Category talk:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union

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

Soviet Union

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles

Recent Category addition

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The past was in 2007, since then many rules been changed here. Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. The Category:Persecution by atheists it is includes articles of violence or persecution carried out by atheists or atheist goverments against adherents of religions. Prevent people from freedom of worship and to impose on them that they are atheists or non-religious, burning and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept is persecuted (In the case of the oppressed was an atheist), then, is persecuted by the atheists.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule that categories must be supported by reliable sources hasn't changed. You are correct that the religious were persecuted, and you are correct that some of those countries assumed a position of state atheism. But you are confusing the persecution conducted by communists and totalitarian dictators as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. That makes as much sense as adding "Category: Persecution by people with black hair". According to the cited sources in this article, the persecution was propagated by the communists and fascists upon the religious (and religious institutions) because the regime didn't want to compete with religions for influence over the populace. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; there is no "persecution" component to it. The persecution comes from the communist regime and from totalitarian dictators. Nothing in the definition of Atheism says anything about burning churches or harassing the populace. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The persecution was led by people who identified themselves as atheists, They were athiest outspoked, Their actions were an attempt to remove religions of these communities through the policy of persecuting the religions and their followers and by followers of imposing a policy of atheism, through the so-called atheistic countries. If not athiest then persecuted by whom? Christians?.--Jobas (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The persecution, according to the sources, were by the polity in control at the time. The people may have identified themselves as atheists, and males, and left-handed, and fond of bird-watching, but the persecution (and also the establishment of state-sponsored stance of atheism) was a product of the communist or fascist government. See the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited they imposing a policy of atheism in not peacful way, and the "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", and forceful tactics to promote atheism. These acts it called persecution that done by self identified atheists, They ban on religion and they killed and tortured followers of different religions. And they tried to impose atheism in various ways on the population? What you called killing people for their faith and harassment them and an attempt to impose atheism officially in all ways? Persecuted? and by whom?--Jobas (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer is 'no'? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

impose atheism in various ways on the population from preventing worship and closing churches and torture people for practice it.? Were are taling about State atheism as states and goverments who run official policy of anti-clericalism and Anti-religious and its aim to and promoting state atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the answer then. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From State atheism. Soviet Union State atheism is state that promoted atheism. Sources do show and cited that the Soviet Union declared as State atheism and try offically to promoted atheism and to ban of religions.--Jobas (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but we're talking about the "Persecuted by atheists" category. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then? We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism and by state that promoted atheism, and by leader who were self identified atheists.--Jobas (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism

No. You do not. You should read the sources again. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union was a State atheism, persected Christians, Muslims, Jewish, and Buddiest. From the late 1920s to the late 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life: in schools, communist organizations such as the Young Pioneer Organization, and the media. Though Lenin originally introduced the Gregorian calendar to the Soviets, subsequent efforts to reorganise the week to improve worker productivity saw the introduction of the Soviet calendar, which had the side-effect that a "holiday will seldom fall on Sunday.

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. the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The USSR regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.--Jobas (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that quote on page 3. And I'm still waiting for a source which says "persecution by atheists". So far, all I see is that communists (sometimes) persecuted the religious, and also tried to set up state atheism. Do you see the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are saying they also tried to set up state atheism. The total number of victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million. You ignore the fact that these act were part of the atheist policies. as you can see in these sources: Religious Policy in the Soviet Union - Pagina 214, Soviet Union Since the Fall of Khrushchev - Pagina 178.--Jobas (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the reliable source which says "persecuted by atheists". I'll hold off on replying until you've provided a reliable source for this article which conveys specifically "persecuted by atheists", rather than persecuted by communists or totalitarian regimes. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pospielovsky, Dimitry V. (1988) A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York p. 89

Stalin and his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.

These act of persecuted done by government promoted atheism,. So it is WP:COMMONSENSE. You will not see source call Crusader, persecuted by Christians, yet it is COMMONSENSE that their acts are called persecuted by Christians.--Jobas (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

In Julian Baggini's book Atheism A Very Short Introduction, the author notes that "One of the most serious charges laid against atheism is that it is responsible for some of the worst horrors of the 20th century, including the Nazi concentration camps and Stalin's gulags". (source: Julian Baggini; Atheism a Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 85).

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),

Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first (and to date only) formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.)

Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)

After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)

You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jobas. Have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. I read your quote by Baggini, and I kept reading. Do you see where he said, "...some anti-atheist assumptions are just that--assumptions and not facts. [...] This was not atheist fascism but an expressly Catholic one. [...] The fact that the Soviet Union was an avowedly atheist state doesn't mean that atheism can be blamed for the mass murders committed by the communist dictator Joseph Stalin. He goes on to say that it isn't atheism or even original Marxism to blame, but "Soviet communism, with its active oppression of religion" to blame. And "In fact, even though it was officially atheist, it is not even true to say that the Soviet Union and the Church always had an antagonistic relationship. Stalin permitted the formation of the Moscow Patriarchate, a central body for the Russian Orthodox Church." What do you suppose he means? Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),

Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.). In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed.

Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)

Many priests were killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into temples of atheism. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists (an atheistic and antireligious organization) to intensify the persecution. (soruce: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494 )

According to Alan Bullock, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin who was an atheist (source: Montefiore, Simon Sebag (2007). Young Stalin. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-85068-7., p.54), encouraged atheism and beilieve that hat the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity". (source: Alan Bullock; Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives; Fontana Press; 1993; pp.412)

Increasingly draconian measures were employed. In addition to direct state persecution, the League of the Militant Godless was founded in 1925, churches were closed and vandalized and "by 1938 eighty bishops had lost their lives, while thousands of clerics were sent to labour camps.

Marxist‒Leninist atheism and other adaptations of Marxian thought on religion have enjoyed the official patronage and the Bolsheviks pursued "militant atheism", These palyed part in the persecution (source: Martin Amis; Koba the Dread; Vintage; 2003; pp.184-185)

After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)

You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jobas. I think you just reposted most of what you posted above, but I'll respond again anyway. Have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of category is Persecuted by atheists, It mean to include act of Persecution that done by atheist or self identified atheists, or atheist goverment and states, this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me, because it is not the place for that argue. The Category is about acts of Persecution that done by atheists, which I already provided reliable source about the Persecution acts, and the self identified atheists leaders as Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha and that these dictators and the ″totalitarian″ states were officaly atheist state (so how the Category don't fit here)‎. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

The Russian Orthodox Church, for centuries the strongest of all Orthodox Churches, was suppressed by Russia's atheists (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494).

In 1999, the Communist Party launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in Tibet, saying intensifying propaganda on atheism is "especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region". (source: China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet; BBC; January 12, 1999)

I dont see in this source the word totalitarian, but i'm see atheists, don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source.--Jobas (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me --Jobas

It may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543.

Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316)

don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source --Jobas

Anybody can be a reliable source, and any source can be deemed non-reliable or inaccurate, depending on the specific content being sourced. You'll have to be specific about what you would like to source to Blainey in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists"

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists --Jobas

This is false. Please provide the exact citation for this. All I see are mentions of people who commited persecution, and who also happen to be atheists.

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists --Jobas

No, I did not. I asked you to show me reliable sources which convey "Persecution done by atheists", not persecution by people who also happen to be atheists, which would be an uninformative and misleading category.

there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." --Jobas

That is a nonsensical statement; and I checked your source - it doesn't say that. Please read and understand the sources you cite.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian... --Jobas

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain in more detail?

I would still like to see a reliable source which says "Persecution by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was in the name of a Communist ideology, but that ideology was explicitly atheistic? and who can deny that that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were influnced in their. Religious persecution by the Marxist–Leninist atheism which advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism?, So how "Persecution by atheists" don't fit here when they Persecuted people of regions and try to force on them atheism.--Jobas (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the reliable source citation(s). Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well one the soruce that i cited befor (most of them are reliable) Geoffrey Blainey is a reliable source: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″. regards.--Jobas (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I'm curious as to the rationale behind the proposed addition of this category designation: Category:Persecution by atheist states, which I've removed. Would someone care to explain and educate? Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a weak inclination to agree with the removal, but regardless, it was added on 8/7. Xenophrenic challenged it the same day and opened this thread. The next step in the WP:BRD process is to discuss, not edit war, which is the main reason for my rv just now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question (I answered it at least twice in the edit summaries), the Soviet Union was an atheist state. The article State atheism makes this clear:

Kowalewski, David (1980). "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences". Russian Review. 39 (4). Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review: 426–441. doi:10.2307/128810. ISSN 0036-0341. JSTOR 128810.

