Talk:Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Idea that Christians are backward and ignorant

Should this article mention the conflict thesis or the commonplace belief that Medieval Christians believed in a Flat Earth? It seems to me that many arguments about science and religion are based on the assumption that religion is anti-scientific, and that Christianity is a prime example of such irrationality.

I'd like our readers to get some background on this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if it would really fit into the article, as it is now it focuses on oppression and hatred rather than misconceptions. Regarding the flat earth for example, would it be better to have a mention of the misconception on the Flat Earth page? -- Dront (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This might be hard to gather. For starters, because of the Protestant separation, it was politic to assume that the Catholics believed in a flat earth.

For instance, Protestants and Catholics were equally horrified when they heard of the sun-centered solar system. God could not now perch on a cloud and disperse angels to far corners of the earth. Would he be in the sun? This seemed pagan. While never a problem for theologians, it was a severe concern for the laity.

Protestants got around this nicely by later publicizing that Galileo had been persecuted by the ignorant Catholics. In actuality, both religions were rocked at this discovery and rather delighted at the trial of Galileo. At the time. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"This seemed pagan." This is so innaccurate so as to be absurd. Every form of paganism I've ever read about, including Classical paganism, has asserted a Geocentric model of the universe. "God could not now perch on a cloud and disperse angels to far corners of the earth." Since when have Christians ever believed God lived in the sky? Also, Galileo put forth his discovery during a time when the rivalry between the Churches were at their worst. In the 16th cenury Copernicus was actually celebrated by the Catholic clergy for his heliocentric model. SorcererCallandira2 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)SorcererCallandira2

Original research

This article catalogues anti-Christian incidents but fails to provide any evidence that there is literature describing the concept. If there is academic acceptance of the concept then it should be outlined at the beginning of the article. If however it is not generally accepted then it is POV to outline the incidents. If it cannot be established that the anyone has written about the concept then the article should be deleted. TFD (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Exclusion of the United States

Why is the United States excluded from this list? Has it just not been written yet? I don't know anything about the subject enough to add it myself, hence my coming here to read more into it. Spartan198 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no section on the United States because all the attempts to add a section on the United States have conflated "opposition to the political positions of some Christians" with "Anti-Christian sentiment". eldamorie (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a better, more direct answer. Belchfire-TALK 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said Eldamorie. If you wish to include information about anti-Christian sentiment in the US (as opposed to anti-specific-denominations, which can be well sourced) you must find sources. This is how Wikipedia works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure your last edit really works Eldamorie. Anti-Catholicism in the US came (comes) from Protestants - clearly they were not anti-Christian. We should make sure the article maintains a focus on Christianity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

When most people look in the mirror, they see a hero, therefore there cannot be any anti-Christian sentiment in the United States. Q.E.D. Nevermind that the majority of the population (I know, I know, yesterday's polls) is Christian.

Americans are the elite of the world. Everything the U.S. does is right, or maybe left. The rest of the world would do well to copy us, nevermind how bigoted it seems to those affected. Protect the one percent, ignore the 60%!

This is actually oligarchy.Student7 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Student7, I was just looking over your expansion before it was reverted by someone else. I think you might be on to something, but I think the idea requires further development to establish the SCOTUS cases as anti-Christian before they can be added. Possibly some background material on Engel v. Vitale or related cases could be used to establish that the cases were actually anti-Christian in nature, which would tend to defeat claims that the scope of the rulings was all-encompassing. Just a thought. I like the idea, but I can't defend your addition as-written. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that prayer is a violation of church/state separation, so excluding it affects all religions, not just Christianity. I realize that you can find Christians who will claim that it's an attack on Christianity, but that's true for just about anything. There are Christians who think "Season's Greetings" is a war on Christmas! We need to hold this article to higher standards than that. At most, such views can be repeated if they are notable, but only with direct attribution. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is really getting stupid. Failure to privilege Christians over people of other or no religious beliefs is not anti-Christian. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, both of you blew right by the part where I said I don't support the addition of his material if it can't be shown that the court cases where motivated by anti-Christian sentiment. No, we should just take it on faith that this was not the case, because... well, just because. Belchfire-TALK 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources showing t hat the ban on prayer was specifically anti-Christian as opposed to pro-separation? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I added a genuine example from the USA to the article (specifically, it was the burning of 30-40 churches back in the 90s by an outspoken Satanist, pretty much the American analogue of the Varg Vikernes church burnings in Norway). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

