Talk:State atheism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on State atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Atheistic religion listed at Redirects for discussion

I came across this redirect while linking off from the section in this article (re: France, as I mentioned above). Since this seems like a relevant page, I'm listing the redirect discussion here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: What to do with this article?

EDIT IT
(non-admin closure) Contributors agree that a term with usage dating back over a century is prima facie not a neologism. Differences in usage of the term over time can be addressed provided they can be reliably sourced and reflect the content of the article.

The article's scope of focus was identified by several editors as an area for potential improvement, in addition to the lead paragraph, which at present opens with a quoted dictionary definition.

The filing editor is kindly encouraged to consult the guidance essay Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment before opening another RfC. Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 'State atheism' (or 'atheist state') neologism is of sectarian (apologist, anti-atheist) coinage [1], apparently created as part of a sectarian drive to pin every evil and religion-suppression act in history on 'atheism' [2]. Even the only available 'source' (a poorly-reviewed and uncited-by-any-author e-book compiled by religious authors [3]) defining the term is, by its own description, a collection of "neologisms by or about atheists" [4].
I'm not sure whether it is best to, according to WP:NOTNEO, delete the article outright, or whether to reduce it to a description of the 'state atheism' neologism itself (who coined it, how it is used, etc.). Other suggestion: of the content here could be moved (unaltered) to a separate article about the 'Gosateizm' (the name the Soviet government gave their religion-suppressing dictate) that the neologism apparently has its roots in, or this article could be transformed into the same.
For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • We already did discuss all of this stuff extensively on the discussion above the past few days. This is a redundant discussion and continuation of the above. No one supported that it was a neologism or certainly no one supported the idea that a policy was violated. Your attribution by a reliable secondary source was a good compromise. So I will say to keep/no major changes/expand considering that it is not a neologism at all and has more than 60 years per your review of history of the term being present and I would say at least 100 years of being present in sources. Also this article not about only one term (numerous terms are used in the literature to discuss the topic of governments, states, countries, etc that have sponsored atheism) it is about governments or countries which have incorporated atheism into their cultures, ideologies, policies. Like User:ThePromenader stated, "For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above".Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Why exactly has this been added back[5] to the 'votes' section? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I put it there originally before you moved it [6] as others had already voiced relevant views in the discussion above. If there is any "voting", their views count in all of this since this is the same redundant discussion as the section above. Don't move people's comments again.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that comments in another conversation are 'votes' here, and that you're putting them here 'for' their contributors? I don't know where to start with that. Anyhow, your intent was not clear (it was neither a vote or a comment) and seemed an error. Consensus is more than 'voting', by the way, but do as you will in that regard. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Its the same conversation as above, not a new one. Not sure why you even started this "new" one since all the issues were already being discussed in the section above and you even referenced it by saying For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above. Also you made a RfC on September 4, 2017 for the discussion above and then you made another one with this one just 5 days later over the exact same issues (September 9, 2017) that people had been discussing for 5 days already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This RfC is a result of that ignored-in-the-end conversation, and that conclusion I made clear in the RfC header. Yet the entirety of that conversation (for context, etc.) that led to this conclusion is still available for reference, if needed. I don't see what there is not to understand in that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Our last comments were 3 days old only when you opened up another RfC (as if the first one was not enough).Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I closed the first RfC [7] long before our conversation ended [8], and it was a full two days of 'no answer' before I opened a new RfC.[9]. How are vague accusations an 'argument' for anything? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reduce - After thought, the best way I see to transform the article into something WP:V, in preserving the maximum of content, is to treat it as a translation of the Gosateizm that is seemingly the neologism's origin [10], and in doing so, we can preserve all of the content concerning all the Soviets did under that name... if the supporting source attributes the claim to that name, that is.
As for the rest... almost none of the references provided in this article have 'state atheism' anywhere in them (let alone in the cited passage supporting the claim), so this is pure WP:SYNTH amd/or WP:OR. As demonstrated earlier, the term has had some rare use by sectarian authors over the years, until its resurgance as a neologism part of the recent "atheist atrocities fallacy" drive [11][12], that is, so perhaps this tendency and use is worthy of mention, somewhere. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand: State atheism is a real thing, as many of the RSs in the article (including the very first one, published by Oxford University Press) affirm. As Markbassett pointed out further up above, a Google search for the term "State atheism" brings up about 803,000 results, and searching the same term on Google Scholar (a more important indicator, IMO) brings about 750 results. On top of that, the term "state atheism", has been in use for at least over the past 100-200 years, as Ramos1990 and Wtmitchell pointed out below. This term has been in use for far too long to be a neologism, and many of the RSs says that this term has been reality in many countries. Maybe the term was just a neoologism back around 1900, but the RSs affirm that many countries applied state atheism into their constitutions and official government policies (and once again, we're talking about official government policy, not the hearts of people).
Maybe the article could be trimmed in some areas to focus on the atheist states (their constitutions, official government policies stemming from the official state atheism status, etc.) rather than discussing religious persecution in general, but the evidence is very clear (such as that provided by Ramos1990 and others) that state atheism is an old term and more than just a neologism.
