Talk:Persecution of Christians/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Persecution of Christians. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

United States

There needs to be a section about current persecution of Christians in the US. Not to mention Canada, the UK, and any number of European countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What, the persecution they started on everyone else in the country? --Coolguyatsarahshouse (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its asinine comments like Coolguy here that lead to the persecution of Christians here in the United States. Yes, there needs to be a section for persecution of Christians in the US. --Persecuted Christian

Really? I'd like to know where your are so I can perescute against you. If you truely believe that Christians are being pursecuted then you have to look at what is happening to people of Arabic descent and to Muslims. --Christian Persecuter

North Korea

I am asking because I don't know. Is Christian percicution in North Korea worse then in the Darfur area of Sudan?

Persecution in Israel

I suggest a removal of this section. It is of insufficient relevance. Sarcelles 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see it that way. But then, that's just my opinion. But then, that's also just your opinion. Any more in deapth reasoning? Thanatosimii 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't see reason to remove the section. Majoreditor 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the events listed in this section are about persecution on religious grounds. The Palestinian exodus is just that, an event related to national issues, while both controversies related to the archbishop, Boutros Mouallem, were on the grounds of him being affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Tewfik^Talk 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Many villagers were forced out, and it's well documented that they haven't been allowed to return to their land despite court rulings in their favor. You also haven't provided a shred of evidence that the airport delay was due to PLO affiliations. And even if it was, why was the Lutheran bishop held? And even if he were affiliated with the PLO, what about Bishop Chacour, who was clearly never affiliated with the PLO? For that matter, can you cite affiliations between Bishop Mouallem and the PLO?

You really want to purge this article of any mention of anti-Christian behavior by the State of Israel. Has it occured to you that's extreme POV-push? Majoreditor 04:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, there is no shred of evidence that those villagers were forced out because of their religion, nor is there any evidence that that is the case in any of the other listed events either, which are just bits of the wide Israeli-Palestinian conflict that involve Christians. The entry on Boutros Mouallem, which you edited, sources the assertion that the Israelis objected because of PLO involvement. Please don't assume bad faith. The section as it stands is totally original research though. Tewfik^Talk 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the villagers were Christians. They are clearly persecuted. The section is well referenced and clearly not originial research. Your removal of the section is clearly POV pushing to remove any

negative reference to the State of Israel. You will need to stop removing the section. Majoreditor 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ME, this article deals with persecutions directed against Christians. You will need to prove that the persecutions were directed against Christians specifically because they were of Christian faith. Getting onto a political soapbox and accusing your opponent to "remove any negative reference to the State of Israel" is really unhelpful. Namecalling can go both ways. let's try to avoid it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Several sources, including the Catholic Church, consider the removal of the villagers to be persecution of Christian populations. I also find it ironic that you're accusing me of getting on a political soapbox, given your controversal edit history.

In any case,we should all tone down the language and focus on expanding the section. There are several sides to teh issue. Why don't you consider presenting them in this article?

1) Walid Khalidi only proves Tewfik's and my point - this was a part of the AIC. 2) The Catholic Church has a long history when it comes to accusing Jews, therefore it is not a reliable source on the subject. 3) "Israel has denied residence status to Catholic clerics and has attempted to block the appointment of Catholic bishops." or October 2002 incident - what RS calls this "persecution"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that Wikipedia shouldn't present the viewpoints of the Catholic Church? Even when these viewpoints appear in published material? Humus, you may want to re-think your statement. There are numerous published sources which refer to suppression of the rights of Christian populations in Israel. Just to pick one: "Archbishop Raya prevented from offering liturgy by Israelis." Published 18 August 1973, Catholic News Service, reprinted in Lesna Sabada's book "Go to the Deep: The Life and Times of Archbishop Joseph Raya," (2006), page 124-125. I can present much other published research over the next week.

The Catholic Church has a POV. --Coolguyatsarahshouse (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Walid Khalidi's book or are you making an argument without first reading it? Majoreditor 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some additional articles on persecution in Israel:

"Persecution of Christians in Israel: The New Inquisition". Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 135-140. An example of an article which explicitly uses the term "Persecution" of Christians.

"Holy Land Christians blame Israel". Chicago Sun-Times, Jul 3, 2006 by Robert Novak. Retrieved June 2007. An article prepared by a prominent columnist and journalist.

State Department blasts Israel for anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. BY MATTHEW DORF, Jewish Telegraphic Agency. A 1997 report prepared by the U.S. Department of State describes death threats directed at Jehovah's Witnesses in Israel and a March 8, 1997 incident in which "a mob of over 250 haredim (ultra-conservative Orthodox Jews)" attacked a meeting hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Lod, "broke into the building, destroyed the interior, and burned religious literature, books and furnishings." The report says the State Department had "expected active prosecution" of the perpetrators, rather than the warning that they received. Do you have an issue with using the Jewish Telegraphic Agency as a source?

"Christians are what’s missing in the Holy Land". BY GILLIAN KANTOR. Catholic Register Special. Thursday, April 26, 2007. This article discusses what it describes as "prevailing prejudice" by Israel and Israelis against Christians.

I suggest that you add different perspectives to the section rather than attempt to delete it. Majoreditor 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section should not have been deleted. It was, indeed, well sourced, and Majoreditor has now provided additional sources, including U.S. State Department (not known for being critical of Israeli policies), and a prominent newspaper. It seems rather odd to point to the Israeli position on this to justify removing the section. It is hardly surprising that there would be official denial of religious persection. I doubt any government would acknowledge any Christian persecution, particularly at the time it is taking place. And to discount any official Catholic position on the issue is even more incredible. Should the views of the persecuted party be considered less than the justification of the alleged persecutor? By that reasoning, there's nothing bad going on in Darfur either. It may not be a comfortable topic for some, but if we start editing articles to make them politically correct, or to avoid offending the sensibilities of some, it stops being a reliable encyclopedic tool. --Anietor 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also suggest that there are instances of Muslim persecution of Christians both in Israel and in the West Bank. That's a topic which should be addressed in this article. Does anyone wish to have a go at it? Majoreditor 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about offending people, its about recasting the Palestinian exodus as an anti-Christian event, without any reliable sources. Its about recasting the Arab-Israeli conflict as an anti-Christian event, without any reliable sources. The closest thing to a religion-based event presented was the Jehovah's Witnesses mob, but even that only arguably deserves a section compared to the other entries discussing the burning of churches, murder of priests, murder of Christians, rape of nuns, and legislation forbidding the practice of Christianity, none of which are alleged in this case. Least of all by the sources above:

I've read parts of Khalidi, and I've not seen any allegation of religious persecution. Perhaps you could quote that passage or cite its page number?
I don't have access to the Catholic News Service piece on Archbishop Raya, but his entry makes no mention of the event, but does describe his controversial involvement with issues relating to the Palestinian exodus.
Despite the sensationalist title, AFAICT the Journal of Palestine Studies discusses a 1978 editorial which in turn discusses an organisation that documented missionary activity.
The Robert Novak editorial also makes no such claim, instead denying that there is any persecution in Palestinian society and castigating the Israeli West Bank barrier.
The full extent of the Catholic Register Special's allegation is: “His father is in the Jewish diplomatic corps,” Doyle said. “The young man converted to Catholicism and his father stopped talking to him.” He went added that the young man’s sister, who works in the Israeli secret service, was denied a promotion because of her brother’s actions. Facing this prevailing prejudice against them, many Christians are packing up and leaving. That is all the article dedicates to the supposed persecution.

