This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persecution of Christians in the post鈥揅old War era article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 200聽days聽 |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Anti-Christian sentiment was split to Persecution of Christians on May 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment. |
Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36: I was going to discuss your recent removals of several entries. Then I noticed that you also have been reverted earlier after removing some of the same entries. That borders on WP:EDITWAR.
Regarding the sections for Bolivia and Cuba, you use the dead links as a reason for removal.
WP:DEADREF says Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working.
It took me just a couple of minutes to find other, non-dead sources.
Regarding the section for Zanzibar, you claim that the source is not reliable. That may or may not be true. It took me seconds to find other sources covering the same content. Before you dismiss a source, you should at least mark it with the template Template:Better source instead of removing.
Regarding the section for North Korea, you remove the section with the reason "no text". That section contains a link to the article
Human rights in North Korea as a main article. In that article it says According to the Christian Open Doors organization, North Korea is the leader among countries who persecute Christians
with a lot of sourced examples. Removal of the section (including removal of that "main article" link) is directly disruptive. If you cannot bother to expand the section yourself, the least you could do is mark it with the template
Template:Empty section.
Removal instead of trying to fix things seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please create consensus before removing them again. -- T*U ( talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I would rather tags were used, and material only deleted after a time. The exception to this (of course) is the addition of walls of unsourced text. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ TU-nor:It is not borderline Editwar. When I removed the content the first time and got reverted and the edit summary was "You need to stop this mass reversion of sourced material". So, I am doing it one by one. I have checked for better sources, but I found none that mentions persecution. So, if you have found a RS that examines persecution in Bolivia or elsewhere, (not just mentioning the term), you can re-insert the material yourself. There is plenty of material in this article that does not refers to persecution, but it is listed us such, by wikipedia users that conceive various incidences as "persecution" (which is a form of WP:ILIKEIT) Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
And now we have an edit war over this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The section about the UK report should not be in the lede, as it is not mentioned anywhere in the body. It should be moved (at the very least) to the body. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The article can be reached from . here. I am not very certain if an article of an Israeli embassador blaming the usual enemies of Israel is RS, but at least there is attribution. I feel it is an opinion article though and numbers have not been reviewed. Anyway, lets start from CLOP issues. Cinadon36 ( talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that white majority rules was accompanied by persecution of Christians, especially given the importance within the Afrikaner movement of the dutch reformed Church. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
46.193.76.98 ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The church supported the system of apartheid, which institutionalized separation and stratification of the people of South Africa according to race. The social segregation of Black, Coloured and White people was reflected in the establishment of churches of these three groups. In the 1980s the church was expelled from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches for its support of apartheid. In 1986 the church showed its repentance by preaching for all members of all racial groups to pray under, one umbrella, thus making South African history by welcoming Black people back in the church. In spite of the end of apartheid, racial divides still exists within the church.
DRC provided the national policies (especially apartheid) and many prominent government officials were members.
Those 3 refs are no RS quality. Cinadon 36 18:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
A lot of claims are being made here without citing any sources. Slatersteven please provide the RS for your claims. R3N13R ( talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we have an RS for the claim that "the white Christians persecuted black Christians". A very broad claim. As far as I know and it would be quite easy to prove, only some did. R3N13R ( talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I would remind users that a source has to say it was persecution because they were Christian, as with squatters above just doing something to Christians is not enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies if it wasn't you Slatersteven. Nevertheless, the claim is being made on this page and should be substantiated. I also have a question the context is "Modern era" what is the cutoff date, for the events discussed? And now we have a new claim without an RS "squatters above just doing something to Christians" Slatersteven RS for that please. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by R3N13R ( talk 鈥 contribs) 12:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Slatersteven. But when the state start raiding and shutting down churches, surely this is persecution? It may not be the most extreme form of persecution, but do we have the right to hide this from the world? My contribution from yesterday that you reverted: According to a report by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, in September 2019 ten churches were shut down, following a raid by the South African Police on about twenty churches in Johannesburg. The churches also had their sound equipment confiscated, for alleged non-compliance of city bylaws. [1] R3N13R ( talk) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Most prob the churches were illegal. Not a persecution. But we need RS to mame it a persecution.
