Talk:Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era

Recent removals

Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36: I was going to discuss your recent removals of several entries. Then I noticed that you also have been reverted earlier after removing some of the same entries. That borders on WP:EDITWAR.

Regarding the sections for Bolivia and Cuba, you use the dead links as a reason for removal. WP:DEADREF says Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. It took me just a couple of minutes to find other, non-dead sources.

Regarding the section for Zanzibar, you claim that the source is not reliable. That may or may not be true. It took me seconds to find other sources covering the same content. Before you dismiss a source, you should at least mark it with the template Template:Better source instead of removing.

Regarding the section for North Korea, you remove the section with the reason "no text". That section contains a link to the article Human rights in North Korea as a main article. In that article it says According to the Christian Open Doors organization, North Korea is the leader among countries who persecute Christians with a lot of sourced examples. Removal of the section (including removal of that "main article" link) is directly disruptive. If you cannot bother to expand the section yourself, the least you could do is mark it with the template Template:Empty section.

Removal instead of trying to fix things seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please create consensus before removing them again. --T*U (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather tags were used, and material only deleted after a time. The exception to this (of course) is the addition of walls of unsourced text.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor:It is not borderline Editwar. When I removed the content the first time and got reverted and the edit summary was "You need to stop this mass reversion of sourced material". So, I am doing it one by one. I have checked for better sources, but I found none that mentions persecution. So, if you have found a RS that examines persecution in Bolivia or elsewhere, (not just mentioning the term), you can re-insert the material yourself. There is plenty of material in this article that does not refers to persecution, but it is listed us such, by wikipedia users that conceive various incidences as "persecution" (which is a form of WP:ILIKEIT) Cinadon36 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There were too many things wrong with it to explain in an edit summery. It violated WP:SYNTH (and thus possibly wp:blp), may violate NPOV, uses a questionable source (and puts their claims in our voice). Is poorly worded, and thus may give a false impression of what the situation is. Possibly violates out mos on the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You still have not gained consensus for your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact if anything you have made it worse, as now you are claiming a source says something different for what it says. As I said there are were many things wrong and you needed to discuss it before adding it back, all you have now done is just exacerbated this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And now we have an edit war over this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The section about the UK report should not be in the lede, as it is not mentioned anywhere in the body. It should be moved (at the very least) to the body.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Does 2nd paragraph of Middle East section violate WP:CLOP?

The article can be reached from .here. I am not very certain if an article of an Israeli embassador blaming the usual enemies of Israel is RS, but at least there is attribution. I feel it is an opinion article though and numbers have not been reviewed. Anyway, lets start from CLOP issues. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

South Africa

This is unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that white majority rules was accompanied by persecution of Christians, especially given the importance within the Afrikaner movement of the dutch reformed Church.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

By citing “the importance within the (white nationalist) Afrikaner movement of the Dutch Reformed Church you have inadvertently reinforced the point of the bit you deleted! The Dutch Reformed Church supported and provided a spiritual justification for apartheid and in 1982 the DRC was expelled from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which declared apartheid to be a sin/heresy.

46.193.76.98 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

That is not persecution of Christians, that is racism.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It is more than simply racism. If you read the sources provided you will see that the white Christians persecuted black Christians, who they referred to as being descendants of Cain. Besides for providing a theological justification for apartheid generally, the white Christians persecuted black Christians within their own church! They forced them to worship separately. Finally, Christians who pointed out that this was heretical were persecuted for standing up for their faith, and persecuted by these heretical white Christians. 213.205.198.84 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

