What are we editing?

The full context would be useful.

@gailcalled @ragingloli You are fast! I went to add the link I had forgotten.

The thing is, as soon as you imply the necessity that some sort of change is required, you immediately surrender the unbiased perspective, regardless of how the question is phrased.

To me, the biased sounding part is in the question itself. What do you think of the attempt of eliminating religion altogether from the planet?”

It reads as if there is actually is an indisputable attempt to remove religion.

If it were my question, I would word it “What would you think of attempting to eliminate religion entirely from the planet?”

“Would an attempt at eliminating religion entirely be useful, useless, or harmful?”

@SABOTEUR @Blueroses @augustlan
Thank you. By the way my question also sounded like I was referring to coercion and a ban etc.
The question was about some people thinking if there were no religions there would be no “evil” activities which of course is not the case IMHO.
This is the original OP. http://www.fluther.com/119498/what-imagery-calls-to-mind-freedom-from-religion/A gentle way of bringing about the end of religions:

@augustlan
Thank you. The people who thought “eliminating” would include banning, might still think so. So, I was thinking of replacing that word.

@flo I’m not sure there’s a better word than ‘eliminating’, but you could always explain in your details what you mean by it. Something like “I’m talking about encouraging, NOT forcing, people to give up religion.”

@augustlan,
Yes. I try to get my question in a title, as much as possible, it is not always possible of course.