Cinadon
36
06:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36 If a meeting by Christians or a church can be illegal in a country, that already speaks to a form of persecution, or at least a restriction on freedom of religion. The interpretation of what constitute persecution is subjective and is best left to the reader. I am pretty sure the members of the churches that were shut down, feel very much persecuted. As for the contribution, we only need to state the facts as it happened. R3N13R ( talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven your proposition about location or noise, is far fetched and may be valid for a single perhaps even two churches. Please read the RS, over twenty churches were raided. That is to put it mildly persecution, whether the RS use the word literally or not. If you insist that the word persecution must be in the RS, then we also need to remove the other contributions, for example Pakistan, I have checked the article, the word persecution do not appear in the article, once. Double standards being applied here? I will check how many other contributions beside Pakistan, require removal for not having the word persecution after your considered reply. R3N13R ( talk) 09:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Following your Suggestion, I will discontinue this discussion, for fear of persecution, well documented here talk. However, I put it to all future and current contributors - this page has become extremely biased, with spectacular claims. For example the claim above "in all cases those churches were in violation of noise abatement orders:", a biased, unfounded opinion that can not be found in the source. Please see for yourself. [1] 鈥擯receding undated comment added 09:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Slatersteven: Saw the revert and your reason for reverting says you are unsure it is true. Please check the sources referenced. I will leave it reverted if you can find a single source that actually tracks religious freedom and human rights that says Christians are not persecuted for their religion. Note it doesn't say they are the "most" persecuted or make claims about numbers, it just says they are, and everything I've read indicates there is universal agreement on that fact. I am also willing to rewrite it if you have another way you would prefer this be said. Please make a suggestion on what would make you more comfortable with this claim. I am happy to compromise and find some agreement between us. But I assure you it's a factual statement. There is consensus that Christians are persecuted for being Christian. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It might also be appropriate to include some combination of these since it has directly affected the ability to count and verify incidents of religious persecution:
I think we need more input in this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I came here in response to teh Teahouse posting. I think that Jenhawk777 is correct that in addition to summarizing the body of the article, a lead section can and generally should define the topic, indicate why it is notable, and introduce and link or concisely define key terms that are used in the article. Ideally the summery of the body will suffice to indicate why the topic is notable, adn may include introductions of the key terms, these functions need not be separated in the section as long as the writing is clear and the topic well introduced. However, I think that Slatersteven has a point about the current lead section. It seems overly long and detailed for the article to me. Also, the transition from the first sentence to the 2nd in the first paragraph seems very awkward. I would move the first sentence to a later point in the section, and let an edited version of the 2nd serve as the lead sentence. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Quotes (of which there are perhaps too many in the current lead section) must be directly attributed to their authors in the article prose, in addition to an inline citation. A cite alone is not enough. See WP:QUOTATION. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, please do not use the specifically newspaper term "lede" for the lead section of a Wikipedia article. A lede aims to draw the reder in and make a key poitn, it is quite different from a led section or lead sentence of a Wikipedia article, in my view. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment also a visitor from the help desk. Since this is a subset of Religious persecution, there's no need for this to recap info that should go there. The lead (thanks DESiegel) should be about this article, since otherwise you get a content fork that is too hard to maintain. Put the Christian-specific general info you wrote in Persecution of Christians, and put the general religious persecution (all religions) info in Religious persecution. Here's what I'd recommend for this article as a lead, IMHO:
Persecution of Christians in the post鈥揅old War era refers to persecution of Christians from 1989 to the present. Part of the global problem of religious persecution, persecution of Christians in this era took place in Africa, the America, Europe and Middle East.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Timtempleton: Okay, I get that. Thank you Tim. I hope we run into other again some time. You've been very helpful. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to remove the tag from the top of the article. I believe the lead's problems have been fixed. If there is no disagreement ov er the next week, I will do so. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Well, Elvis has now left the building. Fix it your way. If someone comes along and has an objection, you will defend it with a good source. It'll work out, I'm sure. So how about fixing that lead? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"<iframe src=" https://archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>"
https://archive.org/details/fontsencodings00hara_390#:~:text=%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A//archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20webkitallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20mozallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20allowfullscreen%3E%3C/iframe%3E 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 192.183.70.114 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persecution of Christians in the post鈥揅old War era article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 200聽days聽 |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Anti-Christian sentiment was split to Persecution of Christians on May 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment. |
Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36: I was going to discuss your recent removals of several entries. Then I noticed that you also have been reverted earlier after removing some of the same entries. That borders on WP:EDITWAR.
