Talk:Persecution of Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


there is a lot going on in syria now. all proven and documented. shouldnt we include that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian rebels certainly have been involved in massacres and violence against Christians. You should certainly add something about that with a valid source. The Mummy (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Article is too long?[edit]

Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject.

I would agree that there should be a separate article for the historical context and one for the 20th Century contemporary era. This would make navigating the article more user friendly.

Nemogbr (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if a separate article solely for contemporary examples is necessarily appropriate because the article as it is already places too much undue weight on single incidents whose newsworthiness past a single day is questionable. If these were trimmed down, the article length might possibly decrease to a reasonable length without a split being required. Munci (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that the individual incidents are included, but there are advantages to having a contemporary article, as opposed to lumping it together with the whole history of the religion. I do not think the Roman era and the European Middle-ages are valid alongside the last couple of centuries.

It becomes too bulky. Nemogbr (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please split the article[edit]

Some time ago the article was tagged as being too long, and a year ago the proposition was made to split off the section on "Current situation (1989 to present)". Can we please proceed with this and convert the "Current situation.." section into "Contemporay persecution of Christians" or equivalent? Ekem (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Present" needs a definition. If that is "2010" fine. But precision is necessary. "Current" is too vague and changes with time. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Splitting off is a good idea. But the title is important. I find that using the words "Current" or "Contemporary" are just an excuse to delete less modern history (and these are abused). The title of the new article should be "Persecution of Christians by Country" which should be a list. Countries should have their own articles and linked back to the list according to the following examples: "Persecution of Christians in Egypt" and "Persecution of Christians in Turkey". These can be linked back to the list article which in turn is linked back to the Persecution of Christians article. In summary they could be nested like this:
Persecution of Christians
Persecution of Christians by Country
Persecution of Christians in Eqypt
Persecution of Christians in Pakistan
Persecution of Christians in Turkey  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought about using Freedom of Religion in SpecificCountry instead of Persecution of Christians in SpecificCountry, however, that excludes persecution that is not inclusive to Freedom of Religion (notably, discrimination is generally excluded, as is Freedom of Movement, and many other freedoms and rights.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we want an "outline" per se.
We need to split it off by section IMO. If editors are not happy with the current subsections, I think they should reorganize them here to their satisfaction. Then move them. In either event, this will still be the main article and a summary, however short, will remain along with a {{main|Persecution of Christians in X}}. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarity on split[edit]

I am removing the existing tags as stale as they are over a year old. It's not clear from the Split request tag, nor from the above discussions, what form of split is being proposed, nor if there is a clear consensus. The article is 78 kB readable prose size, which is at the recommended size for splitting, per WP:SIZESPLIT, though, by the nature of the topic, a large article size might be appropriate, so size alone may not be a justification. I note as I glance down the article, that there are already many sub-articles - Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Christians in the New Testament, Diocletianic Persecution, Anti-Catholicism, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, etc, etc, so again, it is not clear what extra form of splitting might be required. There has been a call for splitting off the modern section from the rest of the article, and if that is the consensus, then either that should be actioned, or a specific Split request tag placed on the article in the appropriate place, and a rationale given here for what is proposed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Is this source really reliable? It is written by the deputy secretary general of this organization. I'm sure the base material of its assertion is true, but I think the source has added a lot of POV and likely some exagerration as well.Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Christians and persecution[edit]

I believe the article could also do with a link about Christians persecuting non-Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, if anything, and equal opportunity reporter. See template at the end of the article "Religious persecution and religious discrimination." This covers everybody persecuting every other religion. Student7 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, Christianity and violence. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Persecution of people who just happen to be Christian doesn't count, particularly if they were clearly persecuted for an unrelated reason, such as race. I'm not sure that we should count persecution of Christians by Christians over internecine issues, either. That's more like Infighting among Christians. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Israel persecute Christians? Or significantly discriminate against them?[edit]

A Christian friend recently returned from Israel and told me that Israel persecutes Christians by severe discrimination against them including refusal to issue passports.