No reliable sources alleging persecution have yet been presented, and certainly not if the definition of persecution is the same used in relation to every other country in this entry. One would think that such a major event would have massive coverage; the lack of such coverage usually is an indication that maybe we should alter what we believe. Tewfik^Talk 05:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "recast the Palestinian exodus." You seem to be evaluating this section in a much broader context than as written, and perhaps you're taking it personally for some reason...But there are several reliable resources cited, including U.S. State Dept. publications and reputable papers. It appears, Tewfik, that you have modified your argument to pointing out that there aren't any nuns being raped, so it's not as bad as other persecutions in the article. True, but not the point. If you feel so strongly a need to defend, perhaps you can find a way to insert some counterpoints in the article. But deleting the entire section is not appropriate. --Anietor 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My claim has been and continues to be that the bulk of the material has no source (or even allegation) of being due to religious persecution. No one claims that those Palestinian villages were depopulated because they were Christian (as opposed to other Palestinian villages), and similar claims are likewise missing regarding the rest of the passage. The only part which may be relevant [and the only part mentioned by the US State Dept. or anyone else as religion-based] is the Jehovah's Witnesses passage. The comment about rape and murder was meant to highlight that constructing a unique section for that one mild allegation, compared to the much harsher criteria apparently in play for other sections, lends undue weight to the claim, thus compromising NPOV, OR issues aside. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that the Jehovah's Witnesses event is more severe than the persecution in North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, which only warrant the briefest mention under Recent Christian persecution in other countries. Tewfik^Talk 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you admit that your most recent edit removed valid material. Your are still attempting to remove all references to Israel in this article, no matter how well sourced.

However, I see a way we can reach concensus. Why not add material to the article to make your point? Mass deletion of a section is a weak aproach; rather, feel free to add to the section. There are numerous references you'll find which show that Christians are better treated in Israel than, say, Vietnam. Majoreditor 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove valid material, I merely pointed out that only the last section is even remotely related to religion. It still is not 'persecution', and labelling it as such lends undue weight to a claim unsupported by sources. I have addressed all of the sources presented, so I would appreciate if editors might stop restoring this unsourced material. Tewfik^Talk 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there has been a reasonable compromise suggested by one of the editors, but you don't seem to be interested in it. You should realize, Tewfik, that your personal views on the weight of the section or the relative severity of the persecution does not warrant your wholesale deletion of it. Several editors have inserted sources, offered compromises, etc., but you continue to take a rather slash-and-burn approach. Please try and work with the editors on this article. Try and add to it to address your concerns and let's see how that works. We need to find a middle ground. Your continued deletion of the entire section, while editors are trying to address your concerns, is not helpful, and borders on vandalism. Just try the suggestion offered above and let's see how it works. --Anietor 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Tewfik's objections are very valid. This section violates WP:SYN badly, and also makes OR claims that the government's intervention in the selection of certain bishops is to be considered as persecution of all Christians. As written, this section is biased and inaccurate: it strings together some things that happened to Christians and then makes the claim that it happened because they were Christian. I do believe the info about the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have also heard news stories of persecution against Israeli Jews that converted to evangelical Christian faiths. You could recast the section to focus on those two things if you really want a section on Israel in the article. nadav (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so; if a Christian in Israel is sent to jail, does that suddenly become "persecution of Christians"? Next they'll be adding Mordechai Vanunu to the section, because he converted to Christianity, as if that were the reason he was jailed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The claims are hardly OR. They are properly referenced. It is a point of fact, for example, that Archbishop Raya was prevented from celebrating liturgy. It's a point of fact that villages with exclusively Christian populations were removed and later destroyed by a non Christian force. I've shown on the above talk page a reference to an article that discussing persecution of Christians in Israel.

The section does not claim that all Christians in Israel are persecuted, only that there have been specific actions directed at certain Christians. The material is well-referenced.

Anietor has offered a sensible path toward reaching concensus. Please, work with us to improve the section rather than to delete everything in it. Majoreditor 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these things happened, but whether it constitutes Persecution of Christians because they are Christians. This has been repeated a number of times. And the argument that they were persecuted because they are Christian has not been "properly referenced". Please address this issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I'm a bit surprised you deleted the State Department report cited by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Do you have an issue with that? I think there's concensus on that particular point. Please restore it. Majoreditor 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not consensus on that point. I said that was the only part that related to religion, but I still don't think it constitutes religious persecution. I am surprised that editors continue to reinsert the other material which doesn't even have a minimal assertion of religious persecution. Tewfik^Talk 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Majoreditor, I'm a bit surprised that you inserted material for which you believe there is a "consensus" alongside all the other obvious original research. Wouldn't it make more sense to insert only material which is non-contentious and which in particular does not violate the original research policy? Please get agreement on which material is appropriate for the section before inserting it again. Regarding the specific section, I'd be interested in seeing the State Department original. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The original report is at [1]. For context, the last report (2006) is at [2]. It lists no special discrimination by the government against Christians. nadav (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus on DELETING the entire section. The couple of editors that keep deleting it also continue to concede that some of the material is relevant. This throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach is a rather lazy way to deal with disagreements on certain points. For instance, one of the citations is a U.S. State Dept. report. Apparently an editor wants to see the original...so he decided to delete the entire section first? That is not appropriate. Having seen numerous edits by Majoreditor, I am quite confident that s/he did not invent the report. If you want to see the original, ask if there's an online cite, or go verify it yourself. But assume good faith, particularly with an editor who has a history of dedicated and thorough research and edits. And let's also be realistic about sources...it is not likely that there will be an official Israeli (or Pakistani, or Chinese) government policy paper on persecution of anybody. It's not like verifying Israeli employment statistics, or Italian gross domestic product. But the bottom line here is that there are ways to address the issues being raised without wholesale removal of the section. Refusal to even try and reach some consensus shows a lack of good faith on the part of those critical of the section. --Anietor 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards; there's no consensus in inserting it in the first place, and no-one has conceded that anything is relevant. The U.S. State dept. material is one sentence, it doesn't label this non-governmental event as "persecution", it criticizes the Israeli government not for doing the act, but for not following up quickly enough, but praises them for saying they would take action. Inserting an entire section of original research when at best it has one dubious sentence that is worth discussing is unreasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg here. If anything, the Israeli government is more supportive of Christianity than the US, since it gives money directly to Christian groups. Anyway, persecution is an extremely powerful word, and no evidence whatsoever has been brought forward of persecution of Christians for being Christian. nadav (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, the other material isn't original research. I'm also happy to drop by my local research library tomorrow to pick up additional material. You'll have to remember, this section is about issues in Israel, whether comminted by the Israeli government or by others.