But not because they were Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I was less charitable and deleted it - it shouldn't stand without some citation -----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have done, but am not gona take the risk of an edit war given the recent history of this page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well if someone edit wars over an uncited addition they are heading straight for a block. But I understand :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear what I was concerned about would be the appearance of taking advantage of as block, not that the block was that user.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Those 3 refs are no RS quality. Cinadon36 18:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of claims are being made here without citing any sources. Slatersteven please provide the RS for your claims. R3N13R (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "The social segregation of Black, Coloured and White people was reflected in the establishment of churches of these three groups.", race not religion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we have an RS for the claim that "the white Christians persecuted black Christians". A very broad claim. As far as I know and it would be quite easy to prove, only some did. R3N13R (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Err I have not made that claim, I am saying that if there was any persecution it was because they were black, not because they were christian.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I would remind users that a source has to say it was persecution because they were Christian, as with squatters above just doing something to Christians is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if it wasn't you Slatersteven. Nevertheless, the claim is being made on this page and should be substantiated. I also have a question the context is "Modern era" what is the cutoff date, for the events discussed? And now we have a new claim without an RS "squatters above just doing something to Christians" Slatersteven RS for that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3N13R (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If you go back through the archives you can see the long discussion we had about the cut off date. Its wholly arbitrary. As to squatters, its a reference to the thread at the top of this page about how just squatting in a church is not persecution of Christians. The fact that not everything ever done to a Christian maybe an example of persecution. That the be counted as persecution an RS has to call it that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Slatersteven. But when the state start raiding and shutting down churches, surely this is persecution? It may not be the most extreme form of persecution, but do we have the right to hide this from the world? My contribution from yesterday that you reverted: According to a report by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, in September 2019 ten churches were shut down, following a raid by the South African Police on about twenty churches in Johannesburg. The churches also had their sound equipment confiscated, for alleged non-compliance of city bylaws. R3N13R (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Most prob the churches were illegal. Not a persecution. But we need RS to mame it a persecution.Cinadon36 06:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36 If a meeting by Christians or a church can be illegal in a country, that already speaks to a form of persecution, or at least a restriction on freedom of religion. The interpretation of what constitute persecution is subjective and is best left to the reader. I am pretty sure the members of the churches that were shut down, feel very much persecuted. As for the contribution, we only need to state the facts as it happened. R3N13R (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on why, and no just having meetings illegal is not automatically a form of persecution. If the Church of St Lemmy of the emaculate wart was to set up next door to a hospital and play "Bomber" at 15,000 decibels at two O'clock in the morning closing it down would not be persecuting them, they are breaking a reasonable law. Again, we need RS saying it was persecution, not OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven your proposition about location or noise, is far fetched and may be valid for a single perhaps even two churches. Please read the RS, over twenty churches were raided. That is to put it mildly persecution, whether the RS use the word literally or not. If you insist that the word persecution must be in the RS, then we also need to remove the other contributions, for example Pakistan, I have checked the article, the word persecution do not appear in the article, once. Double standards being applied here? I will check how many other contributions beside Pakistan, require removal for not having the word persecution after your considered reply.R3N13R (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No because I have already pointed out how I have used the self same argument to object to other content. Go back over the talk page archives and you will see me making this self same point for whole sections. Oh and given that sound equipment was ceased, no it is not far fetched to assume that in all cases those churches were in violation of noise abatement orders or local government ordinances. That is why we do not allow OR, I can think of reasonable reasons why this was done, your reasonable reasons do not trump mine. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Following your Suggestion, I will discontinue this discussion, for fear of persecution, well documented here talk. However, I put it to all future and current contributors - this page has become extremely biased, with spectacular claims. For example the claim above "in all cases those churches were in violation of noise abatement orders:", a biased, unfounded opinion that can not be found in the source. Please see for yourself. —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