This category regards the several anti-religious campaigns in the USSR, government organized efforts that did much more than promote atheism. For example, just in the article USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964), numerous restrictions were placed on churches, and priests that criticized atheism were either forced to retire or arrested. The other articles also discuss persecution. This category clearly regards religious persecution by an atheist state. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union was an atheist state. The article State atheism makes this clear...

Yes, it has been called that, albeit inconsistently and never "officially" - the constitution "officially" guaranteed religious freedom, but that is why Soviet Union has been categorized as Category:Atheist states.

This category regards the several anti-religious campaigns in the USSR...

No, it doesn't. That would be Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. The category we're discussing here is Category:Persecution by atheist states, which is not supported by the Kowalewski source you just cited, and is in fact

The biggest problem with the categorization seems to be that "anti-religious campaigns" are not necessarily persecution. (Yes, I know, there are some people who cry "persecution!" every time one contradicts them. Those people need to start thinking more clearly.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this in the "Categories for discussion" page [1]. The resolution was to rename the category for population by articles and categories on anti-religious persecution by states that are officially atheist. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, when I said "This category regards the several anti-religious campaigns in the USSR", I was referring to Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. What I'm saying is that the atheist state persecution category is appropriate to be added here. Also, are you trying to say that the USSR was actually not an atheist state? Politics is always messy -- people never get their way 100% of the time, and there are always inconsistencies. The historical consensus is that, despite any possible inconsistencies the USSR was an atheist state, at least officially, which is what matters. This atheist state instituted religious persecution on people of other religions, so the category is appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we discussed Category:Persecution by atheists in that page, which is a problematic category created through synthesis and original research. The category you are referring to has never been fully discussed, but probably should be, because it is equally problematic. In any case, WP:CATVER says categories must be verifiable, and the one you propose adding here is not. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what "we" discussed. It was closed as "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." Now you are refusing to accept the consensus to re-populate as you are removing every entry as it is put in that category because of your POV that it is not a legitimate category. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the request for deletion was closed with a consensus to move the category and repopulate. This category does not have the possible pov issues that the other one had -- official atheist state persecution, rather than spontaneous persecutions by atheist people. If you still oppose this category, Xenophrenic, at least just nominate it for deletion as well. If you don't want to do this, then please accept the consensus to move and repopulate. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: You have passed 3RR: 1 2 3 4 I request that you self-revert yourself. Until we reach a consensus. If you strongly oppose this category so much, why don't you just request it for deletion? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Xenophrenic. The CfD consensus was clearly to rename and repopulate the category. If you disagree, start another CfD. As 90s guy noted, you also went past 3RR.desmay (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect on both counts. There wasn't a CfD consensus (it was contested), and there wasn't a violation of 3RR (grade-school math). Would you mind holding off adding the problematic cat until the matter is resolved? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe atheist states have historically persecuted people of faith in accordance with that doctrine. 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. 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) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources were addressed in the CfD discussion and found to be non-supportive. Would you like to go over them again individually? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you are at it, please also explain why every anti-religious campaign is "persecution". There is an intersection between both concepts, but why is one a subset of the other? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-religious campaign articles make very clear that they were not "campaigns" in how we use them in the U.S. or Western Europe. There was official governmental action restricting the religious freedom of clergy and other forms of government persecution. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The anti-religious campaign articles make very clear" - Not true. See Tatar Union of the Godless. Who did they persecute? I found this example after a few seconds.

The clean way to do this would be to categorize the articles individually: If the article is about persecution, add Category:Persecution by atheist states to the article; if not not, don't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with tagging the individual articles. However, this category, overall, makes this category appropriate. Other parent categories to this one might seem inappropriate if you cherrypick one article on an Islamic group in the former USSR, such as Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Europe, Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia, Category:Antireligion. Many more articles, however, in this category make the parent category that we are debating about appropriate: USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928), USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941), USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964), USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1987), Soviet anti-religious legislation, 1922 confiscation of Russian Orthodox Church property, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Religious persecution during the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and Operation North. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentences are unintelligible and confusing. "This category makes this category appropriate"?

Pointing out that one article that fits in Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union but not in the suggested parent category Category:Persecution by atheist states and that therefore the parent category should not be a parent category is not called cherrypicking. It is called logic.

