![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm not a big fan of the list of "people persecuted by Christians," or whatever it may be, but I can live with it (if it is correct). However, I would mention something about it being the medieval Roman Catholic church that did so (or specific others, where appropriate), instead of the simplistic designation "Christian." - ElAmericano | talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just restored the persecutions list. I think it is interesting and believe many others will too. Is anyone denying any of the categories mentioned? If so, no doubt citations can easily be provided. Just list the ones doubted - persanally I can't even guess which ones might be in doubt
Incidentally, many of these persecutions were detailed in an external web-link on human rights. There is something more than suspicious in removing a link that makes a case, then reverting material consistent with that case on the grounds that it is not supported!
I too seem to detect a concerted effort here by the faithful to minimise any observations, however facual, that show the Church in a less than glorious light, and I also agree with the observation that the there is a heavy bias in the demands for citations by those editors who are very obviously influenced by their own Christian beliefs. As someone has noted earlier not a single citation has been offered for pro-Christian statements or for the removal of statements that are less than lauditary to the record of Christianity.
Let's up the standards of academic scholarship, and stop trying to impose personal beliefs. Whgat good can anyone imagine it does?
194.165.180.131 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian
Let's do this way since I assume you can't possibly doubt all of the list. You let me know just one that can't easily be justified by a good academic reference, and I'll remove the whole list myself!
194.165.180.131 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian
Re KHM03 comments above. I can see from your profile that as a Church Elder you are obviously best placed to judge neutrality. Also I hadn't realised that external links were supposed to be neutral and free of Povs. Thanks for the info. I'm just about to delete links which are obviously biased and devotional, and will continue to do so for as long as you insist on deleting links you do not happen to like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.145.131.156 ( talk • contribs) 23:59,16 January 2006.
Anonymous users 64.121.40.153 and 194.145.131.156 (unless you're one and the same)...regarding my status as ordained clergy, please review WP:AGF. Also, I'm not sure you're doing a whole lot here to work with the community. You've been asked to cite sources. Please do so, and cease the pointless reverts until we all as a community can reach a consensus. Thanks... KHM03 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I might add that 194.145.131.156's deletion of other links, as protest against deletion of the heretication link seems to be a violation of WP:Point. 64.121.40.153's most recent edit summary ("rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page") is quite misleading, as the edit before did not at all fit the definition of vandalism, and the changes were not agreed on the talk page. (This was written before edit conflict with KHM03.) Also, 194.145.131.156, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. It makes it easier for people coming later to read the discussion. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Again...there were no "agreed changes". Please be more careful...thanks. KHM03 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for removing the Human rights weblink was given by KHM03 as its alleged bias & PoV. Now either external sites are expected to be neutral or they're not. If they're not then this link should be reinstated. If they are, then all of the blatently pro-Christian links will have to go. I don't care which it is, but let's be clear either way.
The HR site in question gives a pretty well reasoned case, and I think clearly shifts the onus of proof. A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that you (KHM03) think is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that you fail to identify even one. Are you denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Give it a try - just for once. We can can all see how dedicated you are to academic rigor.
168.224.1.14 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mr Objective
On the contrary Str1977 the site in question looks to me to be well researched and to contain many good objective references, including many to the bible and other religious sources. I don't know if it purports to be objective, but I'm not sure that's relevent. As I said before, if we remove all external links that anyone finds biased, then we'll not have many external links left.
I think the site clearly shifts the onus of proof. I'm not sure what the point about original research is. Simply compiling a list is hardly original research. As long as each item on the list can be confirmed by authoritative sources, where's the problem? A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that KHM03 thinks is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that he failed to identify even one. It is not clear whether you are denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Go on - apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone you don't agree with.
168.224.1.14 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective
The heretication site isn't even close to objective, or even factually correct. Given the thousands of sites about Christianity there are out there we can do much better. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So, another pro-Christian advocate who has missed the point entirely about objectivity and who fails to cite a single concrete example to support accusations of innacuracy. This is really not good enough.