References

on revert

@Slatersteven: Saw the revert and your reason for reverting says you are unsure it is true. Please check the sources referenced. I will leave it reverted if you can find a single source that actually tracks religious freedom and human rights that says Christians are not persecuted for their religion. Note it doesn't say they are the "most" persecuted or make claims about numbers, it just says they are, and everything I've read indicates there is universal agreement on that fact. I am also willing to rewrite it if you have another way you would prefer this be said. Please make a suggestion on what would make you more comfortable with this claim. I am happy to compromise and find some agreement between us. But I assure you it's a factual statement. There is consensus that Christians are persecuted for being Christian. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Objection 1 "There is consensus among those who track human rights and religious freedom that", you need a source that says that, do you have one? Objection two Open Doors is not the goto for this kind of claim, in fact they are not an RS. Objection three whilst all attributed this puts in the lead the opinions of a very few as if they are definitive, they aren't. The lede is a summery of the article, it is not a newspaper style lead that draws attention to only specific claims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven You know what? You're right. I agree. I have a reference, but I agree it isn't a good place for this article to begin. I will also change references for the definition, maybe even the definition itself. However, I disagree that Open Doors is not a reliable source. I would need evidence of that as they have been doing this for 60 years, publish their methods and data for scrutinization annually, and as far as I know haven't been challenged since they only report events they have verified. That's why their numbers are so much lower than so many other's. (On that, it would help this discussion if you would go here: [1] and read section III. RELIGIOUS ADVOCATES AND THE SECULAR HuMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY, from page 465 to page 474.)

The lead is not specifically a news-style "lede", but this lead is also tagged as inadequately doing its job, which also seems true. Perhaps we can therefore agree that this lead is in need of expanding and explaining. In my opinion, it needs some definition of persecution involving violation of religious freedom, an acknowledgement that religious freedom as a right that has been universally advocated in constitutions in nearly every nation in the world, that violation of those rights is a violation of those stated standards, and an acknowledgement that violation of those freedoms is not a uniquely Christian problem even though this article focuses only on Christians in a limited time frame.

On page 22 of [2] she offers a definition of persecution that is more specific and is sourced to someone not Open Doors: "scholars have recommended the following "essential rights and liberties" as the minimum standards of religious freedom: [L]iberty of conscience and non-discrimination on grounds of faith; free exercise of religion; accommodation of pluralism in the sense of confessional and institutional diversity; equality of all religions before the law; separation of church and state in order to protect religious bodies and believers from state interference in their internal affairs and private religious lives (respectively); and disestablishment of religion, foreclosing government from singling out any particular religion for preferential treatment (van der Vyver, supra note 15, at xi, xlv (summarizing recommendations made in John Witte, Jr. & Christy Green, The American Constitutional Experiment in Religious Human Rights: The Perennial Search for Principles, in RELIGIOUS HuMAN RiGHTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ix (Johan D. van der Vyver & John Witte, Jr.eds. 1996) at 497).) We can use that if you're good with it (though Open Doors was shorter).

As a result, I think I should include some paraphrase of these quotes and references: On page 453 of the above referenced work, in footnote 23: "[F]reedom of religion remains the most persistently violated human right in the annals of the species. Indeed, religious intolerance has generated more wars, misery and suffering than any other type of discrimination or bias." (Irwin Colter, Jewish NGOs and Religious Human Rights: A Case Study, in RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES 235, 235-36 (Johan D. van der Vyver & John Witte, Jr. eds., 1996).)

"Indeed, it is ironic to note: '[T]he very century that has witnessed the emergence of religious liberty and religious human rights as norms in international law and virtually universally recognized in principle has been the very century in which religious rights and religious liberty have [been] repeatedly and flagrantly violated on a wholesale scale throughout most of the world'." (James E. Wood, Jr., An Apologia for Religious Human Rights, quoted in RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES, by Colter, at 455, 456, and 481.)

And in footnote 24: "Despite what appears to be near-universal expression of commitment to religious human rights, the frequency-and severity-of religious persecution worldwide is staggering. Although it is impossible to determine with certainty the exact numbers of people persecuted for their faith or religious affiliation, it is unquestioned that "violations of freedom of religion and belief, including acts of severe persecution, occur with fearful frequency."(Michelle L. Mack,Religious Human Rights and the International Human Rights Community: Finding Common Ground - WithoutCompromise, 13 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y455 (1999).Available at:http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol13/iss2/10)p,463

It might also be appropriate to include some combination of these since it has directly affected the ability to count and verify incidents of religious persecution:

"Despite the prevalence of religious persecution, religious human rights have been neglected. Secular society and the traditional human rights community typically emphasize instead the "more tangible encroachments on human dignity, such as torture, disappearances, and the like." (Taken from W. Cole Durham, Jr., Perspectives on Religious Liberty: A Comparative Framework, in LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, in note 8, at page 1; see also, James Finn, The Cultivation and Protection of Religious Human Rights, in Preface, in RELIGIOUS HuMAN RiGHTS IN GLOBALPERSPECTIVE: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ix (Johan D. van der Vyver & John Witte, Jr.eds. 1996) at 163.)