While portions of the article could possibly be trimmed for increase focus and to avoid COATRACK issues, I actually think that this article should be expanded. There are numerous countries (particularly the non-communist ones) that had official state atheism policies that are not mentioned in the article besides the map (which I think has Cuba wrong -- historical, not modern, atheist state). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Invalid RfC. Please see WP:RFC. An RfC must be neutral and ask a clear question (or questions) for the community to address. An open-ended and vague "What to do with this article?", followed by intensely one-sided PoV pushing (in a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS vein) does not qualify. Given that the same editor has produced two trainwreck pseudo-RfCs back to back, this should be administratively closed, and either WP:DROPTHESTICK followed, or a third, proper RfC opened by someone who can formulate a WP:POLICY-cognizant question or questions in a neutral manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you're calling 'PoV pushing', but I opened this as a WP:POLICY RfC [13] in believing that 'policy' meant 'policy concerns' and not 'about the policies themselves'... thus all the 'policy' tags. From a 'content' point of view (that this has now become), I can see how a 'skim' of this page give that impression, but there is no pushing 'truth' here, only a WP:NEOLOGISM concern, and the rest only follows. But if there is a better way of bringing attention to policy transgressions, do educate me. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If you can't (or pretend you can't) understand what's severely non-neutral about your RfC wording, that suggests a WP:CIR problem. You have to be able to remove bias and emotion from your own writing (in articles and in RfCs), almost without having to think about it, in order to edit productively here. I'm not even sure I disagree with your central concerns about the title and content (if those concerns are stripped of hyperbole and venting), but your manner of presentation of the issue is a total WP:RFC-rules failure. You're trying to WP:WIN instead of calmly and neutrally present an issue for the editorial community to consider.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't have to lay out in the RfC 'quality' conclusions that others should come to themselves. Whether or not I agree with your assesment, you are bringing more attention to the article, but I was hoping to do that in a most policy-focused way possible (and I did read the instructions[14]), and obviously a few do not want that to happen, thus the push to transform the 'does it adhere to policy?' question into a (circular discussion that would make anyone's eyes glaze over) 'content' one or 'waylay' any examination at all. It's not 'win' you read, but perhaps a frustration at a general lack of attention, and when there is attention, 'on sight belief' (much gamed here) and short attention spans. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd noticed what was going on here some time before, but after assessing the editing environment, I let it lie, only to return months (years?) later to find that it had gotten even worse. I would be happy if proper attention was brought through any means at all (even preferrably without any input from me - it's obvious that I'm not very good at it... yet), so if you could do something in that direction, that would be great. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that User:SMcCandlish did mention that some relevant things for this discussion at the ANI on this particular talk page discussion [15]. He said "ANI isn't the place to argue about neologisms, and WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't even apply here; no one is trying to create an article about a non-notable word; the term is attested to at least the 19th century, and is found in many reliable sources newer than that, so it's probably not a good RfC topic, either."Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty disingenuous coming from the very contributor that did their all to tranform an ANI about their behavior into a 'content' one. It worked, obviously.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to get into what I said there in any detail, I also suggested that a new discussion address the content, since that's what people actually seem to think is worth discussing. This "it's a neologism! And I somehow think that's a WP:POLICY matter" hand-waving is a waste of time. It is, for more reasons that I already provided. Another is that all words are neologisms at some point; the fact that someone, some time, introduced a word doesn't mean anything about it, much less anything WP-policy-concerning about it. We only care here about how independent reliable sources address this topic. If there's a real-world controversy about how sources address the topic, even including the very term(s) themselves, and that controversy is covered in other RS, then we should also cover the controversy as part of this article. It's even conceivable that it could be the focus of the article, if there really is that much of an off-WP dispute (in RS, not at 4chan or random blogs). But, again, that's a content matter, it's not a policy dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you completely and thanks for elaborating on your observations on policy, neologisms, and the history of the term. Your observation on the history of the term was very much on point and so it was worth moving here since it was related to the discussion at hand. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The thanks is so profuse because it's exciting to see the ruse actually working.
  • In the pre-Soviet era, in the rare instances when it was used, 'state atheism' was a sectarian neologism referring to any nation exacting a separation of church and state. This article does not do this.
  • The Soviet Communism Gosateizm movement that those reliable sources refer to (as that) and translate it to 'state atheism' is not a neologism. Yet only one section of this article refers to this.
  • Most all occurances of 'state atheism' that are not the above are a sectarian neologism (coined on the above case) used to label any state that has ever condemned or suppressed relgion, and even the lede says as much. At least 80% of the article depends on this neologism.