Regarding the sections for Bolivia and Cuba, you use the dead links as a reason for removal.
WP:DEADREF says Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working.
It took me just a couple of minutes to find other, non-dead sources.
Regarding the section for Zanzibar, you claim that the source is not reliable. That may or may not be true. It took me seconds to find other sources covering the same content. Before you dismiss a source, you should at least mark it with the template Template:Better source instead of removing.
Regarding the section for North Korea, you remove the section with the reason "no text". That section contains a link to the article
Human rights in North Korea as a main article. In that article it says According to the Christian Open Doors organization, North Korea is the leader among countries who persecute Christians
with a lot of sourced examples. Removal of the section (including removal of that "main article" link) is directly disruptive. If you cannot bother to expand the section yourself, the least you could do is mark it with the template
Template:Empty section.
Removal instead of trying to fix things seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please create consensus before removing them again. -- T*U ( talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I would rather tags were used, and material only deleted after a time. The exception to this (of course) is the addition of walls of unsourced text. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ TU-nor:It is not borderline Editwar. When I removed the content the first time and got reverted and the edit summary was "You need to stop this mass reversion of sourced material". So, I am doing it one by one. I have checked for better sources, but I found none that mentions persecution. So, if you have found a RS that examines persecution in Bolivia or elsewhere, (not just mentioning the term), you can re-insert the material yourself. There is plenty of material in this article that does not refers to persecution, but it is listed us such, by wikipedia users that conceive various incidences as "persecution" (which is a form of WP:ILIKEIT) Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
And now we have an edit war over this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The section about the UK report should not be in the lede, as it is not mentioned anywhere in the body. It should be moved (at the very least) to the body. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The article can be reached from . here. I am not very certain if an article of an Israeli embassador blaming the usual enemies of Israel is RS, but at least there is attribution. I feel it is an opinion article though and numbers have not been reviewed. Anyway, lets start from CLOP issues. Cinadon36 ( talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that white majority rules was accompanied by persecution of Christians, especially given the importance within the Afrikaner movement of the dutch reformed Church. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
46.193.76.98 ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The church supported the system of apartheid, which institutionalized separation and stratification of the people of South Africa according to race. The social segregation of Black, Coloured and White people was reflected in the establishment of churches of these three groups. In the 1980s the church was expelled from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches for its support of apartheid. In 1986 the church showed its repentance by preaching for all members of all racial groups to pray under, one umbrella, thus making South African history by welcoming Black people back in the church. In spite of the end of apartheid, racial divides still exists within the church.
DRC provided the national policies (especially apartheid) and many prominent government officials were members.
Those 3 refs are no RS quality. Cinadon 36 18:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
A lot of claims are being made here without citing any sources. Slatersteven please provide the RS for your claims. R3N13R ( talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we have an RS for the claim that "the white Christians persecuted black Christians". A very broad claim. As far as I know and it would be quite easy to prove, only some did. R3N13R ( talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I would remind users that a source has to say it was persecution because they were Christian, as with squatters above just doing something to Christians is not enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies if it wasn't you Slatersteven. Nevertheless, the claim is being made on this page and should be substantiated. I also have a question the context is "Modern era" what is the cutoff date, for the events discussed? And now we have a new claim without an RS "squatters above just doing something to Christians" Slatersteven RS for that please. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by R3N13R ( talk 鈥 contribs) 12:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Slatersteven. But when the state start raiding and shutting down churches, surely this is persecution? It may not be the most extreme form of persecution, but do we have the right to hide this from the world? My contribution from yesterday that you reverted: According to a report by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, in September 2019 ten churches were shut down, following a raid by the South African Police on about twenty churches in Johannesburg. The churches also had their sound equipment confiscated, for alleged non-compliance of city bylaws. [1] R3N13R ( talk) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Most prob the churches were illegal. Not a persecution. But we need RS to mame it a persecution.