Quoting Durham and James Finn in Legal perspectives above: "Describing the lack of attention paid to religious freedom, Finn states: Even those who assert that religious freedom is, in philosophical and religious terms, the first freedom, must acknowledge that one would not know that on the basis of the public attention given to religious rights compared to that given a number of other human rights. In the world of human rights theorists, activists and advocates, most attention is given to violations based on race, gender, and class; on national, ethnic, and linguistic groupings." (reference: (Michelle L. Mack,Religious Human Rights and the International Human Rights Community: Finding Common Ground - WithoutCompromise, 13 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y455 (1999).Available at:http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol13/iss2/10) found in the footnote numbered 38 on page 465.)

see note 25 on page 463 where she references: the ACRFA REPORT ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, supra note 15, at 10-11. For a detailed description of religious persecution in specific countries, as well as the action taken by the U.S. Government in response to the persecution, see BuREAu OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR AFFAIRS, U.S. STATE DEP'T, UNITED STATES POLICIES IN SUPPORT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Focus ON CHRISTIANS 9-54 (July 22, 1997) [<http://www.state.gov/www/human_rights>] [hereinafter U.S. STATE DEP'T, FOCUS ON CHRISTIANS] The State department presents this report on religious freedom every year, so I have been using the more recent one:(cite book|last=US Congress|first=House committee on foreign affairs|title=Religious Persecution: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International security, International organizations and Human Rights|year=1994|publisher=U.S. Government printing office|ISBN=0-16-044525-6|url=https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/)

Where would you suggest beginning? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven As you can see, I took out what you suggested be removed, and I changed the definition. This definition is more complex and takes all the different aspects of persecution in the different countries listed here into consideration, along with references used to provide those aspects. You were right to revert all the previous content and not just the sentence you didn't like. This is much improved. It's long, but it's quite thorough without making any assumptions the topic is real up front. I hope you like it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the article, the reason it is small is our article is little more than a glorified list. It might be better to expand or alter the article so it is less of a list of incidents so much as an article about perception of modern persecution of Christians, then we can work on a lead that reflects that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Yes the article is a list, but it's a list of things that require defining and identifying. It's a list of something that people disagree actually exists at all, as well as disagreeing over what constitutes it if it exists. That controversy indicates the sources themselves need identifying and verifying. It is not a list like other articles that are simple lists. It is a list that makes claims. How do you determine what incidents should be included on the list if you don't have the identifying characteristics and definitions in the lead?

I don't mind you changing 'Scholars' to 'van der Vyer', it's correct, but it was also correct as 'scholars.' Van der Vyer presented it as a consensus and it is referenced as that in Paul Marshall, in John Witte Jr. & Christy Green, by Mack, and others. I just didn't think it was necessary to include all those names and references to support that. I've never had anyone challenge that statement before. At any rate, it's fine. I used van der Vyer because he was the original who made the presentation to the Senate.

I don't agree the article needs changing. It needed some explanation of what it is a list of, that's all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the article, and that is all it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Go here: [3] It says this about the lead: "...The first sentence of the lead should contain a concise definition and establish notability of the topic. The rest of the lead should introduce the article's context and summarize its key points.

The lead section should be ... a concise overview of the article. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. Statements should be carefully sourced if covering material not sourced elsewhere in the article, ... The rest of the article's prose will give detail for readers who want more information.'

Go here:[4] and see that it adds that the lead should "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Also "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic."

