Talk:Persecution of atheists

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

message: Merge with discrimination against atheists, of course.
Agree, the only difference is that this one has more historical examples than Discrimination.  This page should be a redirect I think. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest merge 

message: May be this article isn't NPOV, but as it is written it certainly seems that way. Perhaps it is only in need of a cleanup. A Cleanup which I cannnot provide. This Article reads less like an encyclopedic entry on Persecution of a group, and more like a strange tirade against the U.S. and the Supreme Court. Just my 2 cents... anyone else have an opinion?
:I think it reads fine, and I think the cases mentioned are very interesting, and I often wonder why my country (not american) didn't go through equivalent processes yet. Also, it might look like a tirade against them, but to me it looks like they have a tirade against atheists, so I guess it evens out. PHF 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not even close to NPOV- I'm placing a disputed tag on the page.  The problem is not so much content-wise, but that this is allegedly an article about the "persecution" of atheists.  Disapproval and distrust doesn't even come close.  Perhaps there is a place for a discussion of these issues in the general Atheism article, but their place here is manifestly POV.  The only category whose inclusion isn't POV is the Historical one, and there are issues there as well.  Gabrielthursday 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Though all the information in this article seems good, I think it needs more information. A lot of
what the previous writer said is correct: because it lacks information, it does seem like a tirade 
against U.S. policies and not NPOV. The simple way to fix this is talk more widely about current world
views on atheism, and to include more opinions of those who disagree with it. I don't have much 
information myself, and request that people add to this article.
:Well, I couls suggest something to be added, I would like to see a mention on Nazi Germany persecution of atheists. PHF 04:50, 12 June 2006 
(UTC)
Wait, is Atheism a religion or not? Its in a catagory of 'persecuted religions', but I always thought of atheism as a rejection of religion.
Wikiwarlock 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the "persecuted group" section of the "religious persecution" series of articles. Nowhere is it stated to be a religion, anymore than the Soviet Union (which is also on the list) is a religion. -Silence 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be expanded 

message: I've reverted the move to capitalising "atheist". I've discussed this over at Talk:Persecution_of_Heathens#Heathens_is_a_proper_noun_and_capitalized_word.3F, but in future I believe it should be discussed here, especially as people seem to be using arguments for "heathen" which do not necessarily apply here. To summarise my point of view:
* "Atheist" is not a proper noun, whilst words like "Christian" are, so there is no inconsistency - the consistency should be with Wikipedia standards, which says words should be lower case unless the word is a proper noun. Hence it is inconsistent to capitalise "atheist".
* Liftarn said "You can't have different standards for different religions" - atheism is not a religion, and it is pushing a POV to describe it as such. Mdwh 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Atheists" versus "atheists" 

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

message: I've removed the section on political restrictions, which dealt with (mostly inoperative) religious requirements for political office in the modern US and Victorian England.  Even where operative, this is discrimination rather than persecution, and belongs in the article on discrimination against atheists instead. --OinkOink 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that for the sake of not doing a half-assed job, you will try to incorporate that into the proper article, right? Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, cool =) Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political restrictions

message: The statement that atheists do not have a right to life "under Islam" seems problematically vague to me.  As everyone surely knows, there are numerous forms of Islam, and many of them would not hold to this teaching.  Would anyone object if I changed that statement so that it reads something like, "Non-believers - atheists - do not have 'the right to life' according to the Islamic beliefs held by the Iranian government."? ChrisHack25 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't care, but it'd be best if someone could cite some Quranic verses supporting this view. --RucasHost 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It says the same thing in the Human Rights in Iran article. Pyromania152 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of athiests, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution. 
To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).
This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case this article would be about three sentences long by my count. The Iran part is the only sourced instance of actual persecution on this page. Madridrealy (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Persecution" 

message: I added discrimination to the beginning because that is what all of the cited instances of persecution on this page were referring to except reference number 4 and arguably reference number 1 (which actually said nothing about persecution or discrimination at all).Madridrealy (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination=Persecution? 

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