And never mind that most of this article's references don't mention 'state atheism' at all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an Invalid RfC although I would vote keep and expand. User:ThePromenader has a history of aggressively POV pushing on this article. He started the same RfC months ago and he received absolutely no support. It's time he give it up. desmay (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Our choices are not between "delete" and "reduce". The article appears to need some help in being fleshed out and staying on topic, but it is not appropriate to consider this a candidate for deletion or what in essence boils down to reduction to a stub. AlexEng(TALK) 07:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's lots to say on the Soviet Gosateizm, and the result would be hardly a stub (and I'm sure it could be fleshed out). TP ✎ ✓ 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reduce / rewrite in a general sense; starting with a dictionary definition is a warning sign to me that we could be talking about a neologism (since it shows a determination to establish the term's legitimacy and could indicate that relatively unrelated sources are being tied together around this dictionary definition) Much of the rest of the article is written in similarly awkward terms ("A communist state, in popular usage...") that don't make it clear who is using this term or how. The sourcing also seems weak, as the dictionary cite in the lead suggests it would be - many of the sources don't use the term "State atheism" at all, or only use it in passing. A general rewrite to focus most of the article on the term itself would be an improvement, which would imply paring down parts that go off on tangents about individual states without using the term specifically. However, a more specific RFC is likely to produce more useful feedback. I'd start by going through the sources and removing any that don't specifically use the term "State atheism"; without that caution, the page risks becoming a dumping ground for random factoids and opinions about atheist states. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I'm thinking of opening the RfC as a proposed reducing the article to Gosateizm (and 'state atheism' as a literal translation of it); any use of 'state atheism' beyond that is indeed a WP:NEOLOGISM. TP ✎ ✓ 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You keep saying "Goetzism", but that's not a thing. Are you referring to Gosateizm, which would be a transliteration of госатеизм? That's a direct (abbreviated) translation for "state atheism". AlexEng(TALK) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That's it exactly - thanks for correcting my spelling. TP ✎ ✓ 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep/Reduce Walking in somewhat cold, I think if the article is limited to the phenomenon of countries such as the Soviet Union, China etc. outlawing religion and declaring athiesm as the official policy of the country- then I think the article serves a useful purpose, but if the article veers off into soapboxing about all the ills tied to socialism, then I agree with others that the article would violate WP:NEO. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral (invited by the bot) Neologism isn't the only possible problem with the title / topic. It can also be a descriptive phrase (like "major hurricanes") which is not really recognized as a topic by its name. But such is not per se a requirement for a Wikipedia article. So this article is really covering one aspect of certain countries, and so probably duplicates coverage which is under those countries. But such a situation is comonplace in Wikipedia and so there's no reason to act differently here. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Close - RfC is not a platform for general complaints. If the article is broken then fix it. If someone takes issue with a specific fix then discuss that specific thing on the talk page, and open an RfC if you can't reach an agreement on it. But this is not customer service and RfC is not the complaint department. GMGtalk 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reduce / rewrite to focus on the countries where "Gosateism", as a Marxist-Leninism concept, was an official policy. The sections such as State_atheism#France seems to be off-topic, as it's about the Cult of Reason, which the linked article defines as an "official religion" (State religion). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Τhis is a wretched RfC; no need to repeat remarks from above. Clearly and evidently, the subject exists and merits a wikipedia entry - which most probably needs more work. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • If this is discussed further then it will just be a continuation of the discussion just above this one. Now that other categories for RfC are tagged, maybe other voices can add on top of the observations already noted by a few editors above.
But to reiterate a few things, Neolgism means "A newly coined word or expression." per the Oxford English Dictionary [16]. The term "state atheism" goes as far back as at least 1878 [17] or even 1901 [18]. There was another one from 1859. Even User:Promenader has made a "Pre-WWII" and Post=1950s" (his terms not mine) history which means it has +60 years usage at least. It seems to have grown because of the rise of numerous atheists states in the world (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia, Cuba, Albania, etc) which explains growth after the 1950s. Recently since the past century it has gained more currency and it is rising enough to make in into notable scholarly handbooks, references, textbooks, specialized dictionaries, etc like ""The Oxford Handbook of Atheism", "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", "A Dictionary of Atheism" (Oxford University Press), "State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law (Studies in Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights)", "Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular", "Eastern Europe and the Challenges of Modernity, 1800-2000", "Architecture and Armed Conflict: The Politics of Destruction", etc. See links to journal articles or textbooks in the above discussion too that it is used to refer to other states too like China, Albania, Cuba, etc. If anything, info on the origins of the term can be added in a separate section. It would not be different than how the word "atheism" had it origins by theists and then later evolved into something away from theism. Words evolve and multiple meanings are possible. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
To pick a nit, I don't think your 1878 source uses the words State Atheism as a term. Speaking of a movement composed of persons it describes as being "united in the common aim of the complete secularization of all civil affairs", it says, "In short, the whole aim of this movement is to force upon the State Atheism as the standing religion." I read "force upon the State Atheism" there as trying to say, "force Atheism upon the State". The 1901 source is on target, though, saying :... the practice of State Atheism." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Point noted. You know what?..New terms in their origin are not always "highly focused" like they are at later times after it gains some popularity. The same thing happened with terms in their earliest times like "agnosticism", "atheism", and even "secularism". Originally these were free concepts. For instance, early on "atheos" was applied to people who were abandoned by the gods and also to people who believed the "wrong" gods. Obviously now, it means other distinct things and these words are are now pretty separated from their original theological contexts. But this is how languages evolve :) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
But is the term popular? If it was, it would be present in most every reliable source. It isn't, and even those attempting to promote the term here are hard-pressed to demonstrate its use outside its 'original theological context'. So, it must be at the 'new' before-popularity stage. It's a neologism.
"Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term."[19]
THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, since the term has much more then 60 years history it is not a neologism by definition. State atheism refers to states that have sponsored atheism in their cultures or ideologies and so since there is quite a bit of sources that discuss atheist regimes, state sponsored atheism, atheist governments, etc it has lots of sources. Continuing on the definition from Oxford, it says "State Atheisms have tended to be as much anti-clerical and anti-religious as they are anti-theist, and typically place heavy restrictions on acts of religious organization and the practice of religion." Many sources have discussed such topics and so the scope is wider then just one term. Any government that has advocated atheism actively to a noticeable extent falls under the scope. By the way, all writings on atheism have never escaped their 'original theological context' since all writings on atheism relate to "theism" and even "religion" by default.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If one can't find a term in wide use in mainstream references and publications, it's a neologism. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream publications like in these newspapers [20], [21], [22]?
No, like non-sectarian encyclopaedias. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." [23]
That pretty well outlines most of this article in a nutshell. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh like notable scholarly handbooks, references, textbooks,dictionaries, etc like I already referenced above and also your whole list of google books [24] on top of the newspapers? The term is not a neologism since it has a long history, plus sources talking about atheist states, state atheism, and other related terms are widely available. Look let others comment here. Be patient. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I already addressed the translation of Soviet 'Gosateizm' that makes much of those results, but only one section of this article is dedicated to that; most of what remains is examples of usage of the sectarian neologism 9/10ths of this article hangs upon. One cannot 'hide' the latter behind the former, but presenting 'results' like that... speaks for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an Invalid RfC although I would vote keep and expand. User:ThePromenader has a history of aggressively POV pushing on this article. He started the same RfC months ago and he received absolutely no support. It's time he give it up. desmay (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think any RfC is invalid, discussion is always welcome. That being said, as a neutral party coming in out of the blue here, I disagree that this is a neologism. There's enough meat in the references section for sure. It's a widely established concept, and I think this article is pretty decent. South Nashua (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC is worded in an extraordinarily POV-pushy way. I'm strongly inclined to support expansion based on that. I'm also inclined to support expansion because I find the argument that a term that's been used predominantly to refer to a single thing since at least the establishment of the Soviet Union, that has been written about so much that I can find references to it on a humor website (cracked.com), that is such a huge part of any Christian, Jewish or Muslim apologist's debate with any atheist, that has been covered on works in non-fiction on the topics of politics, religion and their intersection, to be a neologism to be so utterly uninformed and jingoistic that I find it difficult to entertain any notion for which it is used to argue. There are fallacies and then there are arguments like this. I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but the notion that any reasonable person would consider this a "new" term is completely ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The article should be expanded because you don't like the wording of an RfC?
Again, anything pertaining to the acts of the Soviets itself is not a neologism, but those who took that term and transformed it into an accusation against everything/everyone 'ungodly' are using it as a neologism. And most of this article is an attempt to prove that that accusation is 'true'... which goes against most every wikipedia policy (thus the RfC wording). TP ✎ ✓ 07:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
First off, when someone points out non-neutral wording, WP:AGF is quite clear that you need to accept those concerns at face value, not immediately attribute them to "they don't like it". The wording of this RfC presumes that the article is a non-notable neologism and that the only possible solutions are either deleting the article or trimming it to a stub. You, as the filer, don't have a single leg to stand on to accuse anyone else of being non-objective, because you've already demonstrated quite clearly that you started this RfC with a particular end-goal in mind, rather than in a good faith attempt to find out what the community thinks.
Second: I havbe no idea where you get the idea that this article is working to prove that anything atheistic is bad. I'm a atheist and I don't see that at all in this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd already accepted that this RfC was a 'train wreck', an no-one spoke of 'objectivity' or 'as an atheist': I explained how the term 'state atheism' is most commonly used today, and that's it. But by all means, do try to find secular examples of 'state atheism' term usage that are not speaking of 'Gosateizm'... good luck. TP ✎ ✓ 16:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Gosateizm is just the Russian term for "state atheism". I have no idea what your objection even is at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Anything outside of that useage (speaaking specifically of the Soviet condemnation of religion under that name) is a WP:NEOLOGISM. It's more than that, actually (ergo the RfC wording), but that point alone (and my unaddressed request for examples of secular usage) is enough of a problem, alone. TP ✎ ✓ 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing in either of those terms that limits it only to the Soviet programs. That's like suggesting that "Rock and Roll" only refers to music by Elvis. The more you argue this point, the less seriously I find myself taking your arguments. And that's no mean feat, either. I came into this not taking your arguments seriously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a disingenuous analogy, and I don't understand your 'personal' angle. Just try to find secular sources using this term for anything outside of describing Gosateizm, and that should make things clear. TP ✎ ✓ 20:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you really need to read the essays WP:STICK and WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You really need to address that point before you can say that ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 20:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO it's not a neologism because it's not really a term, it's just a sequence of two words. Not that that changes my "neutral" stance on the RFC. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk section closed? Where to add feedback?