168.224.1.14 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective
Insults won't get you anywhere. Maybe you should explain why you think this attack site is actually objective. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I still oppose the inclusion of the entire list, but let us for the moment adhere to the link provided as a source. It gives the following list:
That is not congruent with what various editors have inserted, based on the link. The link is missing out:
Some notes about the groups mentioned. We don't need to argue about Jews, pagans, heretics (including all subsections), witches as they are already included in the text.
The last two items are worded as questions because they are genuine questions. If you can provide such instances, then bring it on.
Str1977 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr Objective seems to have stopped posting here when I asked for his evidence. However, since he asked, let's examine the reasons why the heretication site is actually far from objective.
I can go on, but I think that will do for now. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, we are talking about persecution here. I myself wouldn't call Gallileo's case persecution, but of course others might disagree. But what you state about Champillion, if accurate, is far from being persecution. Or are we to include somewhere that scientists persecuted scientists, because the colleagues of Copernicus almost bullied him into not publishing his book (and would have succeeded would it not have been for his confessor) and Gallileo was opposed by his colleagues (while supported by the Church). I don't think that is persecution, but you seem to disagree.
As for the atheists - if there is no evidence then it's not our business to make such claims anyway. Yes, Atheism is an old hat, but it had been out of use of a couple of (saner) centuries. Not because it was violently surpressed but because of its own deficencies. Str1977 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be fun to add a section to Atheism listing all the people who have been persecuted by atheists. I think it would be pretty long. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is inaccurate to lump together Anglicanism and Lutheranism simply under the heading "Protestants," along with the numerous other denominations that were either offshoots of these two reform movements within the Church catholic, or were started by particular leaders. There is a distinction between the Continental Reform tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, the anabaptists, et al, and the specifically anti-Roman reforms of the Catholic Church whcih were undertaken in England and in the Nordic countries which followed Luther. I have tried now a few times to createa separate category for Anglicans and Lutherans (as have others before me) after the so-called "Catholic," category, but some partisan with, likely, either an Evangelical or a Traditionalist Roman Catholic POV repeatedly removes my/our contributions. Please stop doing this.
Nrgdocadams 04:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
I'm fine with splitting Anglicans and Lutherans from the other Protestant churches as you have now done (and in fact I prefer it), as long as the meaning of the word "Protestant" is not obscured or redefined. BTW. I took out the "C.E." because the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes no suffix for dates in the current era.-- Srleffler 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Anglicans or Lutherans are offended by the "Protestant" label is irrelevant on WP. They're Protestant. They arose during the Protestant Reformation. They formed, at least in part, out of a protest against Rome. If some Lutherans don't like the label (and mots that I know don't care one way or the other), that's not the issue...historians and scholars very much consider them Protestant. The same is true of Anglicans. So let's try and move on...but, by all means, on the articles for these groups, say something about some folks' objections to the Protestant label. Thanks... KHM03 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The other thing is that the current version is very POV.
Other groups believe themselves to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses" and consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups include Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal; Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anabaptists. And how on earth can we say that Lutheranism separated itself from the Lutheran Reformation? No, the whole thing is POV and inaccurate, and needs changed. KHM03 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the section contains the phrase:
That's fair...and also accurate. This isn't to say there aren't other branches of the tree (such as Mormonism), but this is the way Christian denominational families are "usually represented". KHM03 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've twice removed references to persecution of Christians during the French Revolution and still think the sentence has no place in this section as it currently stands.
The reference is misleading as a glance at the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution link will show. This page is about Christanity not just the RC church. The RC church in France at that time, was corrupt and immoral. If it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate. It is only called Decristianisation because at that time, the RC church wealded enormous power was the biggest land owner. In actual fact it was anti all religions. For something to be NPOV the frame of reference must be taken into account. A popular name for an event is not necessarily a historically accurate and complete description of the occurances.