When I Google the words: Israel persecution of Christians I get a number of hits including from 60 minutes which has an episode on youtube: I haven't watched it but it seems it is a debate about whether the assertion is true of not.

Are Christians persecuted in Israel? Are they significantly discriminated against eg as I understand Korean descent people are in Japan?

Another website which seem to support that there is at least strong discrimination is at:

Should reference be made to this in this article? Even if there is "only" severe discrimination against them rather than persecution (or is that just a semantic difference)? dinghy (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your definition. Does discrimination include being the only Middle Eastern country where their population is growing? If so, I'd say yes.
Here's another tip - don't believe everything on YouTube or some website that anyone can publish. If you have reliable sources, bring it. --Jethro B 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do these articles always end up being lists/timelines?[edit]

Yes, per the heading, why? They are POV-magnets, they are usually almost impossible to read easily, their sources are often dubious both in reliability and in interpretation, they often attract warriors (there is one here, who has only recently edited the Pakistan section and has been deemed such at ANI), and the list element tends to overwhelm the more important issue such as "why does this happen" and "is the rationale behind it universal or differentiated"? - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that kind of format makes it easy to push POV with random crap.VolunteerMarek 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


The article, particularly the "Current" section, is a typical POV WP:COATRACK of Muslim bashing. It includes instances not of persecution of Christians but just acts of violence by non-Christians against Christians. "Persecution" implies state participation, or at least a pretty high level of organization (so the actions of Taliban, for example, may qualify, if presented properly). Additionally it is/was based on advocacy sources. I've cleaned up the worst instances, including all the stuff that was not from "1989 to present", but there's still a good bit of it left.

Putting the tag back in.VolunteerMarek 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't watched this article closely lately, have you tried at all to trim the scope creep from the article and met with resistance/disagreement? KillerChihuahua 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have, but there's so much of it that I simply don't have time to clean it all up. Hopefully I can do it bit by bit and when I'm done I'll happily remove the tag.VolunteerMarek 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Works for me, but try to not let the tag languish too long. I'll try to pitch in later when I have the bandwidth. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is also important to notice a persecution in many country without a state participation. When there is attacks against people because they are christians, I think we can speak of persecution, don't we?--Luc Ab. (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The corresponding article Islamophobic incidents lists numerous instances of non-state violence, and Religious persecution does not indicate that violence must be perpetrated by a state to be considered persecution. I'll check this article for overt anti-islamism, but scope-wise this is a non-problem. -- LWG talk 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that sourcing issues may also be present, and I will look into that as well. -- LWG talk 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Note #2: As no one here is actually disputing anything, the POV tag is not needed. I've replaced it with tags that reflect the actual issues with the article. -- LWG talk 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have just browsed the article, and checked more in-depth the subject I know better here: Spain, 2nd Republic and Civil War. I have to say what I read is an appalling disgrace, no trace is made of the events and just loose events and figures are cited with no tracking of the sequence of events that can help explain or shed some light on what the circumstances were. Additionally, the use of catch-all terms like Christian - non-Christian just may hide more complex circumstances, like Church officials at the service of big landowners (who had often seized lands belonging to the people back in the 18th, 19th century or early 20th century). Very sad article, I have to say the tag at the top is well justified until problems like this are addressed. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Persecution of Christians[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Persecution of Christians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kairos":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Source 14 and its application to the article.[edit]

Allowing one misinterpretation of a primary source to be used as a source itself in the article only continues the error. The context of Tertullian's statement re martyrdom nowhere indicates a suicidal pursuit of death. Rather, it reflects the gospel source, Luke's letter, that a Christian must take up his instrument of death willingly in order to follow Christ. To include a "quote" that Jesus was suicidal actually shows the author's own biased conclusion; it is found nowhere in any primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B027:FE6A:2568:CFC6:6DD1:A953 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Lloyd deMause' article is an essay, not a research paper, reflecting his own bias, and should not be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


I realize that this has been discussed before, but an editors' attempted remarks in the article, raises the question again. Mormons consider themselves Christians. No other Christian denomination agrees with that statement, however. For articles primarily about LDS, we let the statement stand and contradict it somewhere in the article. Here, where other denominations are included, I would appear that LDS should not be mentioned. It should be a separate article (which it is).