Many users have received a request to comment on this article. 

 Please comment on Talk:State atheism .. The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State atheism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would do so, but that topic seems to be closed in the Talk section. 

 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any suggestions? Peter K Burian (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Peter K Burian, it looks like I'm a little late too. The RfC closed today, with the administrator implementing this ruling. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure why User:Legobot was sending out feedback requests this deep into the RfC, but closure was formally requested at WP:ANRFC as early as 7 September. I performed the closure earlier today; I am not an admin and closures are not "rulings".
To the topic of whether the article should deal with "state atheism" as a term, rather than an aspect of a political regime, that discussion has indeed ended, but if you have other feedback about the article you are welcome to start a new section about it on this talk page. Of course, any editor is free to edit the article to address any concerns they might have. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I am actually in agreement with your closure User:Snuge purveyor and agree that the term state atheism is very far from being a neologism. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was open almost a month and went about 10 days without comment before the closure. Plus the RFC had formation problems, in essence a blend of multiple questions. I support the closure, with the note that it should be carefully read and not interpreted more broadly than it is actually written. So, other than "not a neologism", and politely saying that any future RFC's be better formed, it leaves most of the other questions that are blended into the RFC open to further development and discussion, e.g in new sections. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal re: State_atheism#France

I propose that this entire section be removed. It's about the Cult of reason, which in the linked article is described as a state religion, not state atheism. This appears to be a case of WP:COAT and / or off-topic. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: The reason the Cult of Reason article does not mention state atheism is because Xenophrenic, who, based on numerous ANIs/ANEs/etc., is a pov-pusher and edit warrior on atheism-related articles, removed that word from the article even though the reference clearly mentions it [25]. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The state atheism article should mention the Cult of Reason. There are reliable sources and good evidence to support this matter: God Divided: Understanding the Differences Between Islam, Christianity By Christopher Catherwood,See page 145 of this academic paper and 10 failed atttempts to create state atheismKnox490 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Support. As if 'voting' counts for anything: if reliable sources don't designate a claim as 'state atheism' (and none of this section's sources do this), it should be removed. The same goes for the Mexico section... and any claim at all in this article, actually. The 'references' provided (in the comment above) use the apologetic-neologism version of 'state atheism' (as part of the purely apologetic 'atheist atrocities' fallacy) and are theologian in nature (and laughable - one is a thesis for a doctorate in Christian Theology (taken from the first source) and the latter article is titled '10 Failed Attempts To Create State Cults Or Religions')... but I guess relating reality isn't important to the authors of this largely WP:OR article. TP ✎ ✓ 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious Oppose: - It's a weird thing to suggest removing a section just after an editor who is on the edge of getting banned removes the word "atheistic" from the Cult of Reason article. I think that the France section could actually be expanded, perhaps with the help of an experienced historian like User:Rjensen. desmay (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be underlined: 'voting' or not, if the claim-supporting sources don't mention 'state atheism', both should be removed, as that would be pure WP:OR amd WP:SYNTH and strictly verboten by Wikipedia standards. This rule applied would, effectively, remove the entire section (and that of Mexico, too, amongst others - in fact, this would greatly reduce the entire article). TP ✎ ✓ 22:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, twice over. The article is about a subject, and one which could go by various names. First, OR and synth refer to statements in content, not to the mere presence of material in an article. Second, given that the subject can have many names, there's not a requirement that the source mention the particular title of the Wikipedia article.
That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity. One can concoct any story or concept from any given number of demonstrable facts, and provide references to those individual facts, but that doesn't mean that those facts, even though they check out individually, support (or even mention) the story - that is what's happening here. And if a source doesn't mention a concept (especially one as particular as this one), but is used to support/describe/'confirm' that concept, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. TP ✎ ✓ 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
First, please note that I did note weigh in on the inclusion/exclusion question because I feel I've not learned enough about the Cult of Reason to do so. I was weighing in on your ratoinale for exclusion. Next, please don't invent deragatory non-existent motives for my post as you did with your "That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity". Finally, your post did not even address the 2 points that I made much less refute them. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I addressed your two points specifically... if this article (understatedly) claims that its title 'thing' is many different things (by including different sources talking about different 'things'), that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. A wikipedia contributor may think that a claim/event may qualify for, say, 'communism', but they can't call it that unless the source they cite does... and if it doesn't, yet they make the claim all the same, again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR.