I am seriously concerned that the accuracy of statements in this page are only challenged when they are critical of Christianity. Editors fly out of the woodwork rightly demanding proof, details and specifics in the case of anti statements. Am I the only one who thinks that describing post French Revolution Europe as in the grip of a dechristianisation program is a generalisation and POV? The UK certainly never had such problems. The only references I can find to it relate specifically to France. France is NOT Europe and there is no evidence that it was part of a Europe wide resugence. The sentence as it currently stands implies a) that it was wide spread and b) that it was the restart of some previous Europe wide dechristanisation agenda. I would like to see specifics and references for both of these areas.
For this page to have any credibility the same standards must be applied to all. The discussions above show that such generalisations would not have survived the mainly RC editors of this page if the tables had been turned. SOPHIA 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Sophia, but your points don't make sense.
As for the language issue, I will ask someone to have a look into whether my sentence says what it wants to say.
Str1977 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware of WP:AGF. I said previously that the editors of this page rightly demand specifics and details. I also stand by the comment that a sentence of such general nature would not (rightly) have stood unchallenged by the most active editors on this page if it had been anti Christian. The term "resurfaced" implies that Europe was previously anti Christian. The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution states that it was anticlerical (ie anti RC) not anti Christian. SOPHIA 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Again I ask you, Sophia: Are Catholics not Christians? If they are, what we have here is a state persecution of Christians (and these were Catholics, but there had been no other Christians in the land since Louis XIV). The term "resurfaced" does not imply, IMHO, what you think it does. Also, my edit was neither anti-Christian nor pro-Christian but just stating a simple fact, neither justifying nor dramatising or exaggerating or downplaying the persecution. Str1977 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, SOPHIA. I'm a bit puzzled by your objections to the inclusion of the French Revolution. You say that Catholics were persecuted because they were corrupt and immoral, and that "if it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate." What crimes did the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne commit? Eleven nuns, three lay sisters, and two servants were guillotined; they sang hymns at the scaffold. They don't sound very corrupt to me. There's even an article about them at French Wikipedia.
You also seem to object to the inclusion of the French Revolution persecution of Catholics because this page "is about Christanity not just the RC church". I hope you're not implying that Catholic are not Christians. If they are, and they were persecuted, then Christians were persecuted.
As for "resurfaced", well, there had been persecution of Christians in European countries prior to the French Revolution, hadn't there? Didn't many countries martyr the Christians before Christianity became established?
Anyway, I've looked at the language carefully, and I don't see any hidden POV. AnnH (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
SOPHIA, you seem to admit that the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne were good, innocent people who did not deserve the death penalty, and that they were executed for being nuns, but you don't accept that as religious persecution. Surely the execution of nuns is a form of religious persecution? At the time when Catholics were persecuted in England (see here for a few examples) most of those executed were priests. But it was still a persecution of Catholics. And it's true that in a very few cases there were real examples of treason, and that some of the Catholics who were persecuted would not have been persecuted (or at least not to that extent) had it not been for the crimes of their fellow Catholics. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Catholics were persecuted in England at that time; we don't say that they deserved it because of Anthony Babington and Guy Fawkes. Let's put it this way — if a few members of a minority group committed a crime — let's say a group of black youths gang raped a white woman in a country where most people were white — and in the five years following that, hundreds of black people had their land and goods seized by the government, dozens were thrown into prison without trial, a few were executed on false charges, would you agree that black people were being persecuted? Do you dismiss the Salem Witch Trials on the grounds that some people really did attempt to conjure up the devil with the motive of harming their enemies? If groups of innocent people have their property confiscated and are imprisoned or executed, then that is persecution regardless of whether or not other people in the same category have committed crimes.
I'm not sure what the relevance is of your claim that it was not "persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology". I have objected in the past to a redefinition of "persecution" to include things like uncharitable remarks made against a group, or job discrimination. But once groups of innocent people are thrown into prison and exectuted, not for crimes, but for belonging to a particular group, then it is persecution, regardless of whether or not they have intellectual discussions with their executioners about the two natures of Christ.
