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.
 


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)

Problematic focus[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first one is problematical because it involves actual laws. The sentiment of these laws is Anti-Christian in "some" analysts opinion. The fact that those sentenced receive the death penalty, is perhaps beside the point for an actual law. It takes negative sentiment for these laws to be passed. The "violence" is legal IMO.
I agree with you about moving the last two, if you believe them to be properly cited, to the violence article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)