The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheism[edit]

Historical persecution by atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

This article is unsourced and simply a list. On top of that, it assumes that 'atheism' is some form of systematic organized religion. Perhaps the author had intended the page to be about persecution by totalitarian governments? or by communist governments? or something along those lines? But in addition to the title problems, just look at the article for yourself and judge whether it is encyclopedic or not. The poor name choice, lack of citations, and lack of content/list format is enough for me to propose this deleition. Andrew c 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should be a category not an article; it doesn't provide any information that isn't available elsewhere. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially an attack page on atheists.--Jersey Devil 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Any substantial content that might be on this page could usefully go into Religious persecution#Present Period, and I would encourage the article author to think about contributing there, rather than in this article. Tevildo 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Atheism, Deism, or theism on their own don't persecute anyone. Something on persecution by atheist and secularist ideologies might be possible, but this doesn't seem to be it.--T. Anthony 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a vague list on communist discrimination, rebranded as 'atheist'. I really can't see what Tiananmen Square has to do with atheism. Hut 8.5 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary, unannotated, and likely POV, list.-- danntm ^T _C 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry I did not mean to offend anyone I just thought that persecution was persecution. Atheism is a group like any other, that can be criticized. Stalin and Lenin and Mao all engaged in persecution, their governments and they as individuals all professed atheism. As did estiblished atheistic governments engage in persecution like AKA Tiananmen Square. As for arbitrary, unannotated and POV etc. All I did was link to other Wikipedia articles ones I did not create, so I guess that wikipedia is really all of these things you are accusing me of.LoveMonkey 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just that atheism itself is just a part of Communism. Atheism is also less specific than what we do in these cases. We don't do Historical persecution by agnosticism, Historical persecution by deism, etc. (I'm Catholic myself) Lastly the way you did it sounds grammatically wrong somehow. We have Historical persecution by Christians, although it's in dispute, but we do not have Historical persecution by Christianity. If you were to do this it should be Historical persecution by atheists.--T. Anthony 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree one, some of the persecution done to the spectrum of religions under atheistic regimes was explicitly done because the state stated it was athiestic. Read some of the links like Russia for example. As for wording-Ok then lets reword the article to Historical persecution by athiests instead of deleting it. Why delete the article rather then collaborate to "fix" it. Also if you have examples of Historical persecution by agnosticism, Historical persecution by deism, etc please make articles with the sources and examples I support you if you have data.LoveMonkey 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said I was opposed to say Historical persecution by atheistic regimes, which seems to be what you mean. The title you picked is just not the form we use here when it comes to persecution.--T. Anthony 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) "Atheism" is not a "group"; it is a philosophy, belief, etc. Beliefs do not engage in activities of any sort. Atheists or atheist organizations or atheist states can persecute. (2) However, I'm not sure that the intersection of atheism & persecution is anything other than a trivial intersection; in other words, is it causal? or even correlated? If no evidence for either of those, then is the relation between establishment of religion (or non-religion) of interest enough that persecution by organizations / individuals is notably organized by religious belief? If not, then it sounds like an attack on atheism. An article singling out atheism in this way should justify the singling-out.--lquilter 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lquilter, you should be aware that most atheists would claim that atheism is not a philosophy or belief either. It's simply the absence of theism. It's no more a philosophy than being "non-Christian" is a philosophy, or than "not believing in the soul" is a philosophy. -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right Silence -- although I won't get into it here, I agree with you in terms of a formal definition of philosophy or belief. But from a practical day-to-day perspective, atheism operates as a belief about religion ... But again, not the place to get into it. The point is that, as others have pointed out, "Atheism" cannot persecute anybody. --lquilter 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • T. Anthony, if you aren't opposed to "Historical persecution by atheistic regimes", then are you equally unopposed to my making a Historical persecution by theistic regimes article? -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I am equally unopposed. If you or anyone wants to do an article on oppressive theistic regimes in general, rather than specifying to one theistic religion, than that'd be fine. The only difficulty with both is that they'll be debate on what constitutes an "atheistic" or "theistic" regime, but if you can do it I'd have no objection.--T. Anthony 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you, Silence, and Scjessey. This idea behind this article is to say that a lack of belief in deities resulted in religious persecution. It is saying that the primary reason of say Communist China's persecution of Tibetain Buddhist is because China doesn't believe in deities. We would need specific citations making this association instead of a vague list. I think it is very important to have article about religious persecution. Very important. But I do not believe 'persecution by atheism' is the best way to approach this. Even Allegations of presecution by atheism seems a bit much. It would make much more sense to identify the primary organizational affiliation doing the presecution (fascism, communism, etc).-Andrew c 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The correct location for this topic is Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_morality. If that section becomes too long, we can make a daughter article called Atheism and morality (or similar) to discuss allegations that atheism leads to atrocities, or to religious persecution. -Silence 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment disclosing that LoveMonkey is the creator and sole author of the article.