The alternative is to allow the material, then say that other Christians do not recognize LDS as Christians. Because this latter statement is very nearly off-WP:TOPIC and distracts from the main article, it probably shouldn't be in here. But it would have to be, if LDS is allowed. Student7 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that qualifying statement doesn't have to be included; the LDS Church is recognised as a form of Christianity within the academic religious studies field. Debates on the parameters, dimensions, and limits to that that relationship belongs on Mormonism and Christianity, not here. At most we could include a {{seealso|Mormonism and Christianity}} template below the existing {{Main|Anti-Mormonism}} template in the Anti-Mormonism section. Asterisk*Splat 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources are Rubbish? Edit War[edit]

I have tracked a user here who seems to have taken up to edit warring across numerous MEastern articles. Yet I see no discussion on the Talk page. If the sources are rubbish then here is what to do, cuz two editors object vs 1. Take it out and do a RS check. either way agree on the Talk page. WP:EDITWARRING I cannot stand people who have a track record of pushing only there arguments yet being very ill informed on how to use the WP:TALK and just throw random policy around regardless of if it makes sense. Per WIkipedia RS just having a source does not merit inclusion!!!!!!!!! Even if it is CNN--Inayity (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Israeli News is certainly not appearing to be a good source. Muslims in Judea and Samaria murder Christians, torture them and abduct their women with the connivance of the PA's secret police, an expert says. This is clearly not a NPOV source and its clearly a problem so the objection stands. Do a RS check if you have a problem.--Inayity (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with proper attribution, likewise international human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner from the Hebrew University. For example, take a look at Criticism of the Israeli government and you will see many attributed claims are sourced with propaganda websites like Counterpunch. In addition, as far as I'm concerned, there is no blanket ban on linking to Israel National News, just like there is no blanket on Al Jazeera (plenty used in Wikipedia). Feel free to take it to RSN if you want that changed. In any case, content is also supported by CBN News and Jonathan Schanzer from the Hudson Institute. Sources are not "rubbish" at all. If you must, try to balance the paragraph, change language, add a sourced counterargument in the article. Do something creative instead of deleting the work of others all the time.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So even when reverted by 3 editors you persist. Please report me and let me know when you do. I am not interested right now in Counterpunch, what I am interested in is a respect for Wikiepdia TALk PAGE and your habit of WP:EDITWARRING, right or wrong mean absolutely nothing when we start editing by violating the basic principles of Wikipedia. You always seem to be right, even when making no sense and having no one support you. Had I not seen your behavior across Wikipedia this incident would still need this revert. Because You MUst Stop! between the edit war not one editor (which includes the others) used the talk page. When you lose your power to bully edit, and violate wikipedia policy you also lose your voice. You seem to like making up stuff and throwing policy around but I have seen you have a poor understanding of editing with others. Yes you must balance the section, but that does not mean hostile sources should be added, people have objected respect that objection. Once reverted once, STOP--Inayity (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
yawn... I've used the talk page and addressed your objections against the given sources. Do you have anything to say about the points I just made above? If you don't, I'll restore the sourced content in 24 hours.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So you have just again proven you are only hear to edit war, Openingly admitting intention to edit war. to win by any means. As long as you are right. Let me clarify my objection. 3 editors object to your edits. The burden is on you to prove they are RS. And you still have to deal with Wiki pillars over everything you have written. You might be right, they might be right, but guess what the burden is on you. Use the RS tools to solicit the opinions of other editors and open up the debate. Work is included based on merit, not because advocates added it and source it. Good luck in 24 hours.--Inayity (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You are the only one making senseless edit-warring. Unlike you, I did made use of Wikipedia's policy, rules and pillars to explain my position. I already explained above why the given sources are reliable. Do you have anything to say about the points I made or you simply justify deleting content "because other editors (apparently) agree with me"? Guess what? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three editors may be wrong and one may be right. So far I haven't read a single argument to refute the points I made explaining why those sources are reliable and can be used, except for I don't like it... buaaa buaaa. Nothing stated above actually constitutes a counter-position to my explanation. Per Wikipedia standards it is not a counter-rationale to the points made. As long as nobody rejects my arguments with logical counter-arguments, I'll keep reinserting the content. Capiche?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Across your profile is nothing but edit war, that is how we meet. A discussion is going on and what do you do? You revert all the work to clean up the article by 3 editors. But you are right, everyone else must submit to what you agree. You read policy and ignore the pillars. The talk page is the place for discussion yet you go ahead and revert to what you like with your rationale while a discussion is in progress. Again, you are right, the discussion that went prior to you means nothing. So 2 editors vs 1 new editor, you are right we who editting for over a year are wrong. Keep it up. I been here for over 7 years. --Inayity (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I reverted Palestinian content[edit]

