Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


New Title[edit]

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

I prefer the understated "Anti-Christian sentiment." Since it wasn't discussed, it probably could be reverted until a consensus for retitling it is reached. The overstated "Christianophobia" is a put-off, and not generally accepted by the public anyway. Also, Wikipolicy denigrates "and" titles. The problem is which topic is being discussed or is it simply a catchall that can be safely ignored by serious researchers. This new one gives that impression. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the term or meaning of Christophobia being discussed in the article but it should be renamed back to "Anti-Christian sentiment" which seems like a more appropriate and for the most part more inclusive name.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I also prefer "anti-Christian sentiment". "Christianophobia" is insider code language that is used only by a subset of fanatical far-right-wing Christians, often applied to things that have nothing to do with anti-Christian sentiment. The term is not normally used by scholars, by most Christians, or by the general public. The article should be moved back to the NPOV title. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I've moved it back. Please don't change the title without getting agreement, anybody.
The Islamaphobia bit that was virtually copied and pasted (thus a copyvio) has a reference, that's a major difference. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

United States[edit]

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

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

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

Somewhat pov[edit]

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

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

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

I think 'somewhat pov' is an understatement - the article seems very unsure of its subject matter. It needs to be made clear that not all anti-Christian sentiment is persecution or discrimination (in the same way that not all anti-atheism sentiment is persecution or discrimination). The picture of the burnt girl, for example, has no place in this article and would be much better placed in Christian persecution. I've removed the word 'also' from the lead as that implies that all anti-Christian sentiment equals discrimination, but in truth the whole sentence about discrimination is inappropriate Obscurasky (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Moved murder of archbishop to Persecution of Christians without editing, which it still needs IMO.
Will try to delete pic of burning, as well. (Already in Persecution of Christians article). Student7 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that same other article looks similar to this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Robespierre and Stalin[edit]

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

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

Arson, vandalism "sentiment"?[edit]

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

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

Defining what qualifies as 'sentiment' isn't easy and I think that, to a large extent, this is reflected in the article - which comes across as being very unsure of its subject matter. Clearly arson is a violent act, and according the the definition given in the lead, examples of arson should therefore be listed in Persecution of Christians. Obscurasky (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence defines Anti-Christian sentiment as "an opposition or objection to Christians, the Christian religion, or its practice". I accept that deciding what falls within this definition, or outside it, is not an exact science, but burning down churches clearly exceeds what can be reasonable described as the expression of Anti-Christian 'sentiment'. Including such acts here confuses the page and blurs the distinction between this page and the Persecution of Christians page. Obscurasky (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is a random act of arson is developed from anti-Christian sentiment; it's not a systematic persecution from one group towards the Christians as a whole. STSC (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Burining down churches is precisely an expression of anti-christian sentiment. The blowing up of churches with christians inside, on the other hand, belongs in Persecution of Christians. zzz (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Like I said it's not an exact science - on one level it could be argued that the Crusades were an expression of anti-Christian sentiment - so the real point is 'where do we draw the line'? Your argument seems to be that that examples of burning down churches should be included here, as long as no one is killed. If anyone was killed then presumably it should be included on the Persecution of Christians page?
My view is that, while I accept that there are some examples of arson that could reasonably be included here, burning down a whole church clearly falls outside the definition provided in the opening sentence.Obscurasky (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a view on where exactly to draw the line. But these church-burnings are, as I said, precisely expressions of ant-christian sentiment, and as such cannot possibly fall outside the scope. zzz (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Previous heading was actually better, church burning is 'anti sentiment', while killing or force conversions are persecutions. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The term sentiment is too vague and irrelevant when it comes to attacks and violence. This article should be renamed "Antichristianism"[1] or "Christianophobia"[2], on the model of Antisemitism or Islamophobia, not to be confused with Persecution of Jews or Persecution of Muslims. 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Something like this was done, originally, but the article well outgrew any reasonable boundaries, so it was broken in two. Sentiment here, violence elsewhere. Merging them defeats the original purpose. As editors, we need to make "bright lines." I think that is one of things we can do with some consensus, that is hopefully reflected in WP:RS. Or not. We don't want to wind up with two articles saying the same thing (again).
The flip side is that we don't want to "convict" people by tarring them unnecessarily with a possibly pov name. Just clear naming so editors understand what to put there and readers know what to expect. I think the "phobia" term has been met with indifference by reliable references. Using it seems to be "reaching" for pity. I think the facts speak for themselves and with a current (or similar) name we can have an article that anyone can contribute to without feeling that his/her views will not be respected regardless of their editorial neutrality, even if they hold an anti-Christian pov. IMO. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sentence one: citation needed[edit]

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

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

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

I'm getting a little more traction when I search for "Christophobia". Is it fair to consider the two terms equivalent? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As you probably know, the original definition was made when the article was split into two: this article and Violence against Christians. You are right to search out a citation, but it really was trying to distinguish between where material should be placed since everything was going into this article with no discrimination.
Christophobia might be equated, but we were deliberately trying to avoid that term since it is used "politically correctly" as Islamophobia in another context. The latter article name should be changed to avoid bias but won't be in the near term.
If the definition of Christophobia excludes violence, fine. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)