scope

I am little confused as to the scope of this article, after stumbling on Persecution of Christians. Can anyone explain?--Mor2 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the intent is that this article should discuss cases of non-violent discrimination or intolerance while Persecution of Christians should describe places and times where Christians are subject to actual violence because of their faith. Unfortunately both articles tend to suffer scope creep that blurs the distinction. -- LWG ^talk 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Persecution is not always violent and from the look of it most of the article is exactly about violent Persecution.--Mor2 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, both articles have suffered continual scope-creep. Personally I think the articles ought to be merged into one: they've become in effect a "style fork" (like a POV fork, except POV isn't the problem here, just different editorial preferences). -- LWG ^talk 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This was forked a while back, for size, with "sentiment" kept here and violence under "persecution." If you have a better division that people can readily understand, please suggest it. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Metal?

Why is Black Metal in the "see also" section? This is of such minor relation, if any, to the topic at hand that its mere prescence indicates, to me at least, a strong personal bias, perhaps even someone's obsession, no doubt negative, with the musical genre.

自教育 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

length

Why is this page fairly small in comparison to antisemitism page? Surely there has been far more anti Christianity then antisemitism? 24.94.251.19 (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you have specific content you want added, make sure you have good sources, and feel free to add it yourself. Of course you're also welcome to discuss your proposals here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that their is more anti-christian sentiment than antisemitism. As a matter a fact I think that even a quick look at history would show the contrary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Old lead restored

First, the lead needs to be a summary of the article, see Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment and the changes weren't. Secondly, although Christianaphobia may be used, we can't say it is "generally accepted" as it isn't. Thirdly, the Templar Nation doesn't belong in this article at all, let alone in the lead. Fourth - "Also out of fear of displeasing arabs finding info about christophobia or christianophobia on search engins is being made real hard and talking about the subject is by arabs seen as racesism." is garbled English and just wrong. If it is hard to find these terms in search engines it's because not that many people are using them. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

New Title

I think that people should pic one? This title is unreasonably long.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the understated "Anti-Christian sentiment." Since it wasn't discussed, it probably could be reverted until a consensus for retitling it is reached. The overstated "Christianophobia" is a put-off, and not generally accepted by the public anyway. Also, Wikipolicy denigrates "and" titles. The problem is which topic is being discussed or is it simply a catchall that can be safely ignored by serious researchers. This new one gives that impression. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the term or meaning of Christophobia being discussed in the article but it should be renamed back to "Anti-Christian sentiment" which seems like a more appropriate and for the most part more inclusive name.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer "anti-Christian sentiment". "Christianophobia" is insider code language that is used only by a subset of fanatical far-right-wing Christians, often applied to things that have nothing to do with anti-Christian sentiment. The term is not normally used by scholars, by most Christians, or by the general public. The article should be moved back to the NPOV title. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

if you find the title too long, then shorten the title to "Christianophobia", but leave the article PS. how can you find the first paragraph biast, if it is an almost copy paste from the article:"islamaphobia"? or is that article then biast too? if you find this one biast the other one should be biast too, let use only one set of standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepressinc (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Please don't change the title without getting agreement, anybody.