At this point, however, I sense that a few editors are completely against including the section, no matter how it is sourced or presented. Guys, try to be open minded here. What we are saying is simply that there are some actions committed against Christians in Israel. I'm agreeable to presenting the facts in context-- that is, the scope and scale of problems is mild compared to neighboring countries. Why not try to present a balanced, well-sourced section? Majoreditor 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I just thought the section as currently written is unacceptable. Once something more accurate is drafted, then I will have no problem with it. nadav (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent State dept report I linked to above discusses the incidents of harassment of proselytizing and Messianic Jewish groups by ultra-orthodox Jewish groups that I mentioned. Also, there was one incident of graves in a Christian cometary being defaced with "Death to Arabs" and "Death to Gentiles". And there was a riot by members of the Druze community against Christians because of a rumor about pictures on the internet. The rest of the stuff there is more connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not about persecution of Christians. nadav (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nadav. This is helpful. I will work it into the article tomorrow.

It may be worthwhile to expand the section to include both Israel and the West Bank, and to include violence and intimidation by Muslims and Druze directed at Christians. As I understand, the situation is worse in the West Bank than in Israel, particularly due to Muslim harrassment.

Does anyone else have suggestions on what to include? I'll make a library run tomorrow -- any special requests? Jay, any thoughts?Majoreditor 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but please make sure the sources are all talking about "Persecution of Christians". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. From what I understand, relations are quite strained in some places between the Muslim and Christian communities. nadav (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but while strained relations or harassment from private citizens exists is not disputed, who calls that "persecution"? Other cases on this entry discuss murder, rape, church-burnings, and government policies and legislation that specifically deny the right to practice religion. To repeat Jayjg's point, the criticism in the US State Dept.'s report was for lax prosecution of those private citizens, and was actually balanced with a compliment for the Israeli pledge to follow up. To create an entry on persecution on the basis of that mild, if unpleasant, type of occurrence, is to produce an original statement here on WP. Attempting balance when there is no parity creates a false picture. That countries with far worse records than Israel (listed as 'free' in the Freedom House Freedom in the World survey) are given a mere mention in Recent Christian persecution in other countries highlights the further problem of lending undue weight that would exist in any section. Tewfik^Talk 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see three options for a compromise then: 1) Use a weaker heading for the section, eg "acts against Christians" 2) Expand the coverage of the far worse countries and only afterwards add a shorter Israel section 3) put any new content in Religion in Israel#Religious tensions and link to it in the "see also" section. nadav (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What definition are you using for persecution? It doesn't require extreme oppression by the state. It can, indeed, include harassment by non-state actors. In fact, American Heritage Dictionary includes "to annoy persistently; harass". Other sections of the article may deal with murder and rape, but that doesn't mean that anything that falls below that level doesn't fall within the parameters of this article. We all understand Tewfik's point about balance. That can be addressed in the way the section is written. Kudos to nadav& Majoreditor for trying to find some common ground here. --Anietor 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anietor and Nadav1. I'm agreeable to using the term "Acts Against Christians..." rather than "Persecution of Christians..." in the section head. Majoreditor 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot change the purview of this article for one specific section. The topic is "persecution of Christians", so it better be about "persecution of Christians", based on reliable sources that talk about "persecution of Christians". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire discussion thread but I think the issue is that we are trying to pack too much "message" into too few words. The problem is not really resolved just by changing the title of the section to "Acts against Christians".

First of all, if the section is about "acts against Christians", why is it placed in an article titled "Persecution of Christians"? At the very least, there would need to be an explanation to the reader what distinction is being drawn between "acts against Christians" and "persecution of Christians".

Even if you did that, we would have to ask why these "acts against Christians" which are not the same as "persecution of Christians" are in an article about "persecution of Christians". And, if these acts are discussed in this article, why aren't other "acts against Christians" also discussed here. In fact, why not just call the article Acts against Christians and include all such acts?

If we do not expand the scope and adjust the title accordingly, we must then have some justification for including these acts against Christians in Israel and not others. What is this justification?

The only one that I can think of is that there os a dispute as to whether the motiviation behind these acts is religous persecution or secular. If some people argue that it is "persecution of Christians" for religious reasons and other contend that they are simply "acts against people who happen to be Christians", then this dispute should be document in the text or as a footnote.

All of this with citations to reliable sources, of course. Otherwise, this whole dispute is just OR.

--Richard 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard has very accurately articulated what the main problem is. Now I'm not sure that anyone calls these events persecution, but if someone could show that there was a mainstream debate we might have grounds for such a section. Tewfik^Talk 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am half expecting the following sentence to be put into the article: "Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli citizen, converted to Christianity in 1986, and was subsequently abducted by Israel, put on trial, and sentenced to prison, where he was incarcerated for 19 years". Can those promoting this section, particularly Anietor, explain why or why not this would be a legitimate addition? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether the small number of incidents above are indicative of some general pattern of anti-Christian behavior in Israel. If that were really the case, there could perhaps be a short section a la Persecution of Muslims#Persecution of Muslims in the United States or Persecution of Muslims#Persecution of Muslims in Europe. My opinion is that it is not and that in general Christians are mostly respected in Israel (and of course everyone is aware of the close relations between Israel and the Christian right). I agree that Richard's approach is the best solution regarding this page. In the mean time, specific incidents can bedescribed Religion in Israel until sources on the general issue are found. nadav (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I reorganised existing information and slightly added at this section, though it is in need of serious refining and expansion. Tewfik^Talk 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors have above listed articles specifically dealing with the persecution of Chrisitans in Israel (e.g. Persecution of Christians in Israel: The New Inquisition). These sources seem reliable as well. It is not OR if the conclusion is made by reliable sources instead of wikipedians.Bless sins 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the material you were blindly reverting in was sourced to Persecution of Christians in Israel: The New Inquisition. Please pay attention to the Talk: page, rather than editing by blind-revert. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the feedback. I am review material I have collected at the library and assorted databases It will take me several days to work through it. Majoreditor 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep us informed - perhaps we might be able to lend a hand. Tewfik^Talk 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New Testament-based passages

The same long passages about Christian victims at the hands of wicked Jews - based on nothing but NT - get copied from one article to another. Since no reliable source confirms NT stories, they rather belong in Antisemitism. BTW, note that Antisemitism appropriately doesn't mention the story of Purim for this exact reason. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue of original research, using primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Persecution of the early Christians...

I understand the point that the only documentation that we have of persecution of early Christians by the Jews comes from the New Testament and that these allegations could be considered to be anti-Semitism rather than historical fact.

However, I believe that it is better to present the fact that these persecutions have been and still are considered by many Christians to be historical fact and then to present sources that challenge this view.

I would argue that the material that was deleted by User:Humus sapiens should be re-worked to present a more balanced view (i.e. to present the "facts" recorded in the NT as one perspective) rather than to delete it entirely.

I reallii think it is appropriate to point out to the reader that these allegations of persecution were the putative reason for anti-Semitism in later centuries.