Starting with these first statement: The Palestinian Authority is encouraging a "sharp demographic shift" in Bethlehem, where the Christian population went from a 60 percent majority in 1990 to a 40 percent minority in 2000, to about 15 percent of the city's total population today. You see that thing I just put in BOLD? It is using Wikipedia voice and violating NPOV. It is taking sides with a disputed statement. So the Zionist voice is Wikipedia's voice. WP:NPOV issue.

The editor who is clearly politically motivated is accusing other editors of WP:IDONTLIKE but that also applies with even more force to you.
It is estimated that, for the past seven years, more than one thousand Christians have been emigrating from the Bethlehem area annually and that only 10,000 to 13,000 Christians remain in the city. -- So what, people been leave America for Israel what does it mean?-- it is posited there to SYNTH two different items.

And when something is written with this tone, then do not ask someone to respect it because you have two biased sources. Write in NPOV first. Because what are you here to do, make better articles or push politics? b/c a pattern is emerging and beware of WP:ADVOCACY. --Inayity (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since you have focused on writing arguments instead of spitting only ad-hominem attacks, I'll try to balance the paragraph, but I'm not willing to accept an entire blanking of a section supported by three different sources just because you think there isn't enough attribution for one sentence. I'm glad you don't object the fact that sources aren't "rubbish" per my first explanation (otherwise you would've addressed the points I made). Salam Aleikum--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Well Shalom to you since we are being friendly why dont you go ahead and re-write it. And when you are re-writing it please add some balance. That would cause less suspicion regarding your motives here. And since it is a controversial edit, why not consider using more NPOV sources, then you make the point without causing the aforementioned issue. --Inayity (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
How do you suggest we balance the paragraph? And please don't tell me "destroy it". As I explained you before, section is supported by three reliable sources (do you want to know why they are reliable? read my first comment on this talk page, don't make me "copy-past"), although there might be a lack of attribution in the first sentence (regarding statistics) as you mentioned. Are you willing to reach a compromise?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Let us start with balance and then get to the sources. Because if it is balanced or written without that horrible bias, the sources are less important. What caused the issue was imbalance. I am not in Palestine, so I want to know the truth, if one source makes an accusation surly there must be a response to that accusation. Is it True? I honestly would like to know. Have Human rights commented on it? Have neutral monitors discussed this issue. Had you used HRW I would never object.--Inayity (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what would you add or how would you rewrite the information? You mentioned the lack of attribution in the first sentence and I already told you I'll try to fix that. What else do you think is written in an imbalanced manner?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
We already agree with the first line, So go for it. and take it from there. You re-write it I will not delete it. Start by changing it from Wikipedia voices to "According to..." or something like that.--Inayity (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'd like this section had the same attribution and scrutiny, but let's go step-by-step.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that tone is fixed, I have tagged the section for balance, to warn contributing editors that the issue of balancing a sea of negativity is pending. I hope other editors will accept the inclusion and challenge it without deleting it, balance it where it is needed.--Inayity (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
U are correct, but I was dealing with a big headache and at least needed to get agreement that the tone of the section was 100% a reason why people would want to revert. I did mention before the sources were a problem.. --Inayity (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the Palestinian territories[edit]