-Andrew c 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify maybe expand it in his userspace, but not if it will result in a content fork.--MONGO 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to look at this, but have not had time to examine the article in detail. But I would certainly say that the title needs to be fixed, and probably more. It might be possible to say something like "Religious persecution in the name of atheism", but atheism itself does not persecute, any more than Christianity or Islam or Hinduism do, though there have been persecutions in the name of those too. SteveH 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: "... in the name of ..." is not the best phrase, though, and is not what this article/list is getting at. "In the name of" denotes something done for and because of the thing. The connection in most (maybe all) of the specific list items is indirect at best. I do think it's okay to identify organizations (including governments) by their official doctrines, if balance or causality/correlation are demonstrated. So the Soviet Union can be called an "atheist government" the same way the UK can be called a "Christian government". --lquilter 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but would it then be OK to list every atrocity ever committed by the U.K. as "Historical persecution by Christians"? Isn't that a bit misleading? -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the examples are parallel ... I was commenting on the current list ("... by atheism") and noting that "... in the name of ..." is just as problematic. ... As for "historical persecution by persons of X belief/characteristic/whatever", I think these are obviously wastes of time and may need a general look in the writing-about-people category. It should look at how to handle lists / articles that are about some specific characteristic and address issues of causality/correlation in the context of attacks on people by characteristic. ...The larger point is that it's obvious that this list is an attempt to capture the frequent criticism / attack on atheism that Stalin & Hitler were atheists, and expand it as much as possible. To me, since that's an argument that a lot of people keep making, it's worth having it in wikipedia, and ultimately, I hope, annotating the list/article with explanations about why each entry is proferred and/or is inappropriate. I wouldn't therefore say necessarily to "delete" the article but it will need substantial reworking and retitling, and there needs to be comparable content on atrocities committed by institutions/orgs/states with various religious beliefs, in order to avoid POV problems; if that's not done, then it should be deleted. (Note, I'm certainly not saying I agree with the proposition that "atheists" or "atheist states" commit atrocities in a way that is somehow tied to atheism -- it's for the most part utter bunk, both historically and as a matter of semantics & logic, but hopefully in a well-written article/list, these points would get made. In other words -- the article has been clearly started by someone with a POV but that doesn't mean there's not a germ of an important issue to be discussed. --lquilter 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "germ of an important issue" is already discussed on Wikipedia; all attacks on atheism based on Stalin or, hilariously, Hitler (a devout Christian), are to be discussed under Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_morality. "Historical persecution by atheism" is not a remotely appropriate title for discussing anti-atheist propaganda. -Silence 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite. I was asked to look at this article. The topic deserves inclusion, but the current article is unacceptable. Allow interested parties a brief period to bring the article up to standards and then re-vote. Majoreditor 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unacceptably vague topic. As atheism, unlike Communism, is not a specific religion, organization, movement, or philosophy, compiling a list of persecution by atheists (or, in this case, by "atheism") amounts to a propagandic attack article. It would be like compiling a "Historical persecution by people with mustaches" on the grounds that Hitler and Stalin had mustaches; a more NPOV article would deal with persecution by fascists or by communists, not by atheists or people with mustaches, as there is no verifiable causal connection between them and the atrocities. Moreover, having a mustache or not believing in God is not centrally important to any of the people on such lists, suggesting there is an unstated agenda of attacking mustachioed, or atheistic, individuals in general by making such an article. Besides, it's an unacceptably vague and uninformative title; would you consider Historical persecution by theists to be remotely useful or neutral? Or, since atheism is a term defined by its negation with theism, would you consider Historical persecution by non-Christians to be acceptable? -Silence 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ludicrous and nonsensical list of articles that appears to be nothing more than an attempt to brand atheists as a group of devilish persecutors. Presumably this is meant to offset articles like Historical persecution by Christians, but this article is misnamed and lacking any substance at best. -- Scjessey 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I get the idea, but the wrong approach was taken. (a) The title is wrong - perhaps something related to the persectution of religion by socialist regimes (not sure exactly how I would word it, but most of this list is under communist gov'ts). (b) This shouldn't be a list, but an expanded article, with references, etc. And no, I wouldn't consider "Persecution by non-christians" as a title, it is also too broad. I would narrow it. Pastordavid 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - topic too broad/vague, though "Persecution of Christians under communist regimes" might be viable. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. =Axlq 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just seems to me that if there are articles about persecutions done under religion that if it can be shown that persecutions where done under non-religion that would be balance. Of course reworking any article is a farcry from deleting it. As to all of the victims of the Orthodox church and the Buddhists of China and Tibet who where persecuted because the athiestic government made athiestic policies to against them, well you can deny and say that such things don't deserve recognition. It is plainly another to claim such statements are bias or slander or not true when they are a matter of public record and history.