And if we agree that there were Christian martyrs in Europe prior to the French revolution, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "resurfaced". AnnH (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I mention POV only in relation to perspectives on this article about all denominations of Christianity. Yes I have a POV but that does not include allegiance to any particular version of history. I will not take part in a discussion that begins to get very personal - of the "why can't you just face facts" type. When reasoned arguments break down there is nothing to be gained by anyone.
I have made the best non personal, academic case that I can for the position that Christians were not persecuted during the French Revolution. The French Roman Catholic Church suffered a violent and bloody backlash after centuries of persecution of other faiths - you admit there were no Protestants left but you blame Louis XIV - did the RC Church stand up for their fellow Christians?
I do not dispute that unjust murders were carried out by the Revolutionaries.
I do not claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians (I do not have a POV on this) but some other groups that would describe themselves as Christian would dispute this. Since this is a page about Christianity as a whole this should be born in mind.
The position of the editors of this page seems to be that any Christian denomination with wealth and power can persecute others (including other Christians) to nonexistence (without mention in the article), and yet when the evitable backlash occurs they become "persecuted Christians" (which can be mentioned in the article).
Banning PUBLIC displays of the cross and the word "Sunday" over a period of 6 years is the best example of exclusively Christian discrimination that has come forward so far.
No examples of the murder of any one of a religious group other than Roman Catholic have been given (so far).
I will bow out of this discussion at this point as I have nothing to new add and as I said previously I do not like the emotive, personal and totally inappropriate language that is starting to be used. SOPHIA 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoever keeps on adding it please stop. There is no "one true religion" and that statement introduces POV. Please stop now. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I just semi-protected again. If those people who are watching this article would please keep an eye on Evangelicalism, that would be great. Thanks. Jkelly 03:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've semiprotected again (sigh). But, unlike the other times, when I went to edit the page to add the semiprotected template, I got a message saying that it had been protected so that only admins could edit it. I checked to see if I had accidentally selected full protection, but I hadn't. Can a fully-registered non-admin (sorry to be so patronizing!) let me know if you still see "edit this page"? There might be some kind of software bug. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm not a big fan of the list of "people persecuted by Christians," or whatever it may be, but I can live with it (if it is correct). However, I would mention something about it being the medieval Roman Catholic church that did so (or specific others, where appropriate), instead of the simplistic designation "Christian." - ElAmericano | talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just restored the persecutions list. I think it is interesting and believe many others will too. Is anyone denying any of the categories mentioned? If so, no doubt citations can easily be provided. Just list the ones doubted - persanally I can't even guess which ones might be in doubt
Incidentally, many of these persecutions were detailed in an external web-link on human rights. There is something more than suspicious in removing a link that makes a case, then reverting material consistent with that case on the grounds that it is not supported!
I too seem to detect a concerted effort here by the faithful to minimise any observations, however facual, that show the Church in a less than glorious light, and I also agree with the observation that the there is a heavy bias in the demands for citations by those editors who are very obviously influenced by their own Christian beliefs. As someone has noted earlier not a single citation has been offered for pro-Christian statements or for the removal of statements that are less than lauditary to the record of Christianity.
Let's up the standards of academic scholarship, and stop trying to impose personal beliefs. Whgat good can anyone imagine it does?
194.165.180.131 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian
Let's do this way since I assume you can't possibly doubt all of the list. You let me know just one that can't easily be justified by a good academic reference, and I'll remove the whole list myself!
194.165.180.131 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian
Re KHM03 comments above. I can see from your profile that as a Church Elder you are obviously best placed to judge neutrality. Also I hadn't realised that external links were supposed to be neutral and free of Povs. Thanks for the info. I'm just about to delete links which are obviously biased and devotional, and will continue to do so for as long as you insist on deleting links you do not happen to like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.145.131.156 ( talk • contribs) 23:59,16 January 2006.
