This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism 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.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article 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
The article has boxes saying that Commons and Wikiquotes have related media/quotes, but following the links show that they haven’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafcat (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Worldwide" the article says. Well I've never heard of this "holiday" before, so let's have some references. 86.29.100.182 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. The text box says it is observed it the US and Canada. Some individuals may do so, but isn't some level of observance required before you can claim it is observed in a country? A couple hundred individuals doesn't strike me as sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.178 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How prevalent is Blasphemy day? A Google news search on September 30, 2013 found only two article about blasphemy Day and those were two minor web sites. Most articles I found were from the original declaration Blasphemy Day in 2009 or mentions on social media. Sounds to me like this "day" was really a one and done PR event. Should the article be modified to reflect the paucity of observation or even removed from Wikipedia per WP:EVENTCRIT?Wkharrisjr (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wkharrisjr (talk) wrote "How prevalent is Blasphemy day? A Google news search on September 30, 2013 found only two article about blasphemy Day..." Doing a Google News search on one specific day is hardly the only barometer of a subject's continuing relevance. I just did a Google advanced search using "blasphemy day" and the timeframe of the past year as the two parameters. There were 181 hits (excluding duplicates), including multiple mentions of 2013's Blasphemy Day celebration on the website of the Center for Inquiry (the group that sponsors Blasphemy Day), the official Facebook page's notice of this year's celebration (17,000 "likes"), mentions on the popular RichardDawkins.net, on Fark.com, on NationalDayCalendar.com, on PolicyMic.com and a variety of other sites, blogs, fora, etc. In short, Blasphemy Day is not a "one and done PR event"; it has been celebrated -- and documented -- every year for the past five years. Bricology (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wkharrisjr. Blasphemy day is quite prevalent and has been celebrated by the secular groups worldwide. It should not be removed from wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanist bd (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite prevalent? Hardly. I can get 17,000 likes on Facebook for a picture of a hedgehog sitting on a pillow. And 181 hits - including multiples on the site that created this "holiday" is ridiculous. If this is considered noteworthy enough to be included on the front page of Wikipedia, I want Oct 18th recognized here as "No Beard Day" - it has over 45,000 hits on Google alone. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about last paragraph of "Background" section[edit]
After reading the last paragraph of the Background section, I was a little concerned a possible point of view problem. The paragraph initially sticks to verifiable facts, but then strays off topic and into opinions. The segment on the alleged Fourth Amendment violations has nothing to do with Blasphemy Day. 72.73.38.60 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy Rights Day International encourages individuals and groups to openly express their criticism of, or even disdain for, religion. It was founded in 2009 by the Center for Inquiry.[1] A student contacted the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York to present the idea, which CFI then supported. Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry said regarding Blasphemy Day, "We think religious beliefs should be subject to examination and criticism just as political beliefs are, but we have a taboo on religion", in an interview with CNN.[2] It takes place every September 30 to coincide with the anniversary of the publications of the controversial Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.
Blasphemy Day started (in CFI's own words) "a firestorm of controversy"[3] and has been a topic of debate within the Humanist movement
[4][5] and cited as an example of the a wider move towards new atheism and away from the more conciliatory approach historically associated with Humanism.[6][7] CFI's related Blasphemy Contests[3]
I have just modified one external link on Blasphemy Day. 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
The Facebook page hasn't had any new posts since October 2018 and the Twitter account has been similarly dead since December 2018. —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they have not been updated.
Yet neither of these are reliable sources.
Well one could consider them primary sources. They are certainly useful in helping us determine if this thing is actually active or not, and it appears the answer is "not". —howcheng {chat} 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