You are mistaken. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Provide an accessible overview

See also: Wikipedia:Summary style

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.

In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven You do understand this description is of one of the five things the lead is supposed to do right? It is not limited to this--it includes this. This is a subset of the overall total instructions about the lead. The lead must still include the other characteristics as well as having a summary written as described above. In what way do you think the lead does not now do all that is said in both this and the previous references? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we need more input in this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're supposed to outdent. I agree. Would you prefer arbitration or just the Teahouse or what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not a reply to you, it was a general comment, the clue was the indentation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It's about proper formatting not you or me. I have posted a question at the Teahouse. [5]

Scope of the lead section

I came here in response to teh Teahouse posting. I think that Jenhawk777 is correct that in addition to summarizing the body of the article, a lead section can and generally should define the topic, indicate why it is notable, and introduce and link or concisely define key terms that are used in the article. Ideally the summery of the body will suffice to indicate why the topic is notable, adn may include introductions of the key terms, these functions need not be separated in the section as long as the writing is clear and the topic well introduced. However, I think that Slatersteven has a point about the current lead section. It seems overly long and detailed for the article to me. Also, the transition from the first sentence to the 2nd in the first paragraph seems very awkward. I would move the first sentence to a later point in the section, and let an edited version of the 2nd serve as the lead sentence. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes (of which there are perhaps too many in the current lead section) must be directly attributed to their authors in the article prose, in addition to an inline citation. A cite alone is not enough. See WP:QUOTATION. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, please do not use the specifically newspaper term "lede" for the lead section of a Wikipedia article. A lede aims to draw the reder in and make a key poitn, it is quite different from a led section or lead sentence of a Wikipedia article, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you so much! This is great. I think I have made the changes as you requested. Moved the second sentence to the first, moved the first on down, eliminated one of the quotes, making a shorter explanation instead. Attributed and shortened the other quote which is too applicable to notability to leave out imo! The whole thing is now only two paragraphs, so that is definitely an improvement. I hope you think it's good now, but if not, feel free to tell me what else you think it needs and I will cooperate. I assume the comment on "lede" is not directed to me, but I will remember it anyway. :-) Thank you again for your help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment also a visitor from the help desk. Since this is a subset of Religious persecution, there's no need for this to recap info that should go there. The lead (thanks DESiegel) should be about this article, since otherwise you get a content fork that is too hard to maintain. Put the Christian-specific general info you wrote in Persecution of Christians, and put the general religious persecution (all religions) info in Religious persecution. Here's what I'd recommend for this article as a lead, IMHO:

Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era refers to persecution of Christians from 1989 to the present. Part of the global problem of religious persecution, persecution of Christians in this era took place in Africa, the America, Europe and Middle East.

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Removing everything else but these two sentences? No definition--nothing? Are you talking about moving everything underneath the lead as well? To two other articles? I just want to get straight what you are saying here. It sounds like Slatersteven was right after all, so is that because this article is a subset of the other larger articles and doesn't get its own set of definitions and so on? What should I take away from this about writing leads? Avoid it?  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Every case is different. I'm just trying to minimize duplication. The lead for religious persecution should be an important and concise summary of religious persecution in general. Anything important and specific to discrimination of Christians but not all religions can be summarized in the lead of persecution of Christians. Anything important and specific to persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era not already covered in the main Christian persecution article's lead can go in the persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era lead. Otherwise it's repetitive, and hard to maintain. The point of liberal linking between content forks and main articles is to minimize this duplication and improve subject comprehension. Then the efforts to create the perfect religious persecution lead can be focused in one place, not fragmented in two or more places. It doesn't scale very well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe include a definition of religious persecution and what that entailed in the introduction. Persecution is a broad term and can evoke different images for different people. In the article, the author describes Church vandalism, kidnappings, death sentences, etc., so mentioning some of these in the article could be helpful for the reader in understanding what the article will cover Sarabprice (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Okay, they aren't coming out and saying it in a straight-forward manner, but if I understand them correctly, I think they are coming down in agreement with you, so I will revert myself and replace it with the two sentences recommended here, and remove the other content below persecution of Christians and add it to the other article instead. Peace. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

TimtempletonDESiegel Thank you both for all your help. I hope I understood correctly as I have now removed everything I added. Now, what I don't understand is why this lead was tagged in the first place, but such are the mysteries of Wikipedia. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To be frank I am not wholly sure why it was tagged myself, I suspect its a left over form an early content dispute (this being an article that regularly has issues with how you define "persecution"). As I said it would make life easier if the body was less list like.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Tags can be left over after a problem is fixed, or placed by an editor who didn't understand site conventions. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton Okay--that confuses me more! If this article regularly has issues with how persecution is defined, why doesn't that trump the fact that the definition is in other articles and indicate one is needed here after all? People don't often go elsewhere looking for definitions.

I think this article is better structured than most on this topic and really like the body as a list. In the first place, it's how the governmental reports are organized. Secondly, it makes it easy to see each different circumstance and that there's a lot of variation country by country. Last but not least, it means not all countries in the world need to be on the list at all. Of course if all countries that have Christian persecution get included there will be 144 of them! Perhaps that number should be acknowledged--in the lead?--and only the top 50 or some such arbitrary number described in the body. That would at least limit the list to a more reasonable number. As it is, I will probably get around to adding in till we get to 144... ;-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now become [6] Persecution of Christians problem... I won't tell them you sent me there. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe it would help to look at it a different way. Let's say you have a series of forks about nuclear energy in different countries such as Nuclear energy in the United States, Nuclear energy in Russia, Nuclear energy in Egypt, etc. Rather than include a detailed definition and description of nuclear energy in each article's lead section, you'd simply link to nuclear energy. It's generally understood what nuclear energy is, and the general concept of religious persecution is also pretty well understood. Most people will not need to click to learn more, but they can if they want. In any case, happy editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Okay, I get that. Thank you Tim. I hope we run into other again some time. You've been very helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove Tag from top of article

I would like to remove the tag from the top of the article. I believe the lead's problems have been fixed. If there is no disagreement ov er the next week, I will do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Errr are you not following the thread above this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought that referencing WP guidelines would be sufficient to have ended that discussion. It should be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

When we disagree on what policy means it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's straightforward imo, but we'll see what other input has to say on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You should probably go ahead and remove that tag as a leftover without current value, as Timtempleton has described, so that no one else like me comes along and thinks it needs fixing. I like your little list! Good luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it may still need expanding, just not in the way you did it. But I will anyway as nothing has been done about it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What would you like to see done? I would like to assist. Surely we can do this together. I think we just handled this disagreement quite well. It resolved very quickly without animosity--do you not agree? I'm flexible and cooperative, and you have some definate ideas for this article, so I don't see any reason why we can't do what needs doing. Tell me what you want. I'll do the research and come back with something. You can eviscerate at will. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: And, it may be a minor thing but the dates don't match now--one says 1993, the other says 1989. That should probably be fixed which I will leave to you as I assume you have a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That is one of the old conflicted the tag may have referred to, what the hell the article is about.Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Well, Elvis has now left the building. Fix it your way. If someone comes along and has an objection, you will defend it with a good source. It'll work out, I'm sure. So how about fixing that lead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I like that you were Bold and jumped out there and picked a date, however, the mealy-mouthed addition of 'perceived' and the rest seems out of character with an article that is, so far, allowing no discussion of whether or not it is occurring or is just perception. If you put that in the lead, it should be somewhere in the body, and so far, you have indicated you don't want it and have been supported in that. If you want to change the article to include a discussion of "perception" and accuracy of the claim, I will be glad to return and help with that. Otherwise, your change does not reflect content.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>"

https://archive.org/details/fontsencodings00hara_390#:~:text=%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A//archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20webkitallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20mozallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20allowfullscreen%3E%3C/iframe%3E  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.70.114 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)