Cinadon
36
06:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36 If a meeting by Christians or a church can be illegal in a country, that already speaks to a form of persecution, or at least a restriction on freedom of religion. The interpretation of what constitute persecution is subjective and is best left to the reader. I am pretty sure the members of the churches that were shut down, feel very much persecuted. As for the contribution, we only need to state the facts as it happened. R3N13R ( talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven your proposition about location or noise, is far fetched and may be valid for a single perhaps even two churches. Please read the RS, over twenty churches were raided. That is to put it mildly persecution, whether the RS use the word literally or not. If you insist that the word persecution must be in the RS, then we also need to remove the other contributions, for example Pakistan, I have checked the article, the word persecution do not appear in the article, once. Double standards being applied here? I will check how many other contributions beside Pakistan, require removal for not having the word persecution after your considered reply. R3N13R ( talk) 09:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Following your Suggestion, I will discontinue this discussion, for fear of persecution, well documented here talk. However, I put it to all future and current contributors - this page has become extremely biased, with spectacular claims. For example the claim above "in all cases those churches were in violation of noise abatement orders:", a biased, unfounded opinion that can not be found in the source. Please see for yourself. [1] 鈥擯receding undated comment added 09:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Slatersteven: Saw the revert and your reason for reverting says you are unsure it is true. Please check the sources referenced. I will leave it reverted if you can find a single source that actually tracks religious freedom and human rights that says Christians are not persecuted for their religion. Note it doesn't say they are the "most" persecuted or make claims about numbers, it just says they are, and everything I've read indicates there is universal agreement on that fact. I am also willing to rewrite it if you have another way you would prefer this be said. Please make a suggestion on what would make you more comfortable with this claim. I am happy to compromise and find some agreement between us. But I assure you it's a factual statement. There is consensus that Christians are persecuted for being Christian. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It might also be appropriate to include some combination of these since it has directly affected the ability to count and verify incidents of religious persecution:
I think we need more input in this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I came here in response to teh Teahouse posting. I think that Jenhawk777 is correct that in addition to summarizing the body of the article, a lead section can and generally should define the topic, indicate why it is notable, and introduce and link or concisely define key terms that are used in the article. Ideally the summery of the body will suffice to indicate why the topic is notable, adn may include introductions of the key terms, these functions need not be separated in the section as long as the writing is clear and the topic well introduced. However, I think that Slatersteven has a point about the current lead section. It seems overly long and detailed for the article to me. Also, the transition from the first sentence to the 2nd in the first paragraph seems very awkward. I would move the first sentence to a later point in the section, and let an edited version of the 2nd serve as the lead sentence. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Quotes (of which there are perhaps too many in the current lead section) must be directly attributed to their authors in the article prose, in addition to an inline citation. A cite alone is not enough. See WP:QUOTATION. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, please do not use the specifically newspaper term "lede" for the lead section of a Wikipedia article. A lede aims to draw the reder in and make a key poitn, it is quite different from a led section or lead sentence of a Wikipedia article, in my view. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment also a visitor from the help desk. Since this is a subset of Religious persecution, there's no need for this to recap info that should go there. The lead (thanks DESiegel) should be about this article, since otherwise you get a content fork that is too hard to maintain. Put the Christian-specific general info you wrote in Persecution of Christians, and put the general religious persecution (all religions) info in Religious persecution. Here's what I'd recommend for this article as a lead, IMHO:
Persecution of Christians in the post鈥揅old War era refers to persecution of Christians from 1989 to the present. Part of the global problem of religious persecution, persecution of Christians in this era took place in Africa, the America, Europe and Middle East.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Timtempleton: Okay, I get that. Thank you Tim. I hope we run into other again some time. You've been very helpful. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to remove the tag from the top of the article. I believe the lead's problems have been fixed. If there is no disagreement ov er the next week, I will do so. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Well, Elvis has now left the building. Fix it your way. If someone comes along and has an objection, you will defend it with a good source. It'll work out, I'm sure. So how about fixing that lead? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"<iframe src=" https://archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>"
https://archive.org/details/fontsencodings00hara_390#:~:text=%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A//archive.org/embed/fontsencodings00hara_390%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20webkitallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20mozallowfullscreen%3D%22true%22%20allowfullscreen%3E%3C/iframe%3E 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 192.183.70.114 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)