Most of this article's claims cite sources that have 'state atheism' nowhere in them... look for yourself and go figure. TP ✎ ✓ 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Better example: let's say I'm someone who subscribes to a concept or theory that few or none subscribe to, and starts a 'X is really Y' article. The events and characters I choose to include in the article may be real, citable X, and my including them in my 'is really Y' article is an understated 'evidence' for that claim, but nowhere in any source I cite is there any allusion to/evidence of 'X is really Y'.
That's exactly what this article does. TP ✎ ✓ 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not to the knowledge point of weighing in on this particular article. But one example of my two points would a hypothetical "Fast Car" article. And an insertion is made that the (reputable) XYZ magazine said that as of 2017 the Bugatti Model 1257 has the highest top speed of any production car in the world. The magazine did not specifically say that the Bugatti Model 1257 is a "fast car", the specific title of the article. I would say that this inclusion is not a violation of synth or wp:or, my two (plus an added third) points on this are:
  • Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not the mere inclusion of material in articles.
  • "Fast cars" is one of many possible terms for the subject area of the article. Sourcing does not need to use the specific article title for content to be directly germane to the article.
  • Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not to the process of determination of whether or not a source supports a statement or statement-by-presence in the article.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
One doesn't require knowledge to observe that the sources do not match the article title's claim (that the facts it contains are 'concept Y').
'Fast cars' is a bad analogy because it is a vague descriptive (and either word can be any number of things). 'State atheism' is a precise claim-concept only used by a select few outside of its use as a translation for the soviet-era anti-religion brigade, and its more recent derivative is utterly absent from historical consensus (and works derived thereof).
A better example would be someone claiming that a bat is a bird: they start a 'bat (bird)' article, and in it factually describe everything about bats, and those facts check out with their sources, but utterly absent in any sourcea is the article title's claim that 'bats are birds'.
And this article does also exactly that. TP ✎ ✓ 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You could be right on where the issue on this particular article should end up on this topic...I don't know. And please note that my posts were limited to the very narrow topic of applicability or wp:or / synthesis to the question. But you analogy is not analogous...the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false.North8000 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false.
...and we may agree that it is false (which is a moot point where demonstrable fact is concerned), but the fact that it is false is also demonstrated (a wikipedia requirement) by the lack of 'bats are birds' or references to bats as 'birds' in the citations provided (or any reference). And if none of the references used here refer to the events presented as 'state atheism' (or even use the term in the entire publication), who is claiming that it is 'state atheism'? The wikipedian contributing those facts under that label, that's who (and perhaps the other contributors who, against all demonstrable evidence, 'agree' with them): again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
On the narrower topic that I was discussing, I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree. North8000 (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Rules (and principles) aren't selectively applied, here: the problems in the narrower topic (if it the France section you are referring to) is the 'norm' for the rest of the article as well, and those faults are demonstrable... 'agreements' (or 'votes') will not resolve them.
But if testable demonstrations and reason are ineffective in discussions about resolving them, and it comes down to (once again) to a "the 'side' agrees with (or 'votes for') more 'wins'" situation, I don't at all mind opening another RfC on this. TP ✎ ✓ 06:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Clear oppose The map shows France and the section on France is also very detailed and informative. I find a few sources other than what have been listed here.[26][27][28][29] Lorstaking (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Many of the sources cited above make no comment (some make opposite comment) about whether the France did ever or does promote State Atheism, some sources and comments appear to want to make no distinction between S-A, secularism and anti-clericalism. Perhaps a less WP-voiced section could be created making the point that some sources have described this period thus, but reliance on OR, SYNTH and relatively marginal sources in the discussion above advertises how marginal this PoV really is. To give one example "French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France". It makes no more sense to link that to S-A, than it would to argue that a particular campaign or campaigner which made homosexuality more acceptable, was somehow proof of State gayness.Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Source breakdown from the current revision:

1: State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789–1799).[1]

  1. The source does not support the text. Not even close.

2: Historian Gavin Hyman argues the "French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France," He adds that the hostile reaction to the Revolution in Britain had the opposite effect.[2]

  1. The full quote is, "But if the French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France, it appeared to have precisely the opposite effect in Britain." But being the operative word.
  2. Gavin Hyman is not a historian.