Parts of what you say make sense, but not the conclusion you draw from them: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is clearly not a subset of Category:Persecution of Muslims. That is not a reason to add other, equally inappropriate parent categories, it is a reason to remove the Category:Persecution of Muslims. The same is true for all other inappropriate parent cats. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I should have made myself more clear. What I meant was that the pages, at least in a general sense, in Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union make Category:Persecution by atheist states an appropriate parent category. I actually think that all the existing parent categories in this category (Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union) are appropriate -- the USSR did persecute Muslims. Rather than removing the parent categories, we should add another relevant parent category -- Category:Persecution by atheist states, as the USSR anti-religious campaigns (aka. persecutions) are one of the several instances of officially atheist states persecuting religions.

True, we could just tag the individual articles -- I'm not opposed to this. However, as Category:Persecution by atheist states is an excellent parent category to this one (The anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is clearly a subset of persecutions by atheist states), we should just tag this category with the parent atheist state persecution one, rather than tagging parent and child categories in the same article. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"all the existing parent categories in this category (Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union) are appropriate -- the USSR did persecute Muslims" This is nonsense. With the same reasoning, you could say that Category:Christianity should be a sub-category of Category:Violence because Christianity has been spread by violence in the past.

Another example: Most mammals are viviparous, but some of them (monotremes) are not. If we had no articles on monotremes, all the articles in Category:Mammal, if it existed, would be about viviparous animals. But that would not justify putting the mammal category into Category:Viviparous animals, because not all mammals are viviparous.

I think you just do not understand how categories work. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant and should be ignored, so the categorization should just be removed. You have now the opportunity of showing me wrong. Also, others could chime in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is an example of persecution against Muslims. If someone is at Category:Persecution of Muslims, and they want to look at specific examples, Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is an appropriate link for the reader to see -- also with the other links.

Regarding your first example, which I think is just silly, I think you're confusing Christianity with Islam (Christianity was mainly spread through non-violent missionaries, while Islam was mainly spread through military/religious campaigns. However, those categories (Islam and Christianity) should not have Category:Violence, as there are many peaceful adherents of those religions.

Regarding your second (hypothetical, I should note) example, it does not prove your point because the parent categories here are broader than the child category (Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union). Also, while I am not a biologist, I think it's pretty clear that history/politics is much messier than the neat labels and groupings devised by biologists to organize all the animal groups. The anti-religious campaigns in the USSR are examples of persecution and negative sentiment of several religious groups. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be self-explanatory, and when I see a newspaper (Bezbozhnik) listed as a sub-category of a newly manufactured Persecution category, it is anything but self-explanatory. Such a contentious category should be applied only to articles where "persecution by atheist states" is clearly conveyed and reliably sourced, as WP:CATVER policy requires. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is an example" Which campaign? There have been several. See the articles in the cat, especially those starting with "U". Maybe this is the root of your problem: you think all of it is one campaign.

"However, those categories (Islam and Christianity) should not have" That is exactly what I am talking about. You cannot put one whole category into another category if only a part of the first category belongs there. Why do you understand that in the cases of Islam and Christianity but not in the case at hand? Even if there had been only one campaign, it would have several aspects, each of which has its own article, some of which are persecution and some of which are not. The latter do not belong in the persecution cat, just as the non-violent missionaries do not belong in the violence cat. Therefore only the violent parts of the spreading of Christianity, such as the murder of Hypatia, Charlemagne's Saxon massacres, the Crusades, the Reconquista, the massacres of native Americans by Conquistadores, pogroms, and so on and so on and so on (just have a look at Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums to find pointers to many more "exceptions" from your "mainly"), are violence, and only the parts of "the campaign" that are actually persecution are actually persecution and belong in the persecution cat.