1, 2, 3, 4. LoveMonkey 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first error seems to be that you don't even know what atheism is. Atheism is not irreligion; it's the absence of theism, not the absence of religiosity. There are many religious people who are atheists. Before you try to make any more articles about atheism, why don't you actually read some of the Atheism article so you have some idea of what the word means? -Silence 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously open to an article like this. I believe I created Historical persecution by atheists, which was deleted about a year ago. However this one in particular isn't really working I think. You might want to just add something to State atheism or Society of the Godless. Or after this is deleted you can discuss creating an article on "Religious persecution by secular ideologies" or something. I'd consider that when the last one was deleted, but I forgot about the idea.--T. Anthony 10:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Christian, Muslims, and Jews are the only ones who have "persecution by" articles. This seems like a potential bias against Abrahamic religions. It might be politically incorrect to say, but there were Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist (Emperor Wuzong of Tang), and Pagan regimes that engaged in persecutions.--T. Anthony 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone else. Conflating being an atheist and persecuting with persecuting against theists in the name of atheism is... bad. I also just have to point out that persecution of Buddhists by atheists (or atheism) is just too funny for me to handle. ~Switch ^t 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have to understand that in many societies Buddhism didn't remain in a purified non-theistic form. I'm not sure many schools of Buddhism were every atheist per se, non-theist is more accurate.. Now in Theravada the nontheism outlook mostly survived, but in Mahayana God-like ideals did emerge to some extent. See God in Buddhism. In addition many to most societies mixed their Buddhism with pre-Buddhist beliefs. Hence many Chinese maintained their earlier belief in Gods and mixed in Buddhism to it. To see Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist as "atheistic" is, almost certainly, wrong. To see them as even "nontheist" is perhaps misleading.--T. Anthony 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheist is a nonsense word and mere synonym for atheist. I've never liked it. Regardless, large numbers of Buddhists remained atheist, and at the very least Buddhism never had a personal God. Buddhism exists in theistic forms, but it's not exactly highly dogmatic in any case, and even theistic forms never focused on an explicit deity. The article's allusions to it are just silly. ~Switch ^t 10:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete for many reasons, the first being that this is just an excuse for bigoted frothing. The title is also just wrong: an abstraction cannot persecute. Even if we change the title to "Historical persecution by atheists", that makes no more sense than an article on "Historical persecution by non-Irish", since atheists have nothing else in common than what they are not. T. Anthony's suggestion of "Religious persecution by secular ideologies" is much better, but even then I think the net is being cast too broad for a useful article, and what is called for is a series of articles dealing with religious persecution by various secular regimes, e.g., "Religious persecution in the Soviet Union", "Religious persecution in Revolutionary France", etc. --OinkOink 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the reverse of "Persecution by secular ideologies" or atheist regimes. Meaning if anyone wants a Historical persecution by theistic ideologies or Historical persecution by theocracies I would have no objection. I don't know how Love Monkey feels on that.

I honestly don't see the value of such a page. There is no legitimate scholarship that indicates a causation or important correlation between belief in God and historical persecution. (There are many studies that show an inverse correlation between religiosity and religious tolerance, but these are purely in a modern context, not a historical one, and deal with individuals, not regimes.) Endorsing such a correlation is neither neutral nor verifiable, and even gathering the data in such a format is tantamount to Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be like having a "Historical persecution by black people" article, and then rather than simply deleting it because of its uselessness and inherent POV advocacy, arguing for making a "Historical persecution by white people" article to "balance the scales". Creating a second pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article doesn't resolve the problems inherent in creating a first pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article; two wrongs don't make a right. -Silence 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't believe in any of the "Historical persecution by" articles. However if we're going to have them than I don't see why "by theocracies" or "by state atheism" is any more odd or objectionable than the ones we have. I mean Historical persecution by Christians could be seen as making a correlation according to what you indicate. If so it's making a correlation that is misleading or confusing. After all the title is not specifying and Christians aren't monolithic. So what Christians are doing the persection? If all of them, how? I mean were the Shakers or Christadelphians persecuting anyone? Or in the earlier eras how about the Saint Thomas Christians, who exactly were they persecuting? If not all of them, why the blanket statement about Christians in general?--T. Anthony 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is crucial difference though, the phrase "persecution by Christians" is at least used by people outside wikipedia, while "persecution by atheists" is not! --Merzul 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that all that convincing. Yeah the exact "persecution by atheists" isn't used that much, neither is "persecution by state atheism." However to say the second doesn't exist as a concept, as I was clearly meaning the second, is odd. State atheism is different and I specified that's what I meant. See "State atheism" persecution.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, something like "Religious persecution in atheist states" could be a well sourced article. I was a bit hasty in judging your arguments. --Merzul 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but rather than rush to make another new article, why not start with a "Religious persecution" section in State atheism, since that article is currently a stub? -Silence 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Historical persecution by Christians should also be deleted for the reasons given by T. Anthony. However, that's not the article at issue here. If someone wants to AfD that one too, that's fine with me. --OinkOink 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I'm pretty sure I voted deleted on this one.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for reasons given by Silence, and also that this is basically just a list. I think that information about persecution is generally far better categorised by who is persecuted, rather than who does the persecution, unless those doing the persecution are a specific group of people working together (e.g., persecution by Nazis), or there is some other compelling reason to categorise it that way. So put the information in articles like persecution of Christians, persecution of atheists, rather than instead telling us about persecution of non-Christians or persecution of non-theists. Mdwh 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- A arbitary attack page on Atheism, hardly encyclopedic--NeoNerd 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CSD G10 (no attack pages). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.