3: A campaign of dechristianization happened which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.[3]

  1. Supported by the source, but it's trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.

4: One of the leaders of the Terror was Maximilien Robespierre; he did believe in a Supreme Being and he strongly opposed atheism. He accused the dechristianizers "under pretense of destroying superstition ... [of making] a kind of religion of atheism itself."[4]

  1. Supported by the source, but still not on topic. I.e., WP:SYNTH.

5: According to French historian Michel Vovelle, the Cult of Reason first appeared during the trial of Marie Antoinette, but took off after the execution of Antoinette.[5]

  1. A book by two fringe authors does not a reliable source make. I.e., Pyramids and Freemasons are off topic.

6: The Cult of Reason was founded by Jacques Hébert and his followers. The Cult of Reason was the first official state sponsored, civic, and atheistic religion of the French Republic from October 1793 until March 1794. The Cult of Reason became popular among intellectuals and sans culottes alike. From mid-1793 the Jacobin-dominated French Convention gave tacit approval to the Cult of Reason. On 6 October 1793, the National Convention replaced the Gregorian calendar for the French Republican Calendar for France. Together with Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, Joseph Fouché, in the Nièvre department, Fouché ransacked churches, sent their valuables to the treasury, and ordered the words "Death is an eternal sleep" to be inscribed over the gates to cemeteries.[6]

  1. The second sentence is not supported by the source.
  2. Michael Davies (Catholic writer) is not a reliable source on the topic. I.e., The balance, factual or not, is irrelevant.

7: On 10 November 1793, the Festival of Reason was held in the Notre-Dame de Paris, a newly converted Temple of Reason.[7]

  1. Supported, but off topic. Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH, again.

8: Historian Gavin Flood says, "During the French Revolution in 1793 the Gothic Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, an atheistic doctrine intended to replace Christianity."[8]

  1. The quote is accurate, but is the first sentence of a chapter entitled, "Religion and rationality." I.e., The source does not cover "State atheism."
  2. The source contains exactly two mentions of the "French Revolution", both are on the page cited. I.e., The source does not cover the "French Revolution."
  3. Gavin Flood is, also, not a historian.

9: The Cult of Reason vanished quickly, after its chief exponents, Jacques Hébert and his followers were guillotined on 24 March 1794.[9][7]

  1. Supported, but off topic. a.k.a., Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.
Sources

  1. ^ Latreille, A. (2003), "French Revolution", in Marthaler, Berard L; et al. (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, Catholic University of America (2nd ed.), Detroit: Gale, pp. 972–973, ISBN 0787640093
  2. ^ Hyman, Gavin (2010). A Short History of Atheism. London: I.B. Tauris & Company. p. 9. ISBN 9780857730350.
  3. ^ Neely, Sylvia (2008). A Concise History of the French Revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 198–99. ISBN 9780742534117.
  4. ^ Frey, Linda; Frey, Marsha (2004). The French Revolution. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 32. ISBN 9780313321931.
  5. ^ Hancock, Graham; Bauval, Robert (2011). The Master Game: Unmasking the Secret Rulers of the World. New York: Red Wheel Weiser. p. 451. ISBN 9781934708644.
  6. ^ Davies, Michael (1997). For Altar and Throne: The Rising in the Vendee. Saint Paul: Remnant Press. p. 63. ISBN 9781890740009.
  7. ^ a b Llewellyn, J; Thompson, S. (2015). "The Cult of the Supreme Being". Alpha History. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
  8. ^ Flood, Gavin (2012). The Importance of Religion: Meaning and Action in Our Strange World. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 130. ISBN 9781405189712.
  9. ^ Lawlor, M. (2003), "Reason, Cult of Goddess of", in Marthaler, Berard L; et al. (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, Catholic University of America (2nd ed.), Detroit: Gale, pp. 945–946, ISBN 0787640158

