Holbach Girl (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4&oldid=1138410992"