Anonymous users 64.121.40.153 and 194.145.131.156 (unless you're one and the same)...regarding my status as ordained clergy, please review WP:AGF. Also, I'm not sure you're doing a whole lot here to work with the community. You've been asked to cite sources. Please do so, and cease the pointless reverts until we all as a community can reach a consensus. Thanks... KHM03 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I might add that 194.145.131.156's deletion of other links, as protest against deletion of the heretication link seems to be a violation of WP:Point. 64.121.40.153's most recent edit summary ("rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page") is quite misleading, as the edit before did not at all fit the definition of vandalism, and the changes were not agreed on the talk page. (This was written before edit conflict with KHM03.) Also, 194.145.131.156, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. It makes it easier for people coming later to read the discussion. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Again...there were no "agreed changes". Please be more careful...thanks. KHM03 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for removing the Human rights weblink was given by KHM03 as its alleged bias & PoV. Now either external sites are expected to be neutral or they're not. If they're not then this link should be reinstated. If they are, then all of the blatently pro-Christian links will have to go. I don't care which it is, but let's be clear either way.
The HR site in question gives a pretty well reasoned case, and I think clearly shifts the onus of proof. A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that you (KHM03) think is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that you fail to identify even one. Are you denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Give it a try - just for once. We can can all see how dedicated you are to academic rigor.
168.224.1.14 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mr Objective
On the contrary Str1977 the site in question looks to me to be well researched and to contain many good objective references, including many to the bible and other religious sources. I don't know if it purports to be objective, but I'm not sure that's relevent. As I said before, if we remove all external links that anyone finds biased, then we'll not have many external links left.
I think the site clearly shifts the onus of proof. I'm not sure what the point about original research is. Simply compiling a list is hardly original research. As long as each item on the list can be confirmed by authoritative sources, where's the problem? A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that KHM03 thinks is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that he failed to identify even one. It is not clear whether you are denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Go on - apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone you don't agree with.
168.224.1.14 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective
The heretication site isn't even close to objective, or even factually correct. Given the thousands of sites about Christianity there are out there we can do much better. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So, another pro-Christian advocate who has missed the point entirely about objectivity and who fails to cite a single concrete example to support accusations of innacuracy. This is really not good enough.
168.224.1.14 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective
Insults won't get you anywhere. Maybe you should explain why you think this attack site is actually objective. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I still oppose the inclusion of the entire list, but let us for the moment adhere to the link provided as a source. It gives the following list:
That is not congruent with what various editors have inserted, based on the link. The link is missing out:
Some notes about the groups mentioned. We don't need to argue about Jews, pagans, heretics (including all subsections), witches as they are already included in the text.
The last two items are worded as questions because they are genuine questions. If you can provide such instances, then bring it on.
Str1977 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr Objective seems to have stopped posting here when I asked for his evidence. However, since he asked, let's examine the reasons why the heretication site is actually far from objective.
I can go on, but I think that will do for now. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, we are talking about persecution here. I myself wouldn't call Gallileo's case persecution, but of course others might disagree. But what you state about Champillion, if accurate, is far from being persecution. Or are we to include somewhere that scientists persecuted scientists, because the colleagues of Copernicus almost bullied him into not publishing his book (and would have succeeded would it not have been for his confessor) and Gallileo was opposed by his colleagues (while supported by the Church). I don't think that is persecution, but you seem to disagree.
As for the atheists - if there is no evidence then it's not our business to make such claims anyway. Yes, Atheism is an old hat, but it had been out of use of a couple of (saner) centuries. Not because it was violently surpressed but because of its own deficencies. Str1977 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be fun to add a section to Atheism listing all the people who have been persecuted by atheists. I think it would be pretty long. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is inaccurate to lump together Anglicanism and Lutheranism simply under the heading "Protestants," along with the numerous other denominations that were either offshoots of these two reform movements within the Church catholic, or were started by particular leaders. There is a distinction between the Continental Reform tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, the anabaptists, et al, and the specifically anti-Roman reforms of the Catholic Church whcih were undertaken in England and in the Nordic countries which followed Luther. I have tried now a few times to createa separate category for Anglicans and Lutherans (as have others before me) after the so-called "Catholic," category, but some partisan with, likely, either an Evangelical or a Traditionalist Roman Catholic POV repeatedly removes my/our contributions. Please stop doing this.
Nrgdocadams 04:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
I'm fine with splitting Anglicans and Lutherans from the other Protestant churches as you have now done (and in fact I prefer it), as long as the meaning of the word "Protestant" is not obscured or redefined. BTW. I took out the "C.E." because the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes no suffix for dates in the current era.-- Srleffler 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Anglicans or Lutherans are offended by the "Protestant" label is irrelevant on WP. They're Protestant. They arose during the Protestant Reformation. They formed, at least in part, out of a protest against Rome. If some Lutherans don't like the label (and mots that I know don't care one way or the other), that's not the issue...historians and scholars very much consider them Protestant. The same is true of Anglicans. So let's try and move on...but, by all means, on the articles for these groups, say something about some folks' objections to the Protestant label. Thanks... KHM03 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The other thing is that the current version is very POV.
Other groups believe themselves to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses" and consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups include Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal; Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anabaptists. And how on earth can we say that Lutheranism separated itself from the Lutheran Reformation? No, the whole thing is POV and inaccurate, and needs changed. KHM03 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the section contains the phrase:
That's fair...and also accurate. This isn't to say there aren't other branches of the tree (such as Mormonism), but this is the way Christian denominational families are "usually represented". KHM03 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've twice removed references to persecution of Christians during the French Revolution and still think the sentence has no place in this section as it currently stands.
The reference is misleading as a glance at the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution link will show. This page is about Christanity not just the RC church. The RC church in France at that time, was corrupt and immoral. If it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate. It is only called Decristianisation because at that time, the RC church wealded enormous power was the biggest land owner. In actual fact it was anti all religions. For something to be NPOV the frame of reference must be taken into account. A popular name for an event is not necessarily a historically accurate and complete description of the occurances.
I am seriously concerned that the accuracy of statements in this page are only challenged when they are critical of Christianity. Editors fly out of the woodwork rightly demanding proof, details and specifics in the case of anti statements. Am I the only one who thinks that describing post French Revolution Europe as in the grip of a dechristianisation program is a generalisation and POV? The UK certainly never had such problems. The only references I can find to it relate specifically to France. France is NOT Europe and there is no evidence that it was part of a Europe wide resugence. The sentence as it currently stands implies a) that it was wide spread and b) that it was the restart of some previous Europe wide dechristanisation agenda. I would like to see specifics and references for both of these areas.
For this page to have any credibility the same standards must be applied to all. The discussions above show that such generalisations would not have survived the mainly RC editors of this page if the tables had been turned. SOPHIA 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Sophia, but your points don't make sense.
As for the language issue, I will ask someone to have a look into whether my sentence says what it wants to say.
Str1977 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware of WP:AGF. I said previously that the editors of this page rightly demand specifics and details. I also stand by the comment that a sentence of such general nature would not (rightly) have stood unchallenged by the most active editors on this page if it had been anti Christian. The term "resurfaced" implies that Europe was previously anti Christian. The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution states that it was anticlerical (ie anti RC) not anti Christian. SOPHIA 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Again I ask you, Sophia: Are Catholics not Christians? If they are, what we have here is a state persecution of Christians (and these were Catholics, but there had been no other Christians in the land since Louis XIV). The term "resurfaced" does not imply, IMHO, what you think it does. Also, my edit was neither anti-Christian nor pro-Christian but just stating a simple fact, neither justifying nor dramatising or exaggerating or downplaying the persecution. Str1977 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, SOPHIA. I'm a bit puzzled by your objections to the inclusion of the French Revolution. You say that Catholics were persecuted because they were corrupt and immoral, and that "if it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate." What crimes did the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne commit? Eleven nuns, three lay sisters, and two servants were guillotined; they sang hymns at the scaffold. They don't sound very corrupt to me. There's even an article about them at French Wikipedia.
You also seem to object to the inclusion of the French Revolution persecution of Catholics because this page "is about Christanity not just the RC church". I hope you're not implying that Catholic are not Christians. If they are, and they were persecuted, then Christians were persecuted.