Sure looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH to me. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is demonstrably a lot of WP:SYNTH. Do preserve this (and thanks for all that work!) for a future RfC (or better), as I'm pretty well sure that any attempt to remove the offending section will (in spite of all evidence) be reverted, and reason and rules haven't seemed to have much effect here in the past. TP ✎ ✓ 15:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of all that has transpired, and also IMO some questionable arguments (is it synth?) on what are actually sidebar points, if you feel that the article should be changed, my suggestion would be to propose the specific change in an RFC, and leave all of the arguments regarding the proposed change for the response section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling something 'questionable' with no demonstrable counter-evidence/reference is not helpful, and isn't even considerable, really. Since the WP:SYNTH is demonstrable (and has been demonstrated above), the article should simply be changed. TP ✎ ✓ 00:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that anything discussed has established that it is wp:synth, but the synth debate is a sidebar point either way. And regarding what's next, I was merely deriving that from the close of the RFC. I think that all of Artifax's points were good except for again that structural sidebar. Perhaps the material should be removed. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, 'agree' (or 'disagree', or 'voting') aren't even applicable where Wikipedia policy offenses are concerned. ArtifexMayhem points not only part of the discussion, but the evidence (that you seem to acknowledge) supporting it. Normally the content should just be removed, and an RfC would come into play should this removal be reversed or some sort of evidenceless or evidence-defying 'protectionism'happens, as it is a place to present a factual case (and call others to examine the evidence)... as is this conversation already, but those watching this page (its authors) don't seem to want to participate, which says much about what is going on here (and a lack of counter-evidence) and what is to come... and that, most likely, will be an RfC or other arbitrary measure. I'm glad, though, that you see some sense in all this. TP ✎ ✓ 10:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
ThePromenader is correct. Unless better sourcing is found, the material will be removed. Holding a RFC over such basic policy issues doesn't make much sense. FYI: I've started a source evaluation on the Revolutionary Mexico section, but probably won't finish it until late next week. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to just do a recap and then sign off. IMHO no synth policy issue has been established. Synth is creating a statement, not including material that is or may not be germane. But it appears to me (just from reading here, I don't have expertise in the area of the disputed content)that the material may not be germane and may make a wrong or unsourced statement by inclusion (that such is State aethism) and it may be best to remove it. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, WP:SYNTH is but a subset of WP:OR, but WP:SYNTH 'digs deeper' into a contributor's motive for (usually WP:SOAPBOXing a 'desired conclusion'), and methods of, contributing unsupported/poorly-supported/selective claims.
If an author writes an article titled "X", and includes events ("Y") that 'explain' that title, they are declaring that "Y is X"... and when the sources recounting the events (under another title) make no mention of "X" at all (this is already WP:OR territory), that "Y is X" declaration is the author's own (unsupported) opinion (and this is WP:ESSAY), and the meeting of the two is WP:SYNTH. And when one adds the motive of using Wikipedia's popularity to broadcast the (misleading, etc.) result (as 'truth') to the world, it becomes WP:SOAPBOX. So, while this article qualifies for several (if not all) of these 'sub-offenses', WP:OR is the demonstrable root of them all. TP ✎ ✓ 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No User:ArtifexMayhem, the material will not be removed and if you try to do that against consensus, I'm going to revert you. User:Ramos1990, User:Ozhistory, and User:Lorstaking have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state. Can the material be rewritten? Yes. Should it be removed because you don't like it? No. Thanks for preventing this article from being overtaken by a fringe view User:North8000 - does the sysop who closed the RfC, User:Snuge purveyor, need to intervene here too? desmay (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See, this is what I mentioned earlier - for some, Wikipedia is for 'getting the message out there', and the veracity of that (and the rules requiring that veracity be demonstrated) simply don't... matter.
"...have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state"
As demonstrated above, the term isn't included in any supporting source. And if the publication doesn't describe the events it contains as 'state atheism' (or even 'atheist state'), who is? The Wikipedia contributors, that's who, and that is stricly forbidden by several Wikipedia rules: (often networked) 'voting' or 'more reverters' are irrelevent in that (and is arguably an offense in itself). TP ✎ ✓ 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:ScrapIronIV and User:Rjensen have also worked on this topic before. I think their input would be valuable - the section on Revolutionary France should not be deleted just because you don't like it. desmay (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Any chance of engaging with arguments raised rather than smearing with a label? Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
desmay, can you suggest any sources that would better support the current text? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked it the articles in more detail. I support the removal even though I disagreed with some of the arguments of those in favor of removal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I also support removal as the connection between the removed text and the topic of this article is too tenuous. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on State atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

The section on North Korea concentrates on Christianity, even though Christians are only currently about 1.7% of the population. Chondoism, which has a party in the Korean People's Assembly is ignored.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheondoism probably should not be ignored, and neither should other religions. However, I wasn't able to quickly find info which is supported by citeable sources and which has identifiable as-of info. Examples: the relevant CIA Factbook page ([30]) has undated info saying, "traditionally Buddhist and Confucianist, some Christian and syncretic Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way) ... note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom". This website has a page ([31]) giving info on religious breakdown which, at a quick look, might be somewhat reliable (see [32] and [33]). However, that web page is personally copyrighted by, I presume, the publisher of the website (who may or may not be this person).

References for assertions in the map

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary says: Sorry to insist, I didn't mean that the map is incorrect, but it just seems to me we need sources as to why these countries are considered (formerly) atheism states, for example, I can't find anything in this article about Afghanistan being an atheism state in history. [...].

I see that the image description page on Wikipedia Commons does cite supporting sources (this is unusual, and I'm happy to see it). As WP policy, as I interpret it, does require that the article should explicitly list sources supporting the assertions made visually by the map, I've added a cite here which echoes the sources listed in that Commons page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism/Archive_4&oldid=1137203327"