--Richard 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Persecution of Christians#New Testament-based passages. Those antisemitic allegations have a long and sad history, so I suggest we should be doubly careful around those. You wnated to rework them but all you've done is blind revert. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Peace. I think we actually agree in principle but are quibbling over the steps needed to fix the problem. I will accede to the deletion of the passages in question until someone puts them in the appropriate context. I will try to address the NPOV issue regarding "persecution by the Jews" when I have time. It's a bit of a task and so it may take me a couple days to get to it. If anyone else wants to take it on, be my guest.

--Richard 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it difficult to treat both Persecution of early Christians by the Romans and Persecution of early Christians by the Jews in the same article so I am embarked on the task of creating both as subsidiary articles of Persecution of the early Christians. Please review Persecution of early Christians by the Jews and give me some feedback on whether the intro does an adequate job of putting the discussion of the New Testament scriptures into context.

I suspect that there will be significant complaints by Christians about the stance that the Persecution of early Christians by the Jews article takes. In essence, it's saying that the persecution didn't happen. I think we will have to work more on the intro to move it back to a more NPOV stance. I suspect that the issue is not whether or not the Jews persecuted the Christians but rather how much they persecuted the Christians. In essence, did later Christians (e.g. the Christian fathers) exaggerate the amount of persecution that the 1st century Christians actually experienced in order to gain polemical advantage?

--Richard 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg raises a valid point on using secondary sources. However, I am disturbed by the wholesale chopping that Humus has done here and his attempt to censor this article. I'm on vacation at present but will address this matter further upon my return. Richard, thanks for your observations. Majoreditor 03:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." Also, since it's been copied elsewhere, WP:SUMMARY applies here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK but I believe the overwhelming consensus in Biblical scholarship is that the NT is documenting historical fact. What evidence is there that the emerging criticism of the NT account is a mainstream view among historians or Biblical scholars?

I admit that this is a difficult problem in sourcing.

There are plenty of sources that assert that Jews persecuted the early Christians (most of them Christian sources, of course). There are at least a handful of sources, already provided in the article, thaqt assert that the Christian perception overstates the actual case. Which position is the mainstream view and which is the minority view?

In this situation, it is not sufficient to quote a single source or even a handful of sources attesting to "X" or "not X". What we need is a source that says "X is the mainstream view" or "X is a minority view".

--Richard 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am beginning a process of posting non-primary sources to Persecution of early Christians by the Jews to be considered there; I would assume there would be overlap between that conversation and this. Pastordavid 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Two sources that I have posted to Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews explicitly refer to the events of ca. 30-60 as "persecution." Both are "mainstream" scholarship. One is from Williston Walker (not his early 20th century version, but as revised by late 20th century scholars, including Richard Norris and others connected with Union Seminary, New York); the other is from Everett Ferguson. Pastordavid 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman's edits

Bakaman is being his usual self with this transparently dishonest edit summary "rm per WP:LIBEL, no relationship between dara singh and BJP. rm paulcruft)". He has obviously not even read his own footnote, which he falsely claimed stated that Singh had no connection to any Hindu group - even though he footnoted the same source twice! The source is from hinduonnett, so it's hardly biassed against Hindus. It states "there was no evidence to suggest that any of the persons involved in the crime was a member of either the Bajrang Dal or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or any organisation, even though there was evidence to show that Dara Singh and his associates were active sympathisers of the two organisations."[3] So perhaps Bakaman wishes to accuse The Hindu of libelling Hindus. Paul B 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No sources connect him to the BJP/RSS at the time of these killings. The chargesheet only contains Dara Singh, Hembram and 11 accomplices, making no mention of any political party. Per WP:LIBEL it is entirely ok for me to edit this page a 100 times a day to remove false allegations that the BJP was behind this when the closest allegation is some person hoping that "the CBI the CBI probing his possible links with the Bajrang Dal and other organisations". The case rests entirely on the commissions findings, not on the opinions of an editor of frontline magazine. Paul seems to be here to make some noise and engage in libel and slander while propagating speculation.Baka man 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no allegation that the BJP was behind the murder. If a supporter of George Bush attempts to murder Michael Moore that does mean that Bush is 'behind the murder', in the sense that he planned it. It just means that political ideology was a motive for the crime. Not to mention that would be wholly unencyclopedic. The version I wrote repeated the exact words of the report - that they were sympathisers. I also included the exact argument of article which claimed that feuding and crime was a more important explanation than religion. Paul B 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The snide accusations of lying are laughable, especially considering I am too much of a nitwit according to our crusader for truth. The Hindu refers to Hindustan, not Hinduism. Its a mistake made by many pseudo-intellectual users and anti-Hindu trolls. The court case noted that Dara Singh and 11 others carried out the attack, nothing else. The source you keep putting forward as the holy grail dates to 2003, while mine dates to 2005. Wikipedia does not report on archaic allegations and outdated speculation. The report on the court case, supersedes all "Evidence" you have provided, taken from the Hindu, which (again) is not sympathetic to Hinduism or Hindutva in any way.Baka man 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman, the accusations derive from the evidence. You make patently false statements designed to distort facts in order to push a POV. The source I supposedly put forward was your own footnote. And it's not the opinion of the Frontline author. It's their summary of the findings of the commission. It only miraculously becomes speculation and outdated when you realise it doesn't actually support the POV you put it there to push. Paul B 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This gets sillier by the minute. Your new 2005 report says nothing whatever about motivation. It's purely about legal technicalities concerning the applicability of the death penalty. Paul B 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had reverted to an earlier version dating to March. The author wrote the piece when? In 2003. The source I provided on his sentence dates to when? 2005. Paul you have done nothing constructive on this page, and have the audacity to engage in name-calling and religious bigotry. The frontline is highly opinionated, here are some examples taken verbatim (And some totally invalidate your assertions):

“

However, some of the observations of the court on the motive of the crime are disappointing....there was no evidence to suggest that any of the persons involved in the crime was a member of either the Bajrang Dal or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or any organisation...But there has been no attempt to distance the Bajrang Dal from the misguided propaganda against conversion by missionaries

”

frontline.