In light of Roscelese's "appealing arguments" ("rubbish", "ludicrous nonsense"), I'll explain again why the cited sources are reliable in this case:

WP:RS depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with proper attribution, likewise international human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner from the Hebrew University. For example, take a look at Criticism of the Israeli government and you will see many attributed claims are sourced with propaganda websites like Counterpunch. In addition, as far as I'm concerned, there is no blanket ban on linking to Israel National News, just like there is no blanket on Al Jazeera (plenty used in Wikipedia). Feel free to take it to RSN if you want that changed. In any case, content is also supported by CBN News and Jonathan Schanzer from the Hudson Institute.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

INN, CBN, and Hudson are not reliable sources. You must find real sources. If you cannot source this to real sources, it suggests that it is not verifiable. (WP:VRoscelese (talkcontribs) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You didn't address any of the points above. I explained you why the sources are plenty reliable in this context. If you refuse to get the point and keep saying that INN, Justus Reid Weiner, CBN, and Hudson with proper attribution are unreliable (while keeping CounterPunch in this article or Electronic Intifada in this article doesn't seem to bother you) then stop wasting my time. You are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy, while maintaining a double standard.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Double Standard? You might be the last person on Wiki that should talk about that. It was a consensus on this page just between you and me, while everyone else was uninvolved. But on another page 3 editors vs 1 you, was NOT a consensus. Flexible policy. But I would just say that we must still dismiss legally why they are not RS. I am just saying this to be fair and not hypocrictical. If something is not an RS we must still appease the editor and explain to him/her WHY they are not RS in this instance while other biased ref are considered RS (like Electronic Intifada).--Inayity (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and indeed have a stated commitment to promoting a particular point of view that often overrides their commitment to facts. WP discussions are constantly finding these sources to be low-quality. If you feel that bad sources are used elsewhere, that's a reason to suggest removing them, not adding more bad sources! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You fail to understand the main point. Justus Reid Weiner is a major authority on this and the appearance of his testimony on a source you don't like (specifically an Israeli newspaper, much more reliable than EI by the way) does not invalidate him. All those three sources can be used, because they are properly attributed. INN, CBN News and Hudson ARE indeed acceptable sources, there's no blanket on them (if you disagree, take it to RSN). And even if they are not reliable to state facts, they can be used to reflect the attributed opinion of scholars and related people on the subject. Reliability depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with correct attribution. That's why the opinion of recognized intellectuals are present in many articles despite they are cited by propaganda websites like EI. This is not my opinion, it's core Wikipedia's policy. Ask any administrator.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If Weiner is an authority, he should be able to get his views published in a reliable source. Editors at RSN are pointing out constantly that these sources are inferior, and the "just attribute as though it's an opinion" backdoor is not sufficient for statements of fact that you should be able to verify. Can you or can you not verify these claims? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can verify them by two newspapers and a recognized institute. Can you show me the RSN link where INN, CBN News and Hudson are forbidden as sources? It would be easier for me to believe you if you showed the same motivation to remove clear unreliable sources like those I quoted before in Criticism of the Israeli government and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world#Opposition.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think those sources are bad, don't add other bad sources to "balance" them; instead, make a case for their removal. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you didn't understand what I wrote. You didn't make an effort. Unlike you, I'm not disrupting anything. I believe these sources are valid, at least with proper attribution, and I'll restore them as soon as I can, because you haven't given any solid argument. Look, there's no official blanket on the sources. That's a FACT. If you think this shouldn't be the case, I invite you to RSN. In the meantime, you are not entitled to censor them. I'd like to know the opinion of an impartial administrator.
By the way, what you are doing reminds me of a little story:
The principal of a European university complains to a teacher that his Jewish students cheat on the exams. When the teacher reminds him that Christian students do exactly the same thing, the principal answers: "Why do you keep changing the subject? We are talking about the Jewish students now!"--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of expressing an intent to continue your edit war and complaining nonsensically about being censored, you should try to persuade the rest of us that these sources, widely considered unacceptable because of their poor reputation and bias, should be used here. Your accusation of antisemitism is a ludicrous nonsequitur. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have to convince you. There's no blanket on these sources. If you disagree, go to RSN.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the burden might be on you for RS since you are meeting so many objections. What I would like to know is something so factual must be reported by sources with a less Zionist orientation. The level of hostility in some of those sources discredits them on the spot. And I think the editor is having trouble with one basic fundamental, Just because someone you like, or supports your POV has put something in print, DOES NOT merit inclusion in an article. Editors exercise their discretion.--Inayity (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Zionism is not the swearword that some mohammedans are trying to make it to be. A Zionist is someone who supports the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, aka State of Israel's right to exist. And that includes a lot of decent people, including scholars and serious academics. Second, INN and CBN are recognized digital newspapers, no less reliable than Al Jazeera or Maan News, two Arab news sites widely cited in Wikipedia. The Hudson Institute is an American think tank. Third, I thought you agreed to include the sources with proper attribution... don't you?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A lot of "decent people" supported slavery and the colonialism of Africa also. And the point stands, Pro-Zionism, like Pro-Aryan nation is race supremacy and that is my little violation of this talk page for the day. Last point, Zionism is used as a negative by many groups not only Muslims, namely Pan-Africanist. See Kwame Ture--Inayity (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Baatarsaikan, this is no place to make a point. I discussed the inclusion of Palestinian related information on Persecution of Muslims, not the right place for it. You were not participating on the debate, all of a sudden removed the whole section with no explanation or participation in the discussion. I did not oppose since that was my point (I did not check all the info removed by you though). However, your position comes across as WP:Point. I would not rely the sources you added in a second, they are second parties with a vested interest in discrediting an opposing faction (Hamas, Palestinians, etc.). Definitely no detail and sweeping statements like "talibanization", etc. make things all the worse. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)'
Per WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
Those sources are WP:RS, and as opinionated sources, they are given in-text attribution. None of the facts reported are inaccurate, although opinions of course are a matter of ... opinion. That's why the attribution.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I've protected the page for a week to stop the edit-warring. If you can come to an agreement before then, I'll unlock the article sooner than that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for not blocking anyone. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in Spain[edit]