The concept "if not all A are B, A is not a subset of B" is not that difficult to understand. Schoolchildren can understand concepts of that complexity level. Read Subset. But I have often heard that it is common among American Christians to feel persecuted by people who have done nothing worse than to contradict them. Maybe this is another root of your misunderstanding: any anti-religious campaign is persecution by definition in your eyes? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: you jumped into the edit war (which is not to say you were edit warring) with edit summary "Restore per WP:BRD pending consensus in discussion." Could you point to where there was consensus to add this category such that removal was the bold edit in BRD? As far as I can see, we have content added that was contested and has been repeatedly removed and added ever since the beginning, with no clear consensus either way. I don't know the best way forward for this, but jumping in to switch versions again claiming BRD doesn't seem like a productive intervention. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five different editors have seen fit to add the exact same supercategory to this category. bd2412 T 01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of them have a good reason for adding it, or are they just WP:!VOTEing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the closing editor said [2]; it's not voting but a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was an attempt to answer my question, the attempt failed. The link points to a discussion about the existence of the category which was renamed to Category:Persecution by atheist states, not about the question of whether Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union should be in the Category:Persecution by atheist states. I have yet to hear a reason for that categorization that is not fallacious. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that a reasonable response is forthcoming. (And the "closing editor" said nothing about adding it to this page.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No further attempts at finding a reason? Then it looks as if we can remove the category. Correct? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The Soviet Union was an atheist state, and the Anti-religious Campaign was religious persecution. Hence the category, which is being restored - as it has been restored by multiple editors. Scr★pIron^IV 17:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScrapIronIV, would you please read all the stuff written above, then explain why it does not invalidate what you said? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, read the whole CfD [3] and it is clear that this is precisely the article that motivated the consensus for maintaining the category. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. First, this is not an article, it is a category. Second, you probably mean the article USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) which should be in the category in question.

I am still waiting for one single reason for categorizing this category that way.

One single reason which is not based on a stupid mistake such as confusing a category with one specific article in that category, or confusing reasons with votes, or confusing contradiction with persecution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make the whole discussion less like pulling teeth: Categories are supposed to be transitive: any article in this cat must fit into all cats this cat is in. So, anybody who wants Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union to be in the Category:Religious persecution by communists and/or Category:Persecution by atheist states, please explain why Tatar Union of the Godless, which is in this cat because it was an anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, is an instance of religious persecution or an instance of "persecution by atheist states". Please note that that union itself is the campaign, so the fact that the anti-religious campaigners were persecuted by a state that happened to be anti-religious itself does not help. So, who did the Tatar Union persecute?

Any links to other discussions that do not address this point are invalid responses. Handwaving is an invalid response. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does nobody address Hob Gadling's question? It looks to me he's correct. If someone wants to refute his point, do it , convince the rest of us, and stop blindly reverting. Mojoworker (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union was an atheist state, and the Anti-religious Campaign was religious persecution. --ScrapIronIV

Agreed, you can indeed argue that the USSR was an "atheist state", by some definitions in some sources. That is why that article is in the "atheist state" category. Reliable sources also convey that there was religious persecution by the totalitarian communist regime under Stalin, and to a lesser degree, Lenin. That is why this page is in the category of "Religious persecution by communists". But combining those two separate bits of information into "Persecution by atheists states" is what is known as synthesis, and isn't allowed. Can you please provide for review the reliable sources with which you are supporting that category? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(When I say "this category" in the text below, I mean Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union.)

With the same reasoning as above (cats should be transitive), this category should not be a sub-cat of the following six cats, but some of the cats and articles in this category should be. I am listing suggestions here as to which articles and cats should be in which of the six cats.

I expect some users (User:1990'sguy, User:ScrapIronIV, User:Jason from nyc, User:Eoghan O'Duffy, User:BD2412, User:Desmay, maybe others) to either respond by saying not much more than "Nope" as they did above, giving pretend reasons that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or unthinkingly revert the removals when they happen. Don't do that. If you disagree, first look up Transitive relation, then have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization, which says

"If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second."

then give valid reasons why

Tatar Union of the Godless and Category:Religion and atheism museums in the Soviet Union‎
- are anti-Christian sentiment,
- and are opposition to Islam,
- and are religious persecution,
- and are persecution of Muslims.
Also, explain why closed mosques are anti-Christian sentiment
and why demolished churches are persecution of Muslims
and why things that happened in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (which are in Europe) are Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia.