There seems to be no issue here. Singh is not connected as evidenced by the frontline link, and every other reliable source, allegations of lies through Paul Barlow are false, and this article is seemingly a troll magnet, where libel against other religions is apparently justified. The only silly thing here is you; I'll invoke Hanlon's_razor here.Baka man 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More utterly jaw-dropping disingenuosness. Notice the dot dot dots in Bakaman's edit summary. The full quotation - which anyone can read - incudes the pasage I quoted earlier. And note that this supposedly biassed report was his footnote. I simply checked what his footnote actually said and then edited the text accordingly. The edit Baka wants to introduce is highly distorted. Noone disputes that it was a small group led by Singh. That does not contradict the claim that they were extremists and I included the alternative explantion offered in the other reference - even extending it to the rapes. Paul B 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The dots are merely separating sentences taken verbatim. Our resident anti-Hindu troll has nothing on this point. There is no link to the BJP, as Paul wishes to introduce some lunatic leftist conspiracy theory suggesting this. We don't live in the 1800's, the White Man's Burden need not be present anymore.Baka man 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They are isolating sentences to distort the passage. The "lunatic leftist conspiracy theory" was in the report from Frontline, which you had put there as evidence! Callinh me anti-Hindu is as ridiculous as the fact that you call The Hindu anti-Hindu. It's on a par with all extremism, along with Bin Laden's assertion that the government of Saudi Arabia is anti-Islamic, and that George Bush is anti-Christian. Paul B 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I reverted to an earlier version. I had not read the frontline report before you started our little charade (con Hornplease) on this page. I did read the page afterwards and noted no links were found between Singh and the BJP. I never accused the Hindu of being anti-Hindu, merely they are a New York Times of India, with an obvious sympathy for leftist politics and no relationship with Hinduism (in case you didnt know that and are acting out of a mix of ignorance and malevolence). Any educated reader of Indian news knows that. Since you have nothing substantive to say anymore besides vague references to Saudi Arabia, Osama, and the "leader of the free world". I will take your edits with the same logic: Blanketed in ignorance, not substantive.Baka man 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are just talking gibberish now. The story stated clearly that Singh and chums were sympathisers with the BJP. That indicated their political views. Your version is totally dishonest, since all reports are clear that te killings were religiously motivated. It's not difficult to create an NPOV version of the story, but you don't seem to be interested in that. You seem to want to pretend that the murders were committed by some bloke and a "small group" for no apparent reason at all. I don't see any Christian editors or Islamic editors trying to do what you do - pretend that no presecution at all from their religion has ever occurred. By the way, I am so "anti Hindu" I have a statuette of Shiva Nataraja on my computer as I write. Paul B 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What people may/may not have in their houses is irrelevant. Singh is merely a minor jingoist, not affiliated to the big guns. If it can be written in an NPOV way, you seem to be a rather unqualified candidate for the job. The fact that you bring in personal "credentials" (or lack of them), to prove your "neutrality" with an unprovable assertion (I'm not visiting you anytime soon) screams incompetence. No source can prove Dara Singh was connected to the major Hindu political players. There are thousands of murders committed in India, and many angry jingoists ready to exploit intertribal conflicts for their own gain. A funny coincidence is that another estemed user made the same mistake on The Hindu's affiliations as you.Baka man 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I made no mistake about The Hindu. I am perfectly aware that it is a broadly liberal publication, and I alway have been. My point was that describing The Hindu as anti-Hindu is an absurdity of the kind that only extremists engage in - comparable to Bin Laden thinking the Saudi Arabia is anti-Islamic. You are just shouting meaningless insults now, and you repeatedly miss the point. No one is saying or has ever said on this page that Singh was "connected to the major Hindu political players." I have explained this point as clearly as I can already. The example I gave was if a supporter of George Bush killed a prominent opponent of Bush. That would not implicate Bush or any "major Republican political players" in the murder, but it would indicate that the killer's motive was political. The issue here is Singh's motive. I have included the evidence given in the sources - both the mainstream view that he was motivated by religious extremism and the alternate view that factional feuding was more important. My edit even emphasised that the other crimes - such as rapes - may have had no religious motivation. Paul B 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You made no point. Unless pointed attacks spouting from ignorance are suddenly valid arguments, I find no trace of intelligent argument in any of your rants above. Thanks to the indian embassy source, you turned the tables on your own argument.Baka man 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset ) You have not replied to the point I made in the last post. What "Indian embassy source"? Paul B 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fundie christians have hijacked this thread. The selective approach can be gauged from the fact that the rebels of the Baptist church in Tripura abducted and assassinated four senior RSS preachers in 1999 and yet it finds no mention in this obvious fraudulent one sided writing by the children of the inquisitors. http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/185268-4-rss-men-killed-baptist-church-instigated-terrorists.html

The Wadhwa commission report not only exonerated the RSS and the Sangh for any involvement in the incident but concluded that the conversion activities were deeply resented by the tribals, since after conversion the new Christians did not participate in village festivals, and adopted anti tribal customary practices. Staines and his wives dispatches made no inhibition of the fact that their primary motive was conversion which is banned in several states of India including Orissa. Witness 35, Binod Kishore Das a doctor who worked at the leprosy centre testified that Staines had a great hatred for other religions. Gladys Staines contradicted that Staines hated other religions but admitted that he would not take prasad [consecrated food] because it went against the Bible. Consider this dispatch of Staines and his wife on 19 May, 1998 “....We have been told that a militant Hindu group plans to concentrate on Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar districts to turn Christians back to Hinduism...." In a word: conversions were taking place; this had caused tensions; so much so that a Hindu group had decided to try and get them back into Hinduism. They also turn a blind eye to the fact that Dara Singh enjoyed a demi-god personality in the tribal area. Could Dara Singh a fanatical murderer be deified by the tribals unless his agenda appealed to them? http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990920/cover.html

To what extent the international media will go on to disown the nefarious activities of their own Christian brothers can be gauged from the fact that reports of the Baptist church terror involvement in India’s north east go absolutely unheeded. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/899422.stm.

John Joseph, the Christian member of the minorities commission let out the bombshell that atrocities against Christians in north India were "isolated incidents." and that the Sangh Parivar groups could not be held responsible for these attacks their was a stentorian outburst of anger and demand for his sacking by Church leaders especially John Dayal who feared their annual international subscriptions might just take a beating. He also admitted that Christian militancy existed just like Hindu and Christian militancy http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jul/15inter.htm

Regards, Saurav Basu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.124.232 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, please use care when editing this article. Your last edit removed several images, wikilinks and other items. I believe the removal was unintentional. Majoreditor 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was because he doesn't care at all about the quality of the article - only about pushing his POV. Paul B 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And our defender of wikipedia cares so much as to respect WP:NPA and WP:RS ?Baka man 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, your most recent edit created a section devoid of text except for an incomplete in-line cite. I have reverted your edit. Please use care when editing to ensure that the text has no textual issues. Thanks. Majoreditor 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I c+p'd that sections in from another version, noting that Paul had no substantive rebuttals. It was hardly a "section devoid of text". Ir was an extra heading with a chopped off piece of an extraneous reference. The curious thing is that you seem to revert everything, probably in relation to one edit I made regarding spurious allegations of persecution by Israel/Jews.Baka man 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see your previous edit. See the problem? There were two duplicate section headings, and one was devoid of text -- except for a half-complete reference. It was sloppy and needed to be fixed. Please use care when editing. Majoreditor 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Bnei Menashe controversy

See. I was never in favour of having a section where the banning of forceful conversions is treated as a persecution of a religion. Moreover that is completely unsourced. The only sources you may dig up for the claim may come from people like Michael Witzel or the publicaitons like Faith Freedom. But if you want to keep it, you cannot remove the section on Bnei Menashe controversy, where the same christian missionaries forced the UPA government to pass a legislation banning the the return of Bnei Menashe to their ancient religion. [4]. Afterall, the UPA government didnt recieve a revelation from Gabriel. nids (♂) 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the removal of this statement

Although the same christian missionaries themselves asked for a similar legislation in light of Bnei Menashe controversy. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

from here.--nids (♂) 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In what sense are they "the same" Christians? It seems more likely that completely different groups are involved. And what on early does Michael Witzel have to do with it? Paul B 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I want to make is that if christians regard the anti-conversion laws as a persecution of their religion, they must accept that they too are persecuting Jews of NE India, by forcing the Indian Government (under catholic leadership) to pass laws which prevent them(Bnei Menashe) from returning to their ancient religion. They are the same christian missionaries pressuring the government, who made such a huge hue and cry when other states passed similar legislations.