This section needs a whole review, it is based on second party vested sources with a direct involvement (the pope of the Roman Church), one of the most intransigent, fanatical sides in the Spanish Civil War, anti-diversity, anti-democratic, hanging onto ideological monopoly at the prospect of losing it, actively participating in politics, siding with the cacique big landowners and committing the most horrific crimes, like snatching babies to their mothers on account of their alleged "mental disease" of communism, or liberalism, republicanism, to mention but a few. This section is a total disgrace, needs an in-depth revision. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How many martyrs?[edit]

The article says without source: "Over 20,000 Christians are thought to have died [...] depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000." But the main article Diocletianic_Persecution#Legacy says with source: 3000-3500 executed, maybe more. Gibbon says in "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" <2000 executed for their beliefs. (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Split persecution of specific denominations[edit]

Some of the latter describes persecution of some Christians by other Christians e.g. persecution of catholics and protestants during the reformation. However, I believe that this inappopriate material for this article, the Christians in this case not being persecuted for their Christianity but rather the specific denomination of Christianity. If there are no objections, I shall move all such material into separate articles such as Persecution of Catholics. Munci (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Planned Nazi persecution, Church of England[edit]

William Shirer got a Nazi document showing a plan to dismantle the Church of England upon the conquest of the United Kingdom, and in view of Nazi atrocities elsewhere, such plans would almost certainly have been carried out. Church of England clergy would have been decimated as the Nazis had done with the Catholic Church in Poland for revenge and for political reasons.

Of course this persecution never happened. Does an aborted or prevented persecution of Christians count as persecution? It would of course fit in "Nazi persecution of Christians" if acceptable by Wikipedia standards.Pbrower2a (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)