If you do not give any such valid reasons, this category will have to be removed from those six categories. If you do not give any such valid reasons, do not revert the removal when it occurs, or you will be reported as vandals. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect reading of Wikipedia's category structure. For example, Category:Supreme Court of the United States contains as a subcategory Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court, which includes Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court, which includes seventeen articles, a fairly random recent example being Merrick Garland. Garland was never a Supreme Court justice. By your reasoning, that entire subcategory structure should not exist. Another example in the same tree: Category:Supreme Court of the United States contains as a subcategory Category:Supreme Court of the United States people, which contains Category:United States Supreme Court justices, which contains both Category:Louis Brandeis and Category:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., which contain, respectively Category:Brandeis University and The Common Law (Holmes). Neither Brandeis University nor the book, The Common Law are the Supreme Court of the United States or cases of that court or people associated with the court, but they are correct subtopics of the category tree. Another example: Category:Brain contains Category:Mind, which contains Category:Games of mental skill, which contains Category:Wargames, which contains Category:Charles S. Roberts Award winners, which includes articles like Charles Roberts Awards Hall of Fame and Don Turnbull (game designer) and The Creature That Ate Sheboygan. None of these things is a "brain", but the preference for inclusiveness in categorization causes them to be sub-subtopics of the "brain" category anyway. In short, it is not true that everything in a sub-subcategory must fit squarely within the super-supercategory, and there are literally millions of Wikipedia articles that demonstrate this. bd2412 T 12:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Category:Supreme Court of the United States: "This category contains articles related to the Supreme Court of the United States". As you say, "Garland was never a Supreme Court justice", but that is not the criterion for inclusion in the category - Garland is "related to" the Supreme Court and thus belongs in the category. So, this example does not do what you want it to do.
The Common Law (Holmes) is only indirectly related to the Supreme Court, but still related, via its author. So, this example does not do what you want it to do.
Almost none of the articles or categories which are directly categorized in Category:Brain "is a brain". Brain disorders‎ are not brains, and Blood–brain barrier is not a brain. The category Brain, though is does not explicitly say it, clearly is for things associated with brains: its components, its problems, effects connected to it, and so on. So, this example does not do what you want it to do.
Category:Brandeis University is a special case that can be tolerated because nobody has thought of a better way to order these categories. Maybe somebody will find a better solution one day. But in the case at hand, there is an obvious better solution, which I have proposed above.
The same is true for the Wargames stuff. There is still a shaky indirect connection: The Creature That Ate Sheboygan exercises your brain, I guess. But closed mosques are in no way connected to anti-Christian sentiment.

Your reasoning is only a weak attempt to refute my transitivity reasoning, along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But even the existence of bad, dubious, weak, or flimsy categorizations elsewhere is not a justification for keeping a clearly wrong categorization.

Fallacious as your contribution was, at least it was a little better than the earlier failures. Applying decisions regarding related questions to this question or pointing out that others agree with you are only very feeble surrogates for reasoning.

My suggestion is better than the current structure because it avoids all the illogical connections I listed above. Still waiting for a valid reason why the current categorization is better than my suggestion.

I think you have it backwards: you should not try to find reasons for your pre-defined opinion, but choose an opinion which is based on good reasoning? That's the way I do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling: of the six specified subcategories and dozen sub-subcategories and/or articles contained therein, which ones do you think are appropriately categorized under Category:Persecution by atheist states? bd2412 T 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some or all of the "USSR anti-religious campaign (...)" articles probably also belong into some of the siy categories listed in my last contribution, depending on what exactly was done. I did not read all the articles, and I don't see why I should do all the work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your work on this matter. After careful consideration of the breadth of the categories involved, I agree with your assessment. bd2412 T 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for discussing this in such a collegial manner. It seems there may finally be a way forward that we can all agree with. Mojoworker (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Pandeist: What is your reason for this revert? We are still trying to find one, so if you actually have one, please name it, after reading all the reasons against it on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is simple. "Never again." No amount of logical fallacy or pretending not to see the sources will be allowed to paper over persecution committed by the Soviets IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. I am not a Christian. I am not a Muslim. I am not a Jew. I am not a Hindu. What I am is awake. Pandeist (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was obviously asking for a WP:POLICY based reason, not some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS based reason. I'm tempted to revert you immediately, but I'll wait for a reply. Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, since no valid policy reason has been provided to admit this factually correct category, objections to be dismissed without policy. Categories are included if they are relevant. The Soviet Union was an officially on-the-books atheist state. Which carried out acts like beating and imprisonment and torture and murder, which can only reasonably be described as persecution, directed towards non-atheists, for the reason that their victims were not atheists. This is a very simple one-to-one consequent. Pandeist (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT says "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

This implies that articles are categorized into categories where they belong and not into categories where they do not belong.

When I want to know about religious persecution and consult the category for that, I want to find navigational links to articles about religious persecution, but not navigational links to articles that are not about religious persecution.