The Islamaphobia bit that was virtually copied and pasted (thus a copyvio) has a reference, that's a major difference. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't to do with the title, but a word choice. "Chile: Some examples of Christofobia"..."Christofobia" is simply not a word. For one, "phobia" is spelled with a "ph" and not an "f". Second, I'm not sure why it would be "christO" rather than "christphobia" or "christianphobia". Even if you take out spelling and word-form issues, it's simply not a term recognized by any dictionary I can find. Phrases like "anti-christian" or "those with antipathy toward christianity" or something along those lines should replace "christofobia/phobia". 12.46.106.10 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I was doing a comparison of a list of country for thee percentage of different theological positions: Christians, Atheism, Hinduism, Agnosticism (though I doubted that I would find numbers on that), etc. While searching for atheism by country, I find "Discrimination against Atheists". I thought nothing of it, because it seemed like a fair title for a charged topic. Out of curiosity, I searched for "Discrimination against Christians" and I find "Anti-Christian Sentiment." That is pathetically downplayed. I agree that Christainophobia and Islamophobia are ridiculous titles, and so would Atheiphobia or whatever it would be called, but this title is inconsistent. I can understand why Christians say that there is an Anti-Christian undertone (at the very least) and bias (at the most) at Wikipedia. Avoiding bias can be accomplished, but not with synthetic (rather than analytical) statements and inconsistency on the same subject: discrimination. Not to mention, it would make finding articles easier to find. Thanks for reading.

United States

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation states in their "About the Foundation FAQ" that "Our Constitution was very purposefully written as a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary." In general, atheist, humanist, and related organizations have taken the statement that Congress not establish a state religion to mean the elimination of any reference or expression whatsoever of religious belief on government property. Lawsuits to eliminate verbal, written, clothing, and other expressions of faith in public circles are prevalent and ongoing."

Unsourced and ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.153.22 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I found this information to be relevant, just look around internet, then think again. Bladesmulti (talk)

Somewhat pov

Unser Zionists murder Archbishop, a phrase explains that it was done in the evening with an axe. Is this totally necessary? Sounds pov-ish. Like the game CLUE, "Colonel Smith, in the kitchen, with a rope." Can't we say either "he was murdered" or "He was axed" and let it go?

Another phrase says the "church was desecrated and a grenade thrown in." Again seems redundant, church was pretty well desecrated after the grenade was thrown in! Doesn't mention the grenade exploded. Seems like too much detail providing too little real information.

It says that "Zionists" did it though no one was arrested. While this seems reasonable, somehow the dots don't connect between "Zionists did it" and "no arrests." Are we omitting something? Israel is not third world. Student7 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think 'somewhat pov' is an understatement - the article seems very unsure of its subject matter. It needs to be made clear that not all anti-Christian sentiment is persecution or discrimination (in the same way that not all anti-atheism sentiment is persecution or discrimination). The picture of the burnt girl, for example, has no place in this article and would be much better placed in Christian persecution. I've removed the word 'also' from the lead as that implies that all anti-Christian sentiment equals discrimination, but in truth the whole sentence about discrimination is inappropriate Obscurasky (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Moved murder of archbishop to Persecution of Christians without editing, which it still needs IMO.

Will try to delete pic of burning, as well. (Already in Persecution of Christians article). Student7 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that same other article looks similar to this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Robespierre and Stalin

I know that more Christian POV is hardly something this article needs more of, but I don't think we can speak of Anti-Christian sentiment without mentioning the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.21.187 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that any content that is deemed relevant and useful should be noted. Robespierre and Stalin are very notable examples of Christianophobia, and should be included. Besides, this is an entry on anti-Christian sentiment. Jonosbro (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Arson, vandalism "sentiment"?

I would think that "arson", a felony in most places, would qualify as violence. People could be killed in the fire, or fighting the fire. It is a crime everywhere. Probably should be moved to "violence" IMO.