By Witzel, i refer to all anti-Hindu bigots or Bible thumpers which cannot be accepted as reliable sources. nids (♂) 09:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Only in Hindutva fantasy-world can an obviously secular expert on ancient Vedic culture be connected to "Bible thumpers". The problem is that you refer to Christians as though they are a single group. If one Christian says something then all "Christians" have to agree? Do you know haw many different groups and faction there are? The Bnai Menasche issue is complex and is more to do with emigration to Israel than conversion as such. And by the way, it almost cerainly was not their "ancient religion". You have provided no evidence that the same Christians were involved. Still, the sentence could easily be NPOVed to something like "however, some Chrsitians have also taken advantage of anti-conversion legislation to preserve Christian communities..." Paul B 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Witzel, a secular expert???? That would be an insult to people like Hastings, William Jones and even Max Mueller to an extent. this is one of the links which explains why its their ancient religion. By the way, you havent produced any reference to back your claim that anti-conversion laws are persecution of a religion. If you do that, than even christians, atleast few of them, would also be accused of persecution of Jews in India.nids (♂) 11:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Witzel is as secular as they come, certainly rather more so than Jones! Re "persecution", it's not my claim, it's the claim of some Christian groups. I am well aware of the assertions regarding Bnai Menasche. If you look at the history of claims concerning "Lost tribes of Israel" you will see that they almost always derive from millenarian Protestant groups. No non-religious historian takes seriously the notion that the tribe of Manasseh can have migrated, intact, to India from Assyria. You will also see that the religious right in Israel these days has a strong vested interest in supporting such claims. It is keen to get settlers who will be their supporters to bolster the hard-line sections of the Jewish population in Israel. The genetic evidence you refer to says nothing more than that some of the people in this area have common ancestry with some people in Uzbekistan, which is not a big surprise. Paul B 11:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Witzel issue would distract us from the point. But i am really surprised that you think Witzel is more secular than Jones. Perhaps Jones was a Hindu bigot and Ayotollah Khoemini and Osama are idols of secularism. Back to the point. Do you object to my removal of "anti-conversion laws as a persecution of religion". If yes, do you object to the addition of Bnei Menashe controversy where they could be seen as persecuted minority persecuted by de facto Roman Catholic head of Indian government.nids (♂) 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones was secular in the terms of his day, but by modern standards he would be a thought of as a fundamentalist. Have you read his annual discourses? He takes the stories in Genesis to be literally true. However, that was just the normal opinion in his day. I don't know enough about the details of anti-conversion laws to saw whether or not they can reaonably be called "persecution", but I think we are supposed to record what opinions exist. So if Christian groups think there was persecution, that can be reported, along with the point that some Christians have taken advantage of the same laws to preserve existing Christian communities. I think the Bnei Menashe story is too complex to make a simple point, but that it could be mentioned in an NPOV way, yes. Paul B 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal beliefs are in no way related to secularism. You can well believe in virgin birth and still be secular. As far as i know, Jones didnt suggest the British government to stop Hindus from cremating their dead, a practice reminiscent of pre-christian pagan europe. By the way, the christian missionaries asked for a new legislation similar to the ones in MP and Orissa. They didnt asked for "protection from the same legislation". I leave it to you to make the change, as i believe you can do it in better NPOV.nids (♂) 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all nonsense, this article is about persecution of christians in India, not persecution of Jews, so this Bnei Mnashe controversy should not even be in this section. Furthermore this subject is about a small section of India, that does not even compare to the experience of the rest of the millions of christians in India. This is the usual methods of hindu extremists, oops I mean activists, to weaken any criticism of their puported views or supremacy and try to attack indian christianity which they can't just leave alone. It is getting ridiculous how many articles get infiltrated by this very organized group of trouble makers. Bottom line, does it refer to persecution of Indian christians? No, if you want to use the article put it in its proper place under persecution of Jews and btw hindutvists, find a hobby--Kathanar 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

well, it does not belong to persecution of jews section. For crying out loud, they were the people who were actually persecuted for not being Christians.

By your logic, a christian is born with a right to convert every person on earth to christianity, by hook or by crook. And if there is any resistance, its persecution of their religion. For one thing, get out of persecution complex. BTW, i am just anxiously waiting for the time when killing Nagaland Rebels or National Liberation Front of Tripura activist by an armed forces personnel would be called persecution of christians. I have already read at places that First war of Independence was persecution of benevolent colonials.

Yes, you are right that evil Hindootvists must find a hobby. Sadly, they are not christians, otherwise they would have been born with one. --nids (♂) 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this is case in point what I'm talking about, this editor jumps in and starts repeating some hindutvist line propaganda,which actually has nothing to do with whats being discussed or said. Where would someone by any logic get this from what I said:

"By your logic, a christian is born with a right to convert every person on earth to christianity, by hook or by crook......blah blah"

I'm talking about removing a unnecessary part of the article and he's putting words in my mouth?! Read this guy's whole response as it is a prime example of the trolling types I'm referring too.

Wikipedia is infested with this breed who are making it a more hostile place for me and other editors. Their efforts twist the truth out of articles and make them tools of their propaganda. And lets not forget the tendency of these guys to use a lot of sock puppets, Hkelkar is that you? --Kathanar 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nien mein freund. m no personator de kelkar. Oops, have i given it away. Go for check user. And consider yourself a winner if your request is entertained. And for another thing, get out of Hkelkar mania too. Wikipedia is no host to Jewish or Hindu cabals.--nids (♂) 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish cabals"? Nope, not worried about those, actually not even the other, its the "hindutvist enthusiast with too much time on his hand" cabal I worried about ;-) cheers--Kathanar 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think he's hkelkar, take him to WP:RFCU. Every Hindu isnt Hkelkar, though I'm sure you and some friends would like to think that. Instead of ranting you might want to answer his question. Is conversion an inalienable right for a Christian person? Is it persecution to tighten the cap on bribery and terrorism ? Baka man 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh another one's come out of the woodwork. I might be giving too much credit here, but this is the ultimate troll ( or he could be comprised of several using the same account).

Here is a good example of the organized effort of this group. See how he appears out of no where. He and they are ready to gang up on other editors, at a moment notice. They have a good collaboration going on behind the scenes. He's not even in the conversation and he jumps in to stir things up. Then he/they try to bait you, to draw you into inane arguments that don't have anything to do with what you've said or the subject. Its pure harassment.

And does he actually believe someone will answer a question he just throws out there? It basically a repeat of the propaganda he and the rest of his group of hindutvists have learned from their rightwing youth group organizations. A ban needs to be made on this group of agenda driven trouble makers and their harassment of editors on wikipedia. Have a good day.--Kathanar 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere? I've been editing the article much longer than you. And I am not a member of any Hindutva group, and regard such allegations as personal attacks. Isn't there another place you can go stalk people at? Again you have not made any arguments to respond to, only ranted about silly conspiracy theories. There used to be another guy like that.Baka man 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See this is what I'm talking about, he either can't understand what a statement means, or he totally misses the meaning. When I'm referring to how he jumps into a conversation, he talks about how long he's been editing, does it need to be spelled out for him? And the funny thing is, look at his statement, in his statement he accuses you of the very things he's doing or done, i.e. "go stalk people at", just so he can beat a person from accusing him of it. If you ever need a confession of his inappropriate behaviors, just read what he accuses another editor of doing, most times it him that doing it. Its really sad about the other guy, but it seems even though he and baka had the same or similar agendas, he (the other guy) couldn't even stand him. User:Rama's Arrow I regret you had to be harassed and driven away by someone like this, even if we didn't see eye to eye on everything. --Kathanar 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kathenar, the BM controversy is only referred to as a counter-weight to the complaints of Christian groups. I fully understand your frustration at the amazing ability of some editors to constantly miss (deliberately or not) the point, and to make totally irrelevant and hyperbolic claims that you are justifying the inquisition etc etc. It's incredibly frustrating engaging in these "debates". However, there is a point to the reference to BM. It is to say that Christian groups have sought protection from laws that Christians have on other occasions criticised. I don't know if that's quite true. The sources provided here are rather confusing. But if it is, it's a reasonable point to make. Paul B 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul B, that could be true, I feel though it probably would work best in another article, not this one. Do you need a counter weight to christian criticism if the article is specifically about Persecution of Christians? I would think thats what the article is exactly, criticism of treatment of christians. Do you find a similar premise in other articles that talk about other religions getting persecuted? For example is there a counterweight to hindu criticism in Persecution of Hindus?The sources are also suspect, one is from a page that also talks about anomalies (UFOs, Sasquatch and such) and any other articles I try to google, are usually from some type of supremacist sites. This article it seems, is meant to triviliaze what affects millions of christians in the rest of India over something that involves probably one guy and maybe a small organization. The incident, if it happened (again the source is a page that also talks about UFO's and fantastic creatures) possibly involves a organization ( I think its presbyterian?) in maybe possible the hundreds of thousands and does not really apply to the experience of the millions of christians in India. This rationale behind this specific incident is bizarre, if you read the article. One of the things feared is a loss of the co-ethnic Mizos (maybe affecting Mizo sovereignty over their land) as there seems to be a fear that all of the jewish converts are going to leave Mizo land to go Israel, really strange. I don't think this article is relevant enough to the subject, and is specifically a example of sabotaging articles and robbing them of their purpose. Check into it yourself though Paul as maybe you might come across something I haven't, you seem to have a level head about these things. Please, have a good day--Kathanar 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of this is irrelevant. Paul's points that this is an article about the persecution of Christians, not of Jews and that it is not demonstrably the same individuals both calling for and decrying a ban on conversions have not been answered, so the line comes out. Hornplease 09:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I note also that the Deccan Herald link doesn't work, the second is an internal link to a non-existent section of a WP article, and the final one is to the RSS internal paper, the Organiser.Hornplease 09:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source, including the one introduced by you, does not call the laws as "persecuting a religion". If you are hellbent on calling it persecution, atleast find a source. I wont be reverting withour consensus, something that some editors here have a habit of doing.nids (♂) 10:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Restriction of religious freedom, called persecution by evangelical organisations. If you do not think that is sufficient, ask someone else. I do not care one way or the other. Hornplease 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

I changed the country of most severe persecution to North Korea from Sudan. This source: [5] has listed it as so for several years.

{{editprotected}} Please correct the spelling of "percieved" to "perceived". 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already has! —Angr 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As the persecution of Christians by Christians has been the heaviest, it looks a little spare here.

Actually, persecution of Christian by Christians has not been the heaviest. In the last century persecution by communists, anti-clericals and atheists was massive. That is also true of the 19th century and largely true of the 18th. During the French Revolution 40,000 were killed in less than a year during the reign of terror, much of which was religious persecution by opponents of Christianity and thousands of which were Catholic clerics. (Compare that to the 3,000 to 6,000 killed over centuries of the Spanish Inquisition). After the Revolt in the Vendee, perhaps the first modern genocide, 100,000 to 300,000 Catholic Vendeans (out of a total of 800,000), who had rebelled against religious persecution, were slaughtered en masse by the anti-Christian state. The number of Christians killed by Christians, especially in the last three centuries, pales in comparison to those killed by areligious opponents of Christianity. Mamalujo 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Mexican religious persecution

This section is written in a biased manner, with undue character assassination of President Calles via name calling and bringing unrelated facts placed out of context.

The actions of the government of Calles can speak by themselves without adding needless personal attacks on Calles. This section should be re-written to take out the Catholic POV.

--Hugo Estrada 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected the article

6 weeks is too long for an article to remain protected. I have lifted the protection. Please edit within consensus, discuss contentious issues here and avoid edit-warring.

--Richard 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

70 Million Christion murdered for their religious beliefs? Where is the evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.98.160 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you read the article and found out. --Hornet35 11:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LEAD problems

The LEAD is pretty weak here, with a dubious source claiming 70 million dead. Then an awkward transition to an obscure book about suffering in the Christian mind. It's a weak way to lead off an important topic. --Dylanfly 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - other wikipedia articles suggest between 10 and 20 mil TOTAL death toll for Soviet, not discriminating for reason; also similar issues with Maoist claims. The quoted 70mil is highly debatable. In addition, no reference to the fact that population differences between time period could account for high numbers. 122.109.12.16 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)knab

I've deleted this sentence - WP shouldn't cite such polemical claims in the lead, and the article fairly clearly shows that the claim must be either false or misleading.JQ (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is is not-NPOV. A lot of external sources are from Christian organizations. 35 times I find [citation needed]. It's also clear that this article is not written from a secular, non-Christian view. Until than I will put the POV-tag on top of the page. --Jeroenvrp 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some of the sources are Christian affiliated does not in any way mean that the article violates NPOV (Christianity Today, the Catholic News Service and The Christian Science Monitor for example are all reliable sources notwithstanding their affiliation). Applying the logic of the above post, an article on atheism would have to be sourced from all religious sources. Neither does the fact that some citations are missing mean those sentances have POV. The charge of POV is conclusory and points to no actual violations. I am going to remove the tag until concrete examples of violation are given. Mamalujo 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mamalujo. The article could certainly be better sourced; however, citing Christian news organizations isn't reason enough to label it NPOV. Majoreditor 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is fundamental difficulty with the “most persecuted” thesis. To be blunt, it smacks of being devised to prop up a myth about the lot of present era Christians, one mirroring that of their counterparts in the legendary first centuries of the religion’s history. A myth variously embraced by many successive generations of Christians. Having lived from birth in a country having more than its share of evangelicals (USA), I have observed the myth at work for decades. It is effectively used to stoke up the hard core faithful pursuant to their “Devine commission” to create a worldwide Christian state. Given that commission, it should be no surprise that Christianity has encountered resistance in every era, but resistance is not always synonymous with persecution. This is notable considering the often dogmatic and sometimes brutally exclusionary tendencies that various Christian factions have demonstrated in the service of achieving and enforcing their societal goals. It is notable considering the blanket persecutions of all competing religions and doctrines after Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the only acceptable religion in the Roman Empire. In the centuries that ensued, the mantel of religious dominance that Christendom spread over Europe could seldom be considered any better than marginally hegemonic. The fate of the indigenous tribes of the Americas under the influence of Christendom is a parallel case in point. The pervasive denegation of atheists in America since the onset of the cold war provides another. I appeal to Wikipedia’s “Persecution by Christians” for additional examples. Religious freedom in general as well as Christendom in particular has characteristically been under fire in many countries dominated by Islam. Nevertheless, the grip that Islam and Sharia law currently have on Middle Eastern culture seems reasonably suggestive of conditions existing in Europe only a few centuries ago under the ubiquitous specter of Christian theocracy. Undoubtedly also, the spread of secularism in Europe and elsewhere during the past several centuries has been at the cost of much cultural conflict and human suffering. Devaluation of the political status of Christendom and its devotees has frequently been one of the byproducts. However, the rise of secularism in its various ideological forms has not left any geographically captive religious or ethnic group untouched. All these considerations and the difficulties of identifying and properly classifying history’s myriad of cultural conflicts (an issue raised by several other posts), makes tenuous any attempt to quantitatively substantiate or claim substantiation for a thesis of “most persecuted” for Christians. The attempt is at the risk of propagating a statistical canard as if it were a veridical historical representation. This I believe is the state of the present thesis with potentially adverse educational consequences from keeping it on line. As a minimum, the empirical supportability of the opening statement, “Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in human history….”, should be reconsidered. --71.160.177.217 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Persecution in the US

Needs Persecution in the US, and Mormons aren't Christians--they deny the basic tenets of orthodoxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally you feel the need to be the center of attention by putting your "addition" before even the infobox. It belongs here. It's called etiquette.

I think the Mormon persecution should stay in the article, they are considered Christian, but I also believe that there should be entries about other Christian sects or Christian people that have been persecuted in the United States. IronCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Specific concerns about lead statement

Issues of "center of attention" notwithstanding, hopefully this input is in conformance with proper etiquette. Evidently, editing my own inputs to this discussion is also a no no. Ignorent upstart.

Putting up numbers for Christians and Christians alone does not provide stand-alone substantiation for the claim of “by far the most persecuted”. Nor is their any substantive quantitative support for the claim in the sections that follow. The implicit assertion is that the numbers are data extracted from a structured population study where religious groups A, B, C, D and so on was comparatively evaluated. If that is the case, what were the comparison groups and what are the numbers for them? What criteria were used to include some groups as religious while possibly excluding others? Was any within group quantification achieved, Catholic versus Protestant versus Orthodox and so on for example? If the lead paragraph’s numbers include the many instances of Christians persecuting Christians they would be misleading on that count alone. In short, the statistics presented in the opening paragraph prove nothing about the status of Christians in the hierarchy of most persecuted other than a large number of persecutions of Christians occurred. In any case, if the lead statement were changed to something like, “Christians are among the most persecuted for their beliefs in human history”, it would be decidedly more palatable and the existing presentation of statistics (sums and percentages) less objectionable. Nor would it take anything genuinely necessary out of the papers overall import. --Ejgeorge 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous Recommendation Reconsidered

The World Christian Encyclopedia estimated there were 2.1 billion Christians in the world in 2001, or 33% of the total population of the world. This would put these population data at the tail end of the twentieth century. The cumulative total number of Christians who lived during that century would therefore actually be larger. In the immediate absence of an accurate number, imagine for the sake of argument that 2.1 billion was the total for the century. The lead paragraph states that 45.5 million Christians were killed in the twentieth century, or 65% of all Christians killed because of their faith in the Common Era. However, 45.5 million is just 2% of 2.1 billion. Accurate numbers for the century would make the percent of Christians killed actually smaller still. In comparison, the World Jewish Population Survey of 2002 and another 2002 study by the Jewish Agency both put the number of Jews in the world for that time at approximately 13 million. Even though the actual total number of Jews who lived in the twentieth century would be larger, imagine again that 13 million was the total for the century. Best accepted estimates are that approximately 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis alone, or a whopping 46% of the total Jewish population of 13 million. Add the number of Jews killed by other factions and the real total would be higher with a corresponding larger percent killed. Does this make Jews the most persecuted religious group in history? In the absence of data for any other religion for the past nineteen centuries, I’m inclined to suspect not. If 100% of a small religious group is killed compared to just a portion of a much larger religious group, which group should be considered most persecuted? How about the time span prior to the 20th century? Without numbers covering all religious classifications back to the first century, only very rough guesses are possible. For example, the lead paragraph suggests that prior to the 20th century about 35 million Christians were killed. Unfortunately, no calculation of percent killed can be obtained without a number for total Christians overall for the same period. However, best available estimates indicate that roughly 10 percent of all people who ever lived are alive now. Very loosely extrapolating from this, there might have been something on the order of 15 to 17 billion Christians for all time before the 20th century. Taking the smaller number, the percentage of Christians killed prior to the 20th century would be less than one quarter of one percent (15 billion into 35 million). Data may be available somewhere, but none was found to allow even an informed guess for any other religious group for the same time span. As a world community concern, just one killing over a matter of religious persuasion is noteworthy. Each of the nineteen centuries involved would likely tell its own story, but the above estimate of overall percentage of Christians killed for that period does not suggest a religion dangling on the edge of extinction. As a bottom line the lead paragraph can only honestly claim that Christians have encountered persecutions throughout their history. The existing claim of “by far the most persecuted” is clearly not an adequate treatment of the facts. As evidenced by the rough comparative analyses above, Christians are not the most persecuted group in the last 100 year period. To the contrary, it would seem more likely they are among the least persecuted in the 20th. century. To claim status as the most persecuted on the basis of only a cumulative total of people killed is remarkably disingenuous, particularly considering that Christendom is the most populated religion on the planet. It is called cherry picking the data. Those people who lack cultivated sensitivity for statistical things might accept the lead paragraph's claim just on the face of its source. Whether any one of them surfs elsewhere or delves deeper into the paper, they will from the start have been misled.. In my opinion, it amounts to using Wikipedia's podium to dispense a propaganda. That sort of agenda might be expected from some religious activist periodical, but not in keeping with the standard of scholarly integrity that I have become accustomed to from Wikipedia's literary holdings. It reflects negatively on both the credibility of a paper in an important subject area and Wikipedia's credibility as an honest vendor of information. --Ejgeorge 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the statement. It was unsourced, and such a statement would have to be reliably sourced. Mamalujo 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)