I fear that the users who wrote the rules did not imagine users to whom this simple idea was not immediately obvious and needed it explained to them, so it is probably not explicitly stated anywhere. Nevertheless, any moderately intelligent user can see it is implicit in the rules there are, and any user who is here to build an encyclopedia will see it.

But you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, right? As Mojoworker said, you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a more constructive response for User:Pandeist: "Never again" is a singularly stupid justification for categorizing things that happened in Europe as things that happened in Asia. We are talking about which category structure is better, and what you said has no connection at all to the question, tantamount to a Chewbacca defense. Nobody is impressed with your reasoning, and you missing the point is generally interpreted as WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

When people disagree with me, I do not cry "I am being persecuted!" and I do not edit the Wikipedia article about those people to make it say they invaded Asia at the head of an army of demons. Instead I ask them why they disagree. This is what I am doing here. I am trying to find out whether you have a good reason for disagreeing. Your contributions make it seem as if you do not. So, the next step would be to implement the changes, since nobody found a reason against that. But your recent behavior makes me surmise that you will revert any such edit immediately, possibly with an edit summary along the lines of "Millennium hand and shrimp!" It would be reassuring to hear some form of coherent reasoning from your side instead. So, why do you think your preferred category structure is better? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, yes. Logic, no. Categorizing propaganda as persecution and categorizing Europe as Asia will just make people see that you are prepared to sacrifice honesty for your goals. Which will not help your goals one bit because people will not believe you even when you are not lying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing about a different category than this one. Nothing about "Persecution by atheist states" implies anything about such states being in Europe or Asia or any other continent. Since such a claim is so far afield of this category as to render it essentially insane, that utterly saps any credibility from any other utterance you may have to make. Pandeist (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read what people write before putting your foot in your mouth. I will not repeat myself again. Just read what is already there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling:, I can’t answer your question about whether or not Tatar Union of the Godless should be in Category:Persecution by atheist states since I’m not clear why it was placed in the cat Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union from reading the article. But your other concerns about the category Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union is valid. It shouldn’t be subsumed in specific types of persecution (of Muslims, Catholics, etc.) but the other way around. Sorry I haven't had more time to edit on Wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tatar Union of the Godless" was an anti-religious campaign, and it was in the Soviet Union.

Thank you for acknowledging the other thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do raise an interesting point on the first matter. Being anti-religious doesn't imply that one persecutes or suppresses. (Disclosure: I consider myself anti-religious.) When a totalitarian state opposes a matter it uses the coercive power of the state to surpasses. It is my understanding that this was the general feeling of the voices who change the category name from persecution by atheists to persecution by atheist states. It may very well be that this imperfect categorization has a few minor cases that don't quite fit or rise to the egregiousness that wants the full force of word "persecution," which is always a problem with any persecution category. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

As suggested above, I just removed Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia and added it to the articles and subcategories I listed. I did that with only one of the seven categories because I want to know whether someone reverts the changes without giving valid reasons. If that does not happen, the others can follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A month after the discussion, I moved the rest of the cats around, as outlined above. Could someone please check if I missed anything? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScrapIronIV, you had one month to find a reason for doing this. You did not give any. "Inclusion os obvious" is not a reason, it is nonsensical blather, ignoring all the reasoning that has been going on here. Do you want to end up in the vandal cage? If not, then start making sense. That is, first present your reasoning here, then, if other users cannot refute it and have to agree with you, you can make your edit. That is the way it is done on Wikipedia, and that is the way I did it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Soviet Union was in Asia. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was anti-Christian. Inclusion of Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia is obvious.

Much of the Soviet Union was in Europe. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was anti-Christian. Inclusion of Anti-Christian sentiment in Europe is obvious.

Much of the Soviet Union was in Asia. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was in opposition to Islam. Inclusion of Opposition to Islam in Asia is obvious.

Much of the Soviet Union was in Europe. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was in opposition to Islam. Inclusion of Opposition to Islam in Europe is obvious.

The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union persecuted Muslims. Inclusion of Persecution of Muslims is obvious.

The Soviet Union was a communist state. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union persecuted multiple religions. Inclusion of Religious persecution by communists is obvious.

The Soviet Union was an atheist state. The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union persecuted multiple religions. Inclusion of Persecution by atheist states is obvious.