Defacing walls, etc. seems to fall under "sentiment." These are often treated as "misdemeanors" under the law and seem to belong here. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Defining what qualifies as 'sentiment' isn't easy and I think that, to a large extent, this is reflected in the article - which comes across as being very unsure of its subject matter. Clearly arson is a violent act, and according the the definition given in the lead, examples of arson should therefore be listed in Persecution of Christians. Obscurasky (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence defines Anti-Christian sentiment as "an opposition or objection to Christians, the Christian religion, or its practice". I accept that deciding what falls within this definition, or outside it, is not an exact science, but burning down churches clearly exceeds what can be reasonable described as the expression of Anti-Christian 'sentiment'. Including such acts here confuses the page and blurs the distinction between this page and the Persecution of Christians page. Obscurasky (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is a random act of arson is developed from anti-Christian sentiment; it's not a systematic persecution from one group towards the Christians as a whole. STSC (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Burining down churches is precisely an expression of anti-christian sentiment. The blowing up of churches with christians inside, on the other hand, belongs in Persecution of Christians. zzz (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said it's not an exact science - on one level it could be argued that the Crusades were an expression of anti-Christian sentiment - so the real point is 'where do we draw the line'? Your argument seems to be that that examples of burning down churches should be included here, as long as no one is killed. If anyone was killed then presumably it should be included on the Persecution of Christians page?

My view is that, while I accept that there are some examples of arson that could reasonably be included here, burning down a whole church clearly falls outside the definition provided in the opening sentence.Obscurasky (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a view on where exactly to draw the line. But these church-burnings are, as I said, precisely expressions of ant-christian sentiment, and as such cannot possibly fall outside the scope. zzz (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous heading was actually better, church burning is 'anti sentiment', while killing or force conversions are persecutions. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The term sentiment is too vague and irrelevant when it comes to attacks and violence. This article should be renamed "Antichristianism"[1] or "Christianophobia"[2], on the model of Antisemitism or Islamophobia, not to be confused with Persecution of Jews or Persecution of Muslims. 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Something like this was done, originally, but the article well outgrew any reasonable boundaries, so it was broken in two. Sentiment here, violence elsewhere. Merging them defeats the original purpose. As editors, we need to make "bright lines." I think that is one of things we can do with some consensus, that is hopefully reflected in WP:RS. Or not. We don't want to wind up with two articles saying the same thing (again).

The flip side is that we don't want to "convict" people by tarring them unnecessarily with a possibly pov name. Just clear naming so editors understand what to put there and readers know what to expect. I think the "phobia" term has been met with indifference by reliable references. Using it seems to be "reaching" for pity. I think the facts speak for themselves and with a current (or similar) name we can have an article that anyone can contribute to without feeling that his/her views will not be respected regardless of their editorial neutrality, even if they hold an anti-Christian pov. IMO. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sentence one: citation needed

"Anti-Christian sentiment is an opposition or objection to Christians, the Christian religion, or its practice." Says who?

The only source I found defining "anti-Christian sentiment" is intoleranceagainstchristians.eu. Their definition is also broad. According to it, perceived insults are anti-Christian: some number of poll respondents believing BBC is anti-Christian; a comedy musical with Satan as a character; a "Jesus had two dads" sign at a pride parade; a local government making the Ascension Day BBQ vegetarian for Ramadan; lawsuits to stop businesses from discriminating against gay couples.

I don't think that's the direction editors want to take this article, so I'll keep looking for a better source. Help is much appreciated. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a little more traction when I search for "Christophobia". Is it fair to consider the two terms equivalent? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As you probably know, the original definition was made when the article was split into two: this article and Violence against Christians. You are right to search out a citation, but it really was trying to distinguish between where material should be placed since everything was going into this article with no discrimination.

Christophobia might be equated, but we were deliberately trying to avoid that term since it is used "politically correctly" as Islamophobia in another context. The latter article name should be changed to avoid bias but won't be in the near term.

If the definition of Christophobia excludes violence, fine. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Problematic focus

The article overwhelmingly focuses on violent actions taken against Christians by largely fundamentalist, extremist faiths--while nearly completely neglecting to mention historical or peaceful discussion, which is arguably comprises the world's anti-Christian sentiment. In other words, the article gives readers the impression that being anti-Christian means committing acts of violence and terror, which is kind of like saying being anti-Creationist means that you have to kill Creationists. More sources from the Enlightenment, literary criticism, and other non-violent sources would help balance out the article. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the contents of this article, I move to have the article renamed "Violence against Christians" and start a new page that actually examines anti-Christian sentiment in general. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please identify violence in article here. Then, if no comment from other editors in a few days, move it to Persecution of Christians, a long standing article deliberately established for that purpose. Only anti-Christian sentiment should go in this article. Nothing hands-on, not arson, etc. Student7 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I do that? Is there a template that I copy and paste? 163.29.35.147 (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted a few "see" topics that were violent. You are going to have to say here, under a separate topic "Proposed move," that you intend to move the following paragraphs or sentences to Persecution of Christians because they are not sentiment which belongs here.

• Nile City vandals killed three people...."
• Rioting Liberians shot three Christians...."

etc. Sentence or paragraph by sentence and paragraph. It doesn't have to be the entire paragraph. Just so everyone knows that you think it doesn't belong here. We need specifics before you move them. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole section on Pakistan crosses the "sentiment/persecution" line IMO:

At least a dozen Christians have been given death sentences, and half a dozen murdered after being accused of violating blasphemy laws. In 2005, 80 Christians were behind bars due to these laws.

Christians in Pakistan are reportedly being subjected to a genocide by Pakistani Taliban.

A pattern of attacks on Christian children shows the "Pakistani police either failed to act or sided with the rapists and murderers."

Execution, genocide, attacks, rape murder. Not much sentiment there. Chuntuk (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The first one is problematical because it involves actual laws. The sentiment of these laws is Anti-Christian in "some" analysts opinion. The fact that those sentenced receive the death penalty, is perhaps beside the point for an actual law. It takes negative sentiment for these laws to be passed. The "violence" is legal IMO.

I agree with you about moving the last two, if you believe them to be properly cited, to the violence article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Christian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.straitstimes.com/Project_Syndicate/Story/STIStory_786856.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/18/4639333/ajc-urges-knesset-to-censure-mk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Christian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006130508/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930 to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Three orphaned images at bottom

Not sure why these orphaned images are there - will try to add some captions and/or context and make sure they are in the right sections.Timtempleton (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Christian sentiment. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006130508/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930 to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312234211/http://www.zenit.org:80/article-25317?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-25317?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A new RM or merge discussion can be opened at editors' discretion. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Anti-Christian sentiment → Recent anti-Christian violence and intimidation – As discussed previously on the article's Talk page, the article basically only covers recent attacks, neglecting anything more than a few decades old, whereas the complete history is covered in the Persecution of Christians article. Also, the article is not about sentiment. It is about actions, not feelings. As someone put it here on the Talk page a couple of years ago, "the article gives readers the impression that being anti-Christian means committing acts of violence and terror, which is kind of like saying being anti-Creationist means that you have to kill Creationists." As I put it nearly five years ago, "If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title?" —BarrelProof (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support titles should reflect article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No title should begin with "recent". Articles are based on sources, and sources are dated. The article content is not ok, it needs to be focused into a defined, notable topic, or deleted as WP:OR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• OPpose per SmokeyJoe. We should never use "recent", as that is a baseless title, and is also a self-defining violation of WP:RECENTISM. If this article covers a particular timeframe, then that timeframe should be explicitly declared. If, as I suspect, it has a lot of overlap with the Persecution of Christians article, then we need clearer delineation or a merge. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would rather see it renamed Persecution of Christians in the modern era. The content from the section, Modern era (1815 to 1989) found in Persecution of Christians should be merged with it. The latter article is already too long. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved(non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Anti-Christian sentiment → Persecution of Christians in the modern era – As discussed previously on the article's Talk page, the article basically only covers recent attacks, whereas the prior history is covered in the Persecution of Christians article. Also, the article is not about sentiment. It is about actions, not feelings. As I put it nearly five years ago, "If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title?" In the RM discussion of February, no one really seemed to disagree with any of that. However, others who commented disliked the particular title that was suggested. This new RM suggests a title that was proposed by someone in that discussion – a title that no one objected to at the time. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Persecution of Christians in the modern era. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121055311/http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-28/world/bible.burning_1_messianic-jews-deputy-mayor-israeli-radio-and-television?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-28/world/bible.burning_1_messianic-jews-deputy-mayor-israeli-radio-and-television?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/05/28/muslim-attacks-against-christians-on-the-rise-in-west-bank/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216135458/http://archivo.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2004/julio/28-julio-2004/nacional/nacional-20040728-12.html to http://archivo.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2004/julio/28-julio-2004/nacional/nacional-20040728-12.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zenit.org/article-25317?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Persecution of Christians in the modern era. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129013512/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4576_62.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4576_62.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Persecution of Christians in the modern era. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005003941/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/04/12/indigenous-militants-burn-another-church-in-southern-chile/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/04/12/indigenous-militants-burn-another-church-in-southern-chile/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs separate listing or discussion about state-sponsored

I think this article can be improved. It currently seems to be largely a listing of examples of persecution. Both individual acts of persecution and persecution that is sanctioned by a larger movement or by the state are mixed together. But I think persecution that is allowed or sanctioned by a government, a different religious movement, or a cultural movement is something quite different from an act of an individual who is acting alone and which is unaffiliated with a larger group.

I guess it could be argued that most acts of persecution are somehow reflective of a larger social context, but then the discussion in the article would be improved by focusing not on the individual act, but on what that larger social context is.

Stuwarford (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Stu Warford

Kosovo

The sources do not connect events in Kosovo with anti-Orthodoxy sentiments. The destruction of churches might happen for a variety of reasons, for example identification of them with an oppressing governmental force or a particular ethnic group. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to inform all editors of this article that in the past few days user @Ktrimi991: made several failed attempts to remove entire sections in three different articles: Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Christians in the modern era, and also Anti-Orthodoxy. All those sections were relating to one subject: crimes of Muslim Albanians, committed against Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. The same user tried to delete all those sections unilaterally, before initiating this discussion on the talk pages. I would urge all editors to take a good look at the nature of all those deletions, since they were rightfully reverted by several editors. Sorabino (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sorabino: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Do you plan to reply to Ktrimi991's comment above? It looks like he is right. None of the cited sources connects the violence against Serbs with the "Persecution of Christians". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • On top of the OR and SYNTH issues elaborated above, this section is a POV headache -- for example the Kristallnacht comparison. Totally unnecessary, totally in violation of what is supposed to be an impartial and detached encyclopedia. --Calthinus (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

So, can we get consensus to remove the section? Or just to drastically trim it? I think at least a drastic trim is in order if it can be made clear, using decent sources, that what is being spoken about is "persecution of Christians" and not simply violence accompanying a civil war/ethnic conflict.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: The conflict in Kosovo, before, during and after war was caused by a mixture of nationalism and disappointment from economy and corruption. The UN secretary-general's report of April 30, 2004 described the events as "ethnically motivated violence". Sorabino is not replying so I think the section does not have to stay any longer. @Calthinus: Those comparisons are part of a tendency to turn historical events into myths, those myths evolve as the time passes and in the end produce new tensions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support removal until qualified RS call this motivated by anti-Christian sentiment (which they wont', as it wasn't...), this is in violation of wiki standards. Furthermore wiki is not the place to spread "historical myths that in the end produce new tensions". This discussion should also be relevant for Talk:Anti-Orthodoxy and Talk:Persecution of Christians. --Calthinus (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 and Bobfrombrockley: Given the lack of dispute of these points here, I have gone ahead and removed the counter-regulatory section. --Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Is the article notable? As far as I can understand, there are none RS discussing in depth the certain topic- at least nothing more that a brief mention. The consequence is upgrading random attacks as persecutions. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please contribute to discussion about the two persecution articles here -----Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add that many of the entries do not even seem to be about persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Note that even the first reference does not use the word "Christian". The second reference is a 72 pages document that does not cite a page and the document does not contain the phrases "Persecution of Christians" of "Christian persecution". Cinadon36 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Then start to remove unsourced content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

modern era

What is the inclusion criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Too vague in my opinion...Cinadon36 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Snowded, I see I am the second editor to take issue with the lead. Please don't go to war over that: perhaps it's time to recognize that the lead is problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm with deleting the whole article as Persecution of Christians can have any relevant material. Mass deletions of material rather than attempting to get it right was my objection last time - and that editor has done a few such -----Snowded ^TALK 22:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD (template removed)

I proposed this article for AfD. [3] The template has been removed and I do not know why. @Pharaoh of the Wizards:.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That template can be removed by anyone - you then need to make a XFD request which will set up a discussion -----Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What 's a XFD request?Cinadon36 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Install Twinkle and you will see its as an option - our just look up deleting articles its all laid out -----Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)-----Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded, you are really helpful, even when you disagree with other's POV. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36, I think by mistake, instead of WP:AFD tags, you were adding WP:PROD tags. Anyone can remove WP:PROD tag which is why @Pharaoh of the Wizards: removed it. I have now added the correct AfD tag with this edit here. [4] regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Squatters

When evicted from any site they commit pretty vile acts of vandalism, is there any evidence (I.E. an RS saying it) they deliberately targeted Christians for being christian?Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Slatersteven, not sure what you mean with "squatters" here, but that awful generalization of yours has no place on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is also a generalization to say that vandalism by Squatters is Persecution of Christians. My point is that it happens all the time, not just to Christian buildings when Squatters are evicted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

section "Anti-Christian expressions"

Criminal and hateful arson of churches by Satanists, is not "persecution of Christians". It is an act of senseless vandalism. I have visited the 4 sources in the section:

• Booth, William (1996-07-02). "washingtonpost.com: Church Burnings in the South". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-01-18. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) No mention of "persecution'
• "Vandals scrawl hate speech across Phoenix church". azcentral. 2015-01-08. Retrieved 2019-01-18. The article mentions "fears of persecution", not persecution per se. Plus, it deals with a minor incidence, does not examine the relation between arson attacks and persecution, as the title of the section suggests.
• "Unusual Suspects in Church Burnings". TIME (in Dutch). Retrieved 2019-01-18. no mention of the word "persecution"
• Forth is a dead link[5] and I am not sure it is RS.

Seems to me that the whole section should be deleted. Clearly an attempt to upgrade various forms of vandalism as persecution, IMHO. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

By comparison, in Greece, we have had two incidents of explosive devices in churches during December, 2018 and January, 2019. The press (and the church) are covering it as part of the shenanigans of our various domestic terrorism groups. I don't hear anyone describing it as persecution. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Then mark it as failed verification. We should only be including actual persecution, not every attack what ever the motivation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The sources verify the sentences but do not verify "persecution".Cinadon36 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is not called "criminal prosecution of Christians".Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

meaning? Cinadon36 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Meaning that if the soruce is only about criminal prosecution, and not persecution then it is not about persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Title

Title definitely needs adjustment to fit with current scope, post-1989 does not correspond with the common definitions of the Modern Era.--Staberinde (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how we can solve this, maybe if we move the article to "P of Christians in the contemporary world"?Cinadon36 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is why this is forky. Even a rename will be Forky.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"does not correspond with the common definitions of the Modern Era." True. The nearest match is Post–Cold War era (1991-).

Which again begs the question why 1989?Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a guess here, because of the Revolutions of 1989 in Europe, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc? Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but its not as if the process began or ended in 1989.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Probably but that would be OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying attention. We are questioning why did the creators of the article use 1989 as the starting point. We are not supporting the date ourselves, or suggesting new article content. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well Dimadick I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't being critical to you, I was explaining why using the term "modern era" is wrong. I agreed with you. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So, I guess Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era would be best possible solution at this point for the title that doesn't completely misrepresent article content? The only alternative would be putting year 1989 directly into title in some form.--Staberinde (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)