As for "resurfaced", well, there had been persecution of Christians in European countries prior to the French Revolution, hadn't there? Didn't many countries martyr the Christians before Christianity became established?
Anyway, I've looked at the language carefully, and I don't see any hidden POV. AnnH (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
SOPHIA, you seem to admit that the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne were good, innocent people who did not deserve the death penalty, and that they were executed for being nuns, but you don't accept that as religious persecution. Surely the execution of nuns is a form of religious persecution? At the time when Catholics were persecuted in England (see here for a few examples) most of those executed were priests. But it was still a persecution of Catholics. And it's true that in a very few cases there were real examples of treason, and that some of the Catholics who were persecuted would not have been persecuted (or at least not to that extent) had it not been for the crimes of their fellow Catholics. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Catholics were persecuted in England at that time; we don't say that they deserved it because of Anthony Babington and Guy Fawkes. Let's put it this way — if a few members of a minority group committed a crime — let's say a group of black youths gang raped a white woman in a country where most people were white — and in the five years following that, hundreds of black people had their land and goods seized by the government, dozens were thrown into prison without trial, a few were executed on false charges, would you agree that black people were being persecuted? Do you dismiss the Salem Witch Trials on the grounds that some people really did attempt to conjure up the devil with the motive of harming their enemies? If groups of innocent people have their property confiscated and are imprisoned or executed, then that is persecution regardless of whether or not other people in the same category have committed crimes.
I'm not sure what the relevance is of your claim that it was not "persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology". I have objected in the past to a redefinition of "persecution" to include things like uncharitable remarks made against a group, or job discrimination. But once groups of innocent people are thrown into prison and exectuted, not for crimes, but for belonging to a particular group, then it is persecution, regardless of whether or not they have intellectual discussions with their executioners about the two natures of Christ.
And if we agree that there were Christian martyrs in Europe prior to the French revolution, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "resurfaced". AnnH (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I mention POV only in relation to perspectives on this article about all denominations of Christianity. Yes I have a POV but that does not include allegiance to any particular version of history. I will not take part in a discussion that begins to get very personal - of the "why can't you just face facts" type. When reasoned arguments break down there is nothing to be gained by anyone.
I have made the best non personal, academic case that I can for the position that Christians were not persecuted during the French Revolution. The French Roman Catholic Church suffered a violent and bloody backlash after centuries of persecution of other faiths - you admit there were no Protestants left but you blame Louis XIV - did the RC Church stand up for their fellow Christians?
I do not dispute that unjust murders were carried out by the Revolutionaries.
I do not claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians (I do not have a POV on this) but some other groups that would describe themselves as Christian would dispute this. Since this is a page about Christianity as a whole this should be born in mind.
The position of the editors of this page seems to be that any Christian denomination with wealth and power can persecute others (including other Christians) to nonexistence (without mention in the article), and yet when the evitable backlash occurs they become "persecuted Christians" (which can be mentioned in the article).
Banning PUBLIC displays of the cross and the word "Sunday" over a period of 6 years is the best example of exclusively Christian discrimination that has come forward so far.
No examples of the murder of any one of a religious group other than Roman Catholic have been given (so far).
I will bow out of this discussion at this point as I have nothing to new add and as I said previously I do not like the emotive, personal and totally inappropriate language that is starting to be used. SOPHIA 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoever keeps on adding it please stop. There is no "one true religion" and that statement introduces POV. Please stop now. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I just semi-protected again. If those people who are watching this article would please keep an eye on Evangelicalism, that would be great. Thanks. Jkelly 03:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've semiprotected again (sigh). But, unlike the other times, when I went to edit the page to add the semiprotected template, I got a message saying that it had been protected so that only admins could edit it. I checked to see if I had accidentally selected full protection, but I hadn't. Can a fully-registered non-admin (sorry to be so patronizing!) let me know if you still see "edit this page"? There might be some kind of software bug. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)