Thus, they belong. I hope that logic is not too difficult for you. Scr★pIron^IV 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than an extant intersection, or we could also have "religious persecution by fans of Dmitri Shostakovich", "religious persecution in countries with many strong chess players", or "religious persecution by people in cold climates". A big difference between the intersection of "anti-Christian sentiment" and "in Asia" and "Persecution by atheist states," beyond the problems in the literal meaning of the latter, is that it's controversial and not defining. Per WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" and "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". That means the sources must commonly and consistently say that this is an example of persecution by atheist states (not the separate claims of being religious persecution and being an atheist state). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the impression that User:ScrapIronIV is amenable to rational discussion.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe he will read what people write, this time. Maybe he will try answer the actual reasoning, this time. Maybe he will even see that he is wrong, this time.

I am not holding my breath. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think those are really comparable. Religion and Christianity are related while chess is very clearly not. Would you think that the category "Players sent off in the World Cup final" was inapropriate? The category is not claiming anything other than that these events are similar and they should be grouped together.Kim song-chi (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what you mean, and don't know how to interpret the World Cup example. It's claiming a lot more than that "these events are similar". It puts together "Persecution of X" and "by Y". The problem is framing it as such makes it seem like the persecution was motivated by being an atheist. It's not a simple taxonomy/geographic designation that's uncontroversial; it is quite controversial because it's inaccurate. Again, per WP:CAT anyone who wants to keep the category despite it being controversial should show that "reliable sources commonly and consistently" point to "religious persecution by atheist states" as a "defining characteristic". Simply repeating that it's obvious or uncontroversial doesn't make it so. See WP:BURDEN and other related policies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about subsets, as explained above (search for "subset"). "Much of" is not enough. Not every instance of an anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was in Asia, and not every instance was in Europe. By the "logic" of User talk:ScrapIronIV, Religious persecution during the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina is an instance of Category:Opposition to Islam in Asia, but those persecutions were neither in Asia nor anything to do with Islam. THis is just one example; others can easily be found on this page. This is just stupid - it foils the very idea of categories. Rhododendrites tried to explain this, using absurd examples containing the same type of mistake, but somehow this simple concept goes right over the head of some users.

Obviously, only things that happened in Asia should be categorized as happening is Asia.

We already handled this type of question above, but asking to read a Talk page seems to be asking too much. And some users seem unable to cope with the strain of very easy logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: User talk:ScrapIronIV's claim is, basically, that if two categories intersect in a major way, one category should be a subcategory of the other. But which one? By the same reasoning, Category:Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union should be a subcategory of Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union in addition to the other way around.

That is one more reason why the reasoning above does not make sense.

It is to be expected that, if we manage to convince this user and finally make the revert, other equally stubborn users will revert again, and we will have to refute their equally inane reasoning.

So, I propose that we WP:!VOTE to revert the changes now. This may give us an idea of the number of such users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: Based on your rationale above, I don't think you're understanding the category guidelines from a mathematical perspective. The parent-child relationship between categories is not an intersection relationship, but rather a subsummation relationship. According to WP:SETCAT, Categories are organized as overlapping "trees", formed by creating links between inter-related categories (in mathematics or computer science this structure is called a partially ordered set). And, per WP:SUBCAT: If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. And also per WP:SUBCAT: When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also. And before anyone seizes upon "with possibly a few exceptions", see an example of an exception. The current structure surrounding this category violates these guidelines with cases where members of subcategories do not belong to parent categories. For example, Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union doesn't imply logical membership in Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia since the set "Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union" contains members that are outside Asia and thus do not belong to the parent category of "Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia". As an exercise, drill down from Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia through this category (Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union‎), to Category:Demolished churches in the Soviet Union‎, which yields a list of demolished churches, none of which are in Asia. Mojoworker (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My exercise above will no longer work, because I reverted to Hob Gadling's version as a clear misunderstanding of the category guidelines from a mathematical perspective. I also removed the edit of a confirmed sock. But feel free to try the exercise in the previous version of the page. Mojoworker (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mojoworker, you are of course right in going further: Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Europe and Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Asia should not contain categories like Category:Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union, for the same reason as you outlined above. But they should contain the articles in it. As an example, I added Walter Ciszek to Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in Europe. There is still work to do. I was aware of this, but I wanted to postpone it until the resistance stops. But again, you are right: now is the time (except I have other things to do right now). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal

--Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– Per the WP:SETCAT and WP:SUBCAT guidelines, as I described above. I'm also troubled by the amount of sock-puppetry interfering with edits to this category and their discussion. Mojoworker (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal