Talk:Persecution of Christians/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The issue of scope and pertinence

In the previous discussion with Slatersteven, it appeared that the issue is not WP:OR nor WP:V but a question of scope and pertinence. More precisely, regarding "stoned to death", Slatersteven wrote this was anything other than a legal execution based upon breaking the law, Josephus does don't tell us why he was executed, just that he was. It is OR to say "because he was a Christian" (as I said the church did not even exist at this time). Well, the proposal does not say "because he was a Christian" nor does it infer it. But there might be a serious issue of pertinence and scope. This of course needs to be discussed, because still James the Just is considered the brother of Jesus. I am surprised that there is no Christianity mentioned in the sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Errr, as this article is "Persecution of Christians" by inference any inclusion must be about Persecution of Christians.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by an issue of scope and pertinence. I understand why you might feel it is OR, but seeing it as an issue of scope and pertinence is more objective, independent of any inference. Let's see what others here have to say. Only after, when really the discussion stalls, we should do a RfC. As far as I can tell, we are making progress. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven First let me thank you. I was skeptical you would respond, so I am glad to have been wrong, and am grateful to see you still participating. So, let me address your objections if I can, and see if we can come to some kind of compromise.

• First, the term martyr. Does Josephus use the term Martyr? No, Josephus doesn't, but the secondary sources do, and that is what matters. We are not - as you say - interpreters of primary sources as that would be OR. We are only paraphrasers of secondary sources, and martyr is the term most consistently used to describe James' death in every secondary source I have found. "stoned to death" does not mean "Martyr" True, absolutely, but martyr means martyr. I have even found discussion of Christians re-defining the term to meet their specific application of it as being killed for being a follower of Jesus. RS say it has a specific use in Christian terminology. We need RS saying it was something. Directly, clearly, and unambiguously. And it is not the first time I have pointed that out The RS say James was martyred. It is clear, direct and unambiguous. Martyr is the term used in the every secondary RS I can find, and if there are any others who describe James' death differently, I wish you would reference them here so we can discuss what they do say. Without contrary evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that martyr is the term that is representative of the RS. (BTW, while the Rfc did conclude that martyrdom and persecution are not synonyms, it did not conclude that proves martyrdom is not a form of persecution.)
• Second, Imo, we are not truly interpreters. We paraphrase, which is slightly different, and we quote, and we try to accurately represent what RS say. Excluding James amounts to an interpretation - in my view - that is itself OR and not representative of the sources.
• Third, The sources do not support the conclusion this was anything other than a legal execution based upon breaking the law, Josephus does don't tell us why he was executed, just that he was. It is OR to say "because he was a Christian" (as I said the church did not even exist at this time) This is incorrect. The secondary sources - and Josephus - discuss James' execution as illegal. He was not accused of breaking any law, but the RS do say that the why of his death is unclear. So, I offer a compromise here. Put James in a section of his own that discusses whether or not he qualifies as persecuted or a martyr. Say that scholars speculate on the cause of his death in RS discussions of Hegesippus (chronicler), but it is impossible to know for sure. Just describe what the sources say about him without picking and choosing for yourself what you see as worthy.
• Fourth, James himself was technically still a jew, as the Christian church did not exist at the time, it was a sect of Judaism Come now. Technically? Find a source on the origins of Christianity that does not include James and the early Jewish Christians as the Christian church's beginning. This is another overly strict interpretation that does not represent how this is discussed in RS. But at least it provides an opening for another compromise. In that section on James, the term "proto-Christian" can be added to the discussion without compromising the content or scope of this article.

Dominic Mayers the main problem is that it's not pertinent, because the context in the source was not Christianity No, that's not correct. This is another semantics issue - the meaning of the term. Does the term "Christian" exclude its Jewish beginnings? No, in the RS, it does not. Christianity is universally described as beginning with Jesus and the Apostles, according to the NT, which indicates Christianity began some time before the martyrdom of James and includes James as one of its founders. This earliest period is sometimes referred to as "proto-Christian", which I have no problem including accordingly, but the fact the church was not fully formed is not an argument for claiming James was not 'Christian'. When has the church been fully formed? The church has been forming, reforming and changing continually from day one, for its entire 2000 year existence. Judeo-Christian is the correct term for those early believers - and that does include the term Christian. The definition of Christianity includes the Judeo-Christians of the early church. If you need sources, I will find them, but I assure you this is true and accurate. Religion is one of my undergraduate majors, and part of my graduate study, and my avocation here on WP. Excluding the early Judeo-Christians from this discussion of 'Christians' is a factual error. It seems not only pertinent, but especially so, since it directly reflects on the claim that Christians were persecuted from their beginnings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: When I wrote "The problem" I referred to the issue that was raised by Slatersteven, which I felt should be discussed. I would not have stated this problem myself. I am not involved enough in the topic to do that. My only comment here is that you should realize that many of your points, which you present as self evident, are actually dependent upon a decision between editors regarding the scope. For example, you say that Christianity must necessarily cover Judaeo-Christians, but I have seen many discussions regarding the scope of an article that is based on the definition of a term in the title and these discussions often never end. You could be right that it is the most common definition, but editors could still on purpose use a more restricted scope. For example, there could be some arguments that the article should be split and Judaeo-Christian should be covered in a different article. So, it's better not to have a strict attitude and just accept that it's only an issue of scope. It may seem a weak position, but if it invites Slatersteven to also have a more flexible attitude toward the scope, then it will lead to a more fruitful discussion. Note that this was only one example. Even if Christianity includes Judaeo-Christians, one could still argue that someone "stoned to death" does not fit in the article, even if some RS on persecution do mention it. It's also a choice. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It must also belong to the scope (decided by the editors) and be pertinent. Of course, your arguments are still very useful, but I am saying that I see them as arguments to support a scope. That's fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers OK, I would accept this as a reasonable compromise: For example, there could be some arguments that the article should be split and Judaeo-Christians should be covered in a different article. and that would include a link from this article I would assume. one could still argue that someone "stoned to death" does not fit in the article Why? Isn't that what's being decided here? you should realize that many of your points, which you present as self evident, are actually dependent upon a decision between editors regarding the scope. No, no, a topic is determined by its title. Slatersteven and I agree on that. They presented their reason for excluding James as one of definition based on that title (that you then applied to scope). I responded to Slatersteven's definition with the definition supported in the RS, which is correct. How that might, in turn, be applied to the scope of this article is a different question altogether. The original issue is now lost in the weeds. just accept that it's only an issue of scope. but it isn't, and it hasn't been. This is not progress. Like Slatersteven, I do not feel we are getting anywhere nor are we likely to with this approach. I give up. I can't do this anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A title needs to be understood before it can determine the scope. I worked a lot on Falsifiability. At the beginning, people would argue that the scope should not be restricted to Popper's falsifiability. For me, this made no sense. People simply accepted after a while that it was a reasonable scope. I don't want to go into the details, but this is one of many examples where the title cannot by itself automatically determine the scope. Especially in controversial topics, the definition of the terms in the title can vary a lot. I suspect that you would not have difficulty to have Slatersteven agree that the scope includes Judaeo-Christians. I do not think that it is his argument. He must have meant something else. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If thinking in terms of scope does not help, then we can think in terms of the "correct" definition. It's just less flexible (we can adapt the title to the scope if needed) and it invites less to a compromise, but we should not give up because of that. Your third and fourth points are the most important points. My feeling is that there should be no need to refer to Jame the Just as a "proto-Christian", especially if the source does not do it. Are the sources in the context of Christian persecution? If they are, then the only justification to exclude Jame the Just would be a limit on the scope. I am not saying that this limit makes sense, but whether it makes sense or not is something that must be discussed. Before it is discussed, we must keep open the possibility that it could make sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we use secondary sources, that is the whole point.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: your statement is too short. I am not sure to what it is replying. Use secondary sources for what? For your information, here is a link to a discussion where the issue of the verifiability of the scope was raised in an article that had many RfCs and was followed by many editors of experience. This example shows that the scope of an article does not have to be verified in secondary sources, only the content needs to be verifiable, not the scope. Please elaborate in a way that responds to the suggestions made by Jenhawk777. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Really for everything, there are very specific circumstances when we can use wp:primary sources. This is not really one of them, as (apparently) there are secondary sources that say the same thing (note this is not an agreement for inclusion, it is an explanation of why a primary source is not within policy here). We should (whenever possible) not use primary sources, when we do it should only be to source what they actually say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant that the scope does not have to be verified in sources, primary, secondary or ternary, only the content needs to be verified. Yes, we say what sources say, but this does not fix the scope. The fact that the content must be verifiable is a strong constraint, but it does not fix the scope, which must be decided by consensus among editors. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, the scope is easy, its what RS say was persecution of Chrisitans (and I seem to recall this has been discussed before, and that was the conclusion then).Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's natural to start by a short sentence, the title when it can play this role, in our case "the persecution of Christians", to determine the scope together. However, it still leaves us with a lot of flexibility on the scope. In particular, given that "stoned to death" and "persecuted" are not synonym, the short sentence does not say whether or not we should include people stoned to death. Of course, our good judgment tells us that we must include them when the sources do, but it is our judgment: there is no rule that says that every thing that is verified in sources must be included. The whole point of the concept of scope here is that it puts all rules such as WP:V and WP:OR, except WP:Consensus in perspective—not every thing is determined by rigid rules, often we must discuss among editors and use our judgment. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That is because being stoned to death in and of itself is not persecution, any more than being shot, hung, or even quartered. We include what RS say was persecution, which was what was established a while back, and avoids confusion or the need to resort to OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You are missing the key point that I am trying to make, which is that a lot here depends on our judgment, not rigid rules, and therefore we must be open to the good judgment of others and not hide behind short arguments that refer to policy such as OR and RS only. Therefore, at this point, it's time to consider the suggestions made by Jenhawk777. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

NO, I am not missing it, I am saying it is irrelevant, as I said a long way above why does Jenhawk777's OR trump mine? It is why we have policies relating to wp:rs and wp:or. I think we need an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement that RSs must say it is a persecution. This is way too rigid. If RSs find it useful to mention a person stoned to death without saying it is a persecution, then it can be included, if we decide it fits in the scope, as long as we respect what the sources say. So, you see, it's not as rigid as you assume it is. We must rely on our good judgment. A specific proposal must be available (is it still the same?) and a brief summary of the position of the editors would be needed before we can do a RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

wp:or "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.", yes policy does say there is a requirement that RSs must say it is a persecution. This is why we need an RFC, as you do not seem to accept my word for it, so maybe others might convince you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody disagree on WP:OR here. You keep referring to general policies, which I know very well, as if they can determine decisions that require discussion and consensus in terms of specific content. You pretend that you defend WP:OR and that we are trying to break it. This is not conducive to a good communication. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Time for those wanting to make the change to get consensus via an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have made an RfC if Jenhawk777 had shown more patience in trying to have a discussion. He left the discussion, because he disagreed with my approach. It's worth it to make an RfC when at the least one side is trying to discuss and the other side is repeating the same arguments without considering the points made by others, but not when both sides have left the discussion. I would have helped for the RfC if Jenhawk777 had been a bit more patient. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"The sources do not support the conclusion this was anything other than a legal execution based upon breaking the law" Overly vague here. Roman or Jewish law? Was he executed as a rebel, for violating a religious code, or an entirely different crime? Was the execution legal or a lynching? Dimadick (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, we do not know why he was killed. But it is no more OR to say it was a legal execution as to say it was persecution (also my point). That is why we need RS to say what it was.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: you really don't get it. It's way simpler than that. We don't have to say what it was (and have long pointless discussions about it in the PdD), if the sources do not say what it was. We simply say what the sources say (if we decide that it's pertinent given the scope). Trying to figure out what it was when it's not discussed in the sources and then, I suppose, implying this in the article would be OR. So, it's you that is suggesting that we do OR, not Jenhawk777. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to an out of section comment on something I said.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I was reponding to your response. What's your point here? I insist a lot on the fact that it's a scope issue. It is, but it does not mean that the scope must be precisely defined. It's rarely precisely defined. It gets defined as we edit the article. So, when we decide whether or not the specific Josephus content (see above) can be added, we are actually defining a bit more what is the scope. It's not an issue of verifiability—it's verifiable. It's not OR either—we simply say what the sources say while respecting the context. It's only a question of whether it fits in the scope. Yes, it would be OR if we implied that it was a persecution of Christians when the source do not. This part is true: we should not imply it if the sources do not—but it's only you that see this. The position here is simpler: if the sources mention the event in the context of the topic, then we simply say what the sources say, without implying what the sources do not imply. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So what do you want, to change this from being an article about Persecution of Christians? If so read WP:PAGEMOVE. This is why I say we need an RFC, you need to formulate a proposal, what do you think should be the topic of this article?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that the sentence "Persecution of Christians" is not enough to uniquely determine the scope. The only reason why Jame the Just being stoned to death might not be in the scope is the rule that not every thing verifiable within sources in the topic must be included. Because of this rule, we need to discuss and decide together if it fits in the scope. It's the need for discussion and a decision among us, the fact that rules are not enough, that is misunderstood here, by both sides. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a related issue that concerns me here. Picking sentences there and there inside a large amount of information without a good understanding of the sources and paraphrasing these sentences very closely does not guarantee at all that we interpret the sources correctly. On the contrary, this attitude too much centred on individual sentences, even words in our case, can be used to do OR. What is important is to understand the sources and respect what they say. Again here, there is a need to have a consensus on what the sources say. Yes, there is a need to discuss and agree on what the sources say. Slatersteven should not confuse this with doing OR. It's the opposite of OR, because we try to understand the sources together so that we respect them. This is what Wikipedia is all about—we discuss the sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you either drop this or start an RFC with a proposal to change the article's focus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no scope or focus to change. It's something that gets defined progressively as we edit the article. Irrespectively of your intention, you do not contribute positively to the discussion, because you keep misinterpreting what people say. I am here to help. I am not personally interested in the topic. I am not arguing for or against a point of view. I just want the participants here to realize that it is a scope issue. I have no opinion above that. But in the process I realize that you are not discussing in a constructive manner. You answer as if I want to violate WP:OR or that I want to move the article under a different name, etc. It's exhausting. I don't think that we need an RfC in this context. We need other kind of resources to address your case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:dr, an RFC is a way forward when an impasse is reached, it how we do things. And read wp:npa, I am telling you how we do things on Wikipedia, and no interpreting sources is not one of them (explicitly) per wp:or "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so", these are policies (rules if you like) that we all have to obey. Any proposal that is in breach of those is a nonstarter this is why I am "not discussing in a constructive manner", because you want to go against our policies. This talk page is not the place to change policy, the talk pages of that policy are. I oppose any change of focus when no specific change of focus has been proposed, nor do I see the need to change the focus of this article anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Until we actually have something to discuss I will drop out now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a serious problem of communication. All the extracts that you gave are about primary sources vs secondary sources. I never said that we can go directly on the primary sources and interpret them. This is really not constructive. Again, it's not a RfC that we need. We need other kind of resources to address your case. If there had been no RfC, I would say you are right. But there has been one and I am here because of that, to help. and the conclusion is that we need other kind of resources to address your case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am going to let this matter rest for a few days so that I have a better perspective when I present this situation and determine where it should be presented, at which notice board. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime the matters of scope and pertinence are for us to decide by consensus. Our conclusions have to be compatible with the general sense of secondary sources, but per Dominic Mayers they don't have to be the consensus verdict of those sources. If we want to include here violence against people whose stories later became foundational to Christianity, we can do it without joining the arguments about whether they were or weren't Christian. And if we want to include violence for religious reasons, but outside a narrow definition of "persecution" as specifically large-scale and possibly governmental attack on a particular viewpoint, we can do that. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It certainly helps. In the second sentence of Richard Keatinge, our conclusions (regarding matters of scope and pertinence) must be totally compatible with the general sense of secondary sources, but it is us that determine the scope, not the sources. The meaning of that is elaborated in his two following sentences, which are key sentences that I do not re-explain here. I only want to add that one reason why this is important is because this requires that we use one of the most important rule of Wikipedia, which is WP:Consensus. We need to totally apply WP:OR and WP:V. It's very important—I am even fanatical about that, but to correctly apply them, we must understand that they do not determine the scope. For the scope, we have WP:Consensus, which requires that we don't refer to other principles (about title vs scope, etc.), not even to other WP policies, as a replacement for an open minded discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And to get consensus we have to have a proposal to discuss.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This is provocative and can not encourage others to discuss with you. There is a proposal. It has been very difficult to get you actually say something concrete about it. Once we succeeded, Jenhawk777 responded in length by making explicit references to your point. I felt that his proposed modifications wanted too much to compromise while the actual problem was instead a lack of understanding about the flexibility in the scope, but there is a proposal that should be actively discussed. Stop speaking almost all the times only to blame others, as if others only want to break WP:OR, WP:V, do not respect the current focus of the article or, as you just did, do not offer concrete proposals. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

His addressing my points does not (as far as I can see) include a proposal, nor did I just ask him. I have asked more than once (everyone posting here) for a proposal for us to discuss. Please can you provide a clear and concise quote as to what is being proposed, not 3 or 4 paragraphs as to why just a simple one-line proposal? I have asked more than one, so it's clear I have missed it in all the tooing and throwing. Moreover, it seems (in your comment above) you say you rejected whatever it was he was proposing, so what is yours?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

At this edit I have boldly inserted (most of) the text suggested above. Its factuality is not disputed, and the issue of whether or not the events really count as persecution may, I suggest, wisely be left to the reader. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And as it has been objected to it should not have been, it is still under discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:: Thus far, I wanted to remain neutral with respect to the proposal and simply encourage a good discussion, but I did not have too, because my opinion as an editor count. Here, I express my view that the content is admissible for the reasons stated by Richard Keatinge. So, given the large support by experimented editors for the view that the proposal does not break any policy and that it seems pertinent in the topic, it should be included. I would prefer, for your own benefit, that you revert your own revert of Keatinge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What proposal, I am asking again for it to be restated as I can't see it. Not what edit is proposed, what the change in scope is? As far as I can see there has been no suggested change in scope, just discussion about the inclusion of two passages, which may not still be valid based upon what the new scope of the article is. The consensus was in a previous discussion about this "only things RS call persecution", for that to be changed we need a new concept of what to include suggested,. Please do so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested scope

That only incidents called by RS persecution should be included (the current consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

End, Restart and finish

Dominic Mayers Okay, let's close the Rfc. I believe this issue should be seen as moot as I have just discovered that James the Just is already mentioned in this article under the section titled "New Testament". I had not previously looked there because James and events of the next three paragraphs are not actually in the New Testament. They are misplaced. I went looking for any of the persecutions by the Jews and found James where no one would think to look.

Slatersteven I am going to divide the NT section into two sections, titling the second section "Early Judeo-Christians" or some such thing. The paragraphs from "41 AD" will be moved to that new section with some limited additional discussion which I will probably steal from Karma and Richard. I'll do that so it will be clear it would be unwise to revert those additions again; it would be your third revert of the same material by three different editors, and the time frame between those reverts will not affect that count. reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. [[1]] I am currently too pissed off and humiliated by all of this nonsense to overlook more, and if reverted, I will respond accordingly. Consider this an unofficial and still friendly edit-war warning.

Karma1998 and Richard Keatinge Thank you, genuinely, for your input, patience and perseverance. I can't believe we have wasted all this time in this manner. It was clearly determined long ago that these early persecutions were within the scope of this article, and imo, we have no cause to change that. James is 'in' by virtue of already being there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many options to close the RfC:

1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template.
2. The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template.
3. The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum.
4. Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion. The editor removes the {{rfc}} tag at the same time.
5. The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it.

I will use option 3, which means that I will move this to a notice board. Or better, we all agree, including Slatersteven and we simply remove the tag and things proceed ahead smoothly. So, I'll wait a bit. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Which notice board?Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

But no I do not agree to just close it, as we have been at this 9 days and wp:dr seems to me the only way to end the impasse.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Another way would be for the single dissenting editor to recognize that it's time to drop the stick. but OK, feel free to set up a dispute resolution process. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that is true, I can see (In the RFC about the term Martyr) a few users who seem to agree it might not be persecution or we need sources to say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is totally besides the point that is discussed here. It's time that we stop trying to respond to your counter arguments. What I am saying here might look rude in surface (i.e., when we do not take the context in account), because in surface your counter arguments seem reasonable and superficially it's us that might look rude for not continuing the discussion with you, but too many have noticed what I am saying here and it must stop. Too many people have lost too much time because of this situation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers Thank you again for all your calm good sense, your tremendous perseverance and sincere efforts to help others and the encyclopedia to be the best it can be. This Rfc is now closed, and hopefully this issue is at an end. I hope to see you again some time under better circumstances. Good luck and here is hope for happier editing experiences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A review of the talk page from 6 january 2019 to 12 august 2021

I offer this review of the archives so that people who come here to help can have a context. It's based on diffs so that people can look at them and make their own opinion. I did not cover the period after the start of the recent debate on August 12, 2021. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We have been told to drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not say "... to help at this RfC ...". Life goes on. Hopefully, there will be other discussions and it's always useful to have a context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"other discussions"? This would only give context to one issue, the issue in the RFC above, not any other comment about what we should or should not include.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides a general context. It's not specific to the last RfC. It does not even cover the last RfC at all. Besides, if it is not useful to you, just ignore it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Then it is not complete and thus can't give a full context to who has or has not supported the inclusion of content. So for context, I would advise ignorng this and actually reading the archives. As any further discussion on this will involve some degree of discussion of topics we have been told to drop I am bowing out of this thread,.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I was not expecting at all a thread around that. I just offered something to help in eventual discussions and announced it. That's all. It was certainly not against you or against or in support of anything for that matter. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dropping the stick

If the result of this RfC is that some people are afraid of discussing, then it is a complete failure. Every thing is always on the table, nothing is excluded, but one must address the points that are made by others to allow the discussion to progress. When a discussion does not progress, people repeat the same arguments, etc. then this and only this must stop. I am not suggesting to continue a discussion regarding James the Just or Claudius. I am speaking in very general terms. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Definition

@Slatersteven: I agree with your assessment of dropping the stick on what has preceded, but looking at Dominic Mayers summary [2] made me realize this article has had problems from the get-go because of unclear definitions and parameters: scope. You and I have gone around about this before, but some progress has been made in that area of study since the last time, so I am proposing that we attempt to actually nail down a definition that can gain the support of consensus. Perhaps then, that will limit some of the wasting of time that tends to occur with some repetition here. What do you think? Will you work with me on coming up with a well sourced definition of what qualifies as persecution for this article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I can really add not more to what has been said before. We only use secondary sources of historians. We can only reflect their interpretation. If they say persecution happened, then we should say so and reference them accordingly. That is my last word on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. There is no need to define persecution. We say what sources say about that and that's it. But, maybe, there is a confusion between a definition of persecution and an inclusion criterion. We do need inclusion criteria. One of the first thing Slatersteven wrote as a participant in the talk page, as noted in the review, is we need an inclusion criteria (though just before he says that we need to define persecution, which is a different thing). While doing this review I realized that, though the scope of an article is never rigidly fixed and thus no universal rules of inclusion can be perfect, Slatersteven's rule "RS must say it is a persecution" has played a useful purpose as a practical tool. It's not what WP:V says. WP:V only says that every content must be verifiable. If the source mentions a martyr, a person stoned to death, etc. in the context of persecution, even if it does not say it is persecution, WP:V cannot be used to exclude it. Yet, my point here is that some improved criterion, if possible, even though it can not be perfect, would be useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact that no criterion is going to be perfect, unless I see another criterion that is simple to apply, I would suggest that we accept Slatersteven's rule "RS must say it is a persecution" as a default criterion, which means that a consensus can break this rule (as long as it does not break WP:V or WP:OR and any other WP rule), but the burden to obtain this consensus belongs to the editor that wants to include the content. If a consensus is obtained to include a content, then every one else drops the stick. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Of course I expected that, and since no one has ever suggested reflecting anything but RS, this is a straw man that only distracts from the actual issues. Let's move on to a recognition of what the real problems actually are. That criterion is made up, it does not exist anywhere in any RS, it is applied without consensus and frequently against consensus, and it contains logic errors: it is too narrow to accurately reflect the majority of the sources, which means the definition excludes a large part of what is being defined. Those are both logical fallacies that should be addressed. [3]

There are no sources that describe or define persecution as something that has not occurred unless the term is present; and there are plenty of sources that describe persecution without ever using the term. The current State Department report comes to mind and the PEW reports on religious restrictions as well. The term is not used, but the references are descriptions of behaviors understood by the editors here as persecution, and so they use them - which violates this definition and creates internal inconsistency for this article.

At the same time, there are multiple reports that do use the term persecution - notably the Pope's claims of 100,000 persecuted Christians per year - but have been excluded as undependable based on that understood definition of persecution as not including victims of war.

That's what happens with an internally contradictory definition. These are real problems not covered by your ad hoc definition. Perfection is just another strawman, so let that go too. Let's get some genuine work done toward improved criterion with some consensus. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, what criterion do you propose? It's difficult to have a universal criterion that is simple and do not require an adaptation to the context. Such an adaptation is often called an interpretation, but I avoid the term, because it is seen negatively here. I think that Slatersteven wants a criterion that do not require adaptation to the context (i.e., an interpretation). It's not a bad idea, because it reduces the need for discussions. My point is no such criterion can be absolute: we must accept that it can be broken by consensus, but it can play a useful role as a default rule. Let's call this a default objective criterion. We don't need a default non-objective criterion, because we have the WP rules: WP:V, etc. and, as you say yourself, we have the title "Persecution of Christians", which is enough to guide us in every discussion around a specific content that we think should be included, but fails the default objective criterion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Dominic Mayers We can all agree that persecution is a word with a meaning. We can agree that the meaning of a word is by definition its synonym. Wikipedia guidelines indicate that if either the word, or its meaning, (that anyone would recognize), are used in reliable secondary sources, either one is usable here on Wikipedia. What we have here, instead, as our supposed 'default' is a kind of circularity that defines a word only by reference to itself, as if it has no actual meaning, when it's the meaning of the word that actually matters. It's the meaning that makes this a notable topic. Where is there any meaning, any usable definition, in this 'default' requirement for a single word?

Let me quote from the Utah Law Review: This article provides a "comprehensive assessment of persecution's central underpinnings to isolate the three pillars that represent persecution's fundamental core: harm, severity and legitimacy. At the same time, this article critiques a number of false dichotomies and shaky definitions that have troubled and obscured the persecution definition up to this point. Based on the analyzed core aspects of persecution and the elimination of erroneously included definitional components, this article proposes that decision makers define persecution as "the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm". That's a usable meaning from a reliable source that is simple and objective and real.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Definition of persecution

persecution /pəːsɪˈkjuːʃn/ noun hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression.

Problem with using this as a guide. Making Christians wear face makes is (according to the ones who don't) "hostility and ill-treatment" forcing them to not be able to discriminate is "hostility and ill-treatment (based on religion)" (again according to them).

The problem is that any inclusion criteria has to be ridged enough to exclude just being mean to some Christians. This is why I say "Only if RS say it was persecution", otherwise we will get people arguing that (as we had in the past) material that is not persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So, the idea could be to agree on a couple of synonyms that could be used in a default objective criterion that would require that reliable sources say it is persecution using one of these synomyms. Though more inclusive, it would still have the same problem and would need to be only a default, i.e., an editor should be free to try to obtain consensus for the inclusion of a specific content that violates this default rule. In fact, the converse is also true: an editor should be free to obtain consensus for the exclusion of a specific content that does not violate the default rule. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought the objective was to reduce the need for endless discussion on inclusions? Also any synonym must be one that is used exclusively as a synonym for persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Now I have put forward a proposal for what our inclusion criteria should be, we now need a counter-proposal. What we do not need is more discussion on having discusions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussions are generally a good thing. Only some discussions aren't. A default objective criterion could help reduce the need for some kind of discussions that might not be useful. Yet, my point is that no objective default criterion can be perfect and acknowledging this will help people dropping the stick when needed and thus also reduce discussions that we don't want at all. Personnally, I would not even use a default objective criterion, but there seem to exist a consensus in favour that we use one. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Then make a proposal and then we can discuss it, this will be my last word here until someone gives me something to discuss. I have made my proposal and until I see something else there really is no more to be said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no point in making a proposal, if we do not agree on the concept of a default objective criterion, i.e., about the fact that whatever is the proposal, it can only be a default, not an absolute universal criterion. In a way, this is my proposal. I propose that we either don't use any universal criterion above the WP rules and the title "Persecution of Christians" to guide the discussions (my preferred choice) or, if we use an extra universal criterion, it should be understood as a default criterion only. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I realize that I did not comment on your proposal "the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm". It's because I agreed with Slatersteven that there are problems with this definition if we want to use it as an objective rule. What is "sufficiently severe harm" is not objective. What is "illegitimate" is also not objective. I agree with Slatersteven that the rule must send us back to what reliable sources say such as does the rule "the RS must say it is persecution", but I disagree with him, that it can be used as a universal rule that can be applied in a strict manner, even if the rule refers to what sources say. To make the point more general, I relaxed the rule by suggesting that the sources must say it is persecution, but can use synonyms to do so. Even relaxed in this manner, it cannot be an objective rule to be applied in a strict manner in all cases, even against consensus. When you think about that, what I am saying is just common sense, because doing otherwise would violate WP:Consensus. The only rules that we can oppose to WP:Consensus are WP rules such as WP:V, but I never seen a consensus that admits to be opposed to WP rules. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In case this was a source of confusion, when I refer to consensus here, I do not refer to a consensus against or for the rule in general, but only against the rule in the case of a specific content. This is what I mean by the rule can be a default, but not a universal strict rule to be used even against consensus in every case. Again, this is just the common sense application of WP:Consensus. I don't know how we can even be arguing about this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven OMG! This is going down the same rabbit hole as before. That is partly why I addressed this only to you. Please actually read this in good faith as I address your concerns specifically.

• 1) Making Christians wear face makes is (according to the ones who don't) "hostility and ill-treatment" forcing them to not be able to discriminate is "hostility and ill-treatment (based on religion)" (again according to them). and any inclusion criteria has to be ridged enough to exclude just being mean to some Christians. This is why I say "Only if RS say it was persecution", otherwise we will get people arguing that (as we had in the past) material that is not persecution. This is addressed in section five on pages 337-338 as one of four false definitions and dichotomies. You are absolutely right that offensive behavior is not consistent with the scope of persecution (page 338). But that is generally recognized or you wouldn't be able to use it as an example. That makes this another strawman argument that isn't really about the issue at hand. Because false definitions exist is not a good reason for not coming up with a good definition of our own. Behavior that consensus of modern civilized society would condone can be legitimately excluded from any definition of persecution (page 317). We can say that exactly in any definition we choose.
• 2) The reference I gave has full discussions of the meaning of harm and severity and those can be included, but when it comes down to it, a common understanding, (which is part of Wikipedia's criteria that you have quoted), is all that's needed. Ordinary harmful conduct -"physical harm, restraints and deprivations of privacy, resource and opportunity limitation, psychological harms, and infringements on human rights" - are all recognized, by anyone, in a common general understanding, as harm. Harm is not automatically persecution. It does not become persecution unless it is severe, and severity is defined by context in all possible examples - in every example you have yourself used. Severity is also generally understood as not simply "offensive, unjust, unfair...harassment..(page 343). That is a test you have also used regularly to separate modern persecution from what you call a "persecution complex".
• 3) The State's legitimate power to cause suffering, and human rights violations, can also be discussed and added as limiters, but these still come back to the scope of the harm inflicted and its severity as defined by context.
• 4) You have regularly recognized and applied all of this from time to time, without ever spelling any of it out, because these things are in fact part of a common understanding - and if completely honest - because it has worked to your advantage in disputes not to have a more rigid and universal synonym available for others. But it is easy to go back and find diffs where you have used all of these aspects of a definition, as it has suited you, depending upon the issue at hand. All I ask is for a clear statement of what you already do through assumption.

• I am asking you for a proposal that includes all your usages, and not just the most narrow one, so that you get to decide what the synonymous meaning of the term is. We need that synonym. Using the term alone is an applied fallacy that needs to go. You are the tentpole in this entire discussion, so we need it from you.
• Please note that all of my assertions come with a RS. And yes, of course there are more available if you so desire, but this is the most comprehensive one. And yes again, a definition/synonym will lessen the number and severity of these disputes. You know that because you know that clarity and agreement always do. That is a pointless red herring. Rigidity and universal applicability are not real requirements for a definition, either, but a broader definition that is an actual recognizable synonym would make everything in and about this article better. Please, just recognize openly what you already do in practice, and state it, so that others can do the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

---

This comment was addressed to Slatersteven, but I must reply to it. It's too long and it mixes two distinct ideas: a criterion that refers to a definition and a criterion that refers to synonyms that are already fixed in advance. Only the latter can be objective and simple to apply. You don't need to refer to a definition at all to apply a criterion that says "RS must say it is persecution" while using synonyms of "persecution" that are already accepted as synonyms. It's easy to check objectively. The same is not true for a criterion that refers to a definition. The idea of a default criterion is that it must be very easy to apply. Of course, a criterion of this kind is way too rigid, but as a default it can be useful, because of its simplicity. Another point in the comment is that Slatersteven himself apparently went beyond this strict criterion a few times. That only shows that it can only be used as a default to which we can make exceptions. It will be nice to show the diffs where Slatersteven did that. Of course, anyone is free, not only Slatersteven, to go beyond this strict default criterion. The criterion might appear useless, but it is useful, because it can be enforced if there no discussion with a consensus against it. OTOH, it can be seen as a bit artificial. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is beyond unhelpful. You win. I give up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It does not appear helpful, because you were trying to accomplish something that I did not support. But, I don't support much Slatersteven default criterion either and totally oppose that it could be a strict universal criterion. I simply don't think that trying to resolve the issues here in a universal manner is going to work. The only universal rules that we have are the WP rules. As far as the scope is concerned, it is something that is dynamic: it can be reconsidered as needed in view of every proposed content. Yes, this relies on WP:consensus for every single content (instead of only once for some universal rule), so a lot of reliance on consensus, but that is what Wikipedia is all about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A section on the definitions of persecution of Christians

Though I still think that referring to a definition in some universal inclusion/exclusion rule is inappropriate, I strongly believe that editors should discuss sources to try as much as possible to reach a common understanding about what they say. This is not at all doing original research. It's the opposite of original research. Naturally, the more the editors discuss the sources and reach agreement about what they say, determining what content should be added or excluded becomes easier. Therefore, using this as a principle, and putting aside the idea of having a universal rule for inclusion/exclusion (based on a definition or whatever), it will be useful to share a common understanding about what the sources say regarding the definition of persecution, especially in the context of Christianity. This is about content, not general rules. It's very standard to have a section about the different definitions of the concept in Wikipedia articles. The goal should be to have such a section. Reading the reference provided by Jenhawk777 and looking elsewhere, I think there are sufficiently many sources to justify such a section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I proposed this elsewhere, but have received no response, so I am back to see if we can form a more general consensus.

I propose that a reference that uses the term persecution may still be rejected as a reliable source for other reasons.

I propose that a reliable source that does not specifically use the word persecution - such as the State department report and the PEW reports on violations of religious rights - may be used if the behavior described meets the criteria for persecution. That criteria will be clearly stated in a definition section of the article itself.

In the article section on definition, I propose that:

• Persecution is defined as the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm within these limitations:
• Behavior that a consensus of modern civilized society would condone is excluded from being considered persecution.
• Participants in war or terrorism are excluded.
• Harm - "physical harm, restraints and deprivations of privacy, resource and opportunity limitation, psychological harms, and infringements on human rights" - are all defined by a common general understanding of harm. Harms alone - injustices, unfairness and even harassment - do not rise to the level of genuine persecution, and cannot be called persecution until it is severe.
• Severity is defined by context using a general understanding. A single act such as murder can be severe, or it can be harm that becomes severe through repetition, or escalation, or expansion to other family members. (This can be expanded if needed, but it's going to get "discussed" repeatedly no matter what we do imo. That's okay. This is not a replacement for discussion.)
• The State has the legitimate power to inflict some harms, in some circumstances - with the caveat that the general assumption of human rights as stated by almost every country in the world - is a limitation on state power. Therefore some severe, harmful violations of human rights are illegitimate uses of state power and are therefore persecution.

By excluding ordinary harm, etc., specifically, we have ensured no "persecution complex" material gets in. This definition removes the trivial in two ways. By including those references that describe the behavior without the term, we ensure that relevant material is not arbitrarily excluded. The requirement for RS should never lessen in any way.

Anyone and everyone, Dominic Mayers, Slatersteven, Karma1998, Strawgate, Hob Gadling, Laurel Lodged, Dimadick, Richard Keatinge, Viriditas please proffer your views. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I am currently studying for an exam (I am a Law student at the University of Trieste) and cannot currently engage in an online debate. Give me some days and I'll answer you more properly.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 easily granted - and good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Some observations.

• • • "modern civilized society" I am far from certain how we can define civilized society. Cultural standards may vary considerably, even within the regions of a single state.
    • Are you suggesting the exclusion of religious wars from an article on religious persecution? Some of the best examples we could find were part of the European wars of religion, with frequent massacres.
    • The "infringements on human rights" should be sufficient here, without defining the others. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is accepted by all UN members, and enumerates rights.: "dignity, liberty, and equality." right to life. Prohibition of slavery and torture. Freedom of movement and residence within each state, the right of property and the right to a nationality. Spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media. Right to healthcare. Right to a standard of living, accommodations in case of physical debilitation or disability. Care given to those in motherhood or childhood.
    • To be honest, single murders are not what comes to my mind when I hear the term "persecution". Collective punishment, summary executions, and mass deportations tend to occur when entire groups are targeted for persecution.
    • Acts of state terrorism should be fair game in an article on persecution. There are also cases where the people persecuting others are not representatives of a state, but violent non-state actors of any type. The goals of the VNSA may differ considerably, but by definition, they are all willing to use violence to achieve them. Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777:

• I propose that a reference that uses the term persecution may still be rejected as a reliable source for other reasons. It should work content by content. Even a source that is generally considered unreliable might be reliable for a specific content. But, I agree with the idea: it's not because it mentions "persecution" that it can be included.
• I propose that a reliable source that does not specifically use the word persecution - such as the State department report and the PEW reports on violations of religious rights - may be used if the behavior described meets the criteria for persecution. That criteria will be clearly stated in a definition section of the article itself. Sure, but it must also work content by content. The basic idea is very simple: editors must understand the sources, then agree that the proposed content is pertinent or not and if it's pertinent and the source is reliable it can be included. Don't hope for universal rules that would be more specific than that. Your two examples must be considered individually with specific contents proposed.
• In the article section on definition, I propose that: [...] Persecution is defined as the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm within these limitations: [...] This section as any other section should simply say what the sources say. There might be different opinions about what is persecution in the literature. If there is a complete agreement in the literature about what is persecution of Christians, then great, we just state what it is. Otherwise, we include all notable views and attribute them.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If an RS calls it persecution there is no reason not to include it. If an RS does not say it is persecution it is wp:or to taker a [[wp:primary] source and interpret it. This is especialy true if we start to decide what are "illegitimate uses of state power" (who gets to decide?). It is all far too subjective.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You simplify too much the scope of the article. There is a large consensus against this too restricted scope. But, if Jenhawk777 insists that we should have a universal rule for the scope in terms of a "definition" of persecution, then this way too simplistic "definition", namely that it must be called persecution by RS, is the best that I can think of. This is not a support for this simplistic rule. It's a way of saying to both Slatersteven and Jenhawk777, especially to Jenhawk777, that they should drop the stick in terms of trying to propose a universal rule that would define the scope based on a definition. This is not saying that a section on the definition of persecution would not be useful, but it should be managed like any other section by making sure that all relevant notable views from reliable sources are included, by looking at every proposed content. It must work content by content. Of course, we can also discuss the global organization of the article, for example, decide whether or not we want a section on the definition, but this is not in itself a general rule for the scope based on a definition. Working on this section will naturally help the editors to decide what should be included or not, but this is a general principle: the more the editors understand and discuss the sources the easier it will become to decide what to include or not to include. So, please simply focus on content by referring to RS, with specific proposals on the table. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have said more than once I will drop it, I keep getting pinged and asked my opinion or my opinion is discussed. Look at who is participating here, I have two lines.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is why my drop the stick comment was addressed especially to Jenhawk777. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. WP:OR is pretty clear. It not our job to invent arbitrary criteria for inclusion based on what we think a word means. You simplify too much is not real reasoning. I could also say "you complicate too much". This is all really simple and not that interesting. Don't ping me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If Gadling wants to change the conclusion of the RfC, which was against the simplistic rule of Slatersteven, he would first have to accept a discussion that would justify a second RfC, which is in itself a long shot. Most likely, the conclusion of this second RfC would remain the same. But, he does not even wants a local discussion, which is a requirement before an RfC. So, I can safely ignore his comment as he indirectly requested. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see two RFC's one that said martyr and persecution are not the same, and one concluding we can include the material about James. I see no RFC about inclusion criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have also now searched the archives, and can find no RFC (so my memory was wrong) about this idea being rejected in the past as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC allowed the status quo with the included content that violated your simplistic rule. So, in that sense, it is a conclusion against the simplistic rule. Moreover, there was a request to drop the stick with a clear reference to the discussion about the simplistic rule. It's clear enough to me. But, I am not a fanatic of RfCs. They are just a tool to help reach a consensus through discussions. The key point in my last comment was simply that an opinion-vote is not needed here. Wikipedia is not a democracy. So, I can safely ignore Gadling support for your simplistic rule. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC only answer the question they asked, which in this case was to include one passage, it can't be used as some kind of courtroom style precedent. And no you can't choose to safely ignore any user's views.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I am surprised at this: If an RS calls it persecution there is no reason not to include it. It means all the stuff from Open Doors and the rest - that you have previously excluded - must be allowed in. Seems like an 'open door' to persecution complex imo, but so be it. So far there doesn't seem to be any consensus in favor of adding a definition section, so I will move on. Thank you all for your input.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I said RS, is open doors an RS? I seem to recall arguing it's not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say that, after a more careful reading, I do agree with Hob Gadling. I realized that his comment was not a support for the specific rule "RS must say it is persecution", but only a support for the principle, also stated by Slatersteven, that we cannot define our general inclusion criterion, which is in fact what I also say. He also criticized my statement "you simplify too much" that I made about the rule "RS must say it is persecution". He is also right that it's not an argument. It was not intended as an argument. It was only a statement. Richard Keatinge also did not provide any argument. He only stated We absolutely don't need to insist that a source specifies the word "persecution" in order to include either the source, or its specific viewpoint, or the instance concerned. It's just common sense. The argument, if we insist to have one, was the consensus against it, especially in the case of James the Just. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the dispute here?

I came from ANI trying to see what exactly the problem is, and I can't make heads or tails of it. A lot of words are being exchanged, but I don't see what exact substantive change is at issue. Is there a specific diff that is contested here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I offer my summation of relevant policy and practice:

We can have a section on definition, though it's simpler to just wikilink to persecution. If we do decide to use a short formal definition, either the word "illegitimate" should be removed, or we should explicitly quote the definition of "illegitimacy" that we are using. The concept has varied rather dramatically between cultures and times - Janet Horne was burned to death quite legally and the Moriori were tortured and eaten in perfect accord with the ethics of their conquerors. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be fine. Yes, we can perfectly well apply a modern description to historical events and very foreign cultures. And I hope that nobody is encouraged to start wikilawyering over specific instances.

We absolutely don't need to insist that a source specifies the word "persecution" in order to include either the source, or its specific viewpoint, or the instance concerned. Nor do we have to include a source, or its specific viewpoint, or the instance concerned, just because it does use the word "persecution". Our current comment on Nero's murders - just mentioning that at least one RS feels that it's on the edge of the definition of persecution - seems very suitable to that case.

We can, again by consensus, choose to include or exclude large categories of people being nasty to Christians. Inter-state wars, isolated murders, intra-Christian burnings etcetera, riots, massacres with mixed motivations, millennial sects with self-declared sovereignty being exterminated, none are quite the same as the classic core concept of a State hunting down individuals on the basis of their Christian religion alone and offering the choice of apostasy or death. Whether the scope of the article includes these categories is for us to decide, by consensus and within reason.

Like Hob Gadling, I don't want to be involved in any more futile meta-discussion, and as CaptainEek adumbrates I feel that the walls of text above are not well-focused. But I'll keep this page on my watch list for a bit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the points made by Richard Keatinge. It's very helpful. But it does not answer the question why an ANI was created. The context is that Slatersteven keeps maintaining his position that "RS must say it is persecution" is required by WP:OR, whereas Jenhawk777 tried to have a consensus toward a more inclusive general rule. This in itself does not explain the ANI. I will put aside the fact Slatersteven denies that we can infer logically from the included content about James the Just, which was supported in the last RfC in opposition to his rule, that his rule was rejected and accused me in the ANI to be against policy because I mentioned this simple logic. The real issue is that Slatersteven found unacceptable that a content that does not mention "persecution" can be open to discussion for inclusion. With his proposed rule, he wants to remove the need for discussions regarding specific content. Perhaps that he sees the need for a discussion (about what the sources say) in this context as an evidence for OR. This leads to the general question: is a discussion about what reliable sources say regarding a specific content a sign that this content is OR? I will be happy if this question is brought to an OR notice board in the context of Slatersteven proposed rule. There was no need for an ANI. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The solution is to use the accepted general definition of religious persecution. In fairness, the most significant examples of religious persecution will use the word persecution, or a reasonable synonym. Reasonable synonyms might include repression, oppression, reprisal, retaliation, expulsion, suppression, genocide, injustice, intimidation, marginalization, discrimination, ostracism, witch hunt, and torture. It is surprising that this is a matter of contention. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I thanked you for the addition of the synonyms, because it made a big difference. However, I really think that there are two opposed general perspectives here. The first one is that we should have a universal criterion that prevents the need for discussions when we consider a specific content. The idea here is that such discussions might involve subjectivity and thus some form of OR. I disagree with this fear, but it's a perspective. If you suggest your rule as an absolute, then you have this first perspective. The second one is that we don't look for a general criterion, except of course the general notion of persecution of Christians, and, on the contrary, we encourage discussion around specific content using reliable sources. The difference here is that the general notion of persecution is not fixed, but evolves as the article evolves, always oriented toward reliable sources. In particular, a section on the definition could very much help to create a more shared understanding of the concept among editors. BTW, I am surprised that there is an assumption here that there is a generally accepted definition in the literature. Usually, in controversial topics, even experts do not agree and there are many definitions of the concept. Also, this second perspective covers cases where it's not persecution, but reliable sources see it as a related and editors also decide that it is pertinent and thus within the scope, in respect of no OR and V. The greatest positive point about this second perspective and that it stops all the discussions about a universal rule, with synonyms or not or whatever, and editors immediately focus on content, possibly the content of a section on definition(s). Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions for use on Wikipedia are used descriptively, not normatively. If something has the characteristics of religious persecution, and is supported by reliable sources, then it is a candidate for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Not normatively" means no associated rule. So, it corresponds to what I called the second perspective, but which could as well be called the non-normative perspective. However, it remains to clarify why do we even bother to have a descriptive definition beyond what should be the content of a section on definition. I mean, if it is descriptive and corresponds to what sources say, then it might be worth it, in fact also more robust, to include it in a section, because then it will attract more attention. There is the good argument that it should be covered in the general article on persecution, but still there might be aspects to this definition that are specific to persecution of Christians and discussed in reliable sources. Besides, if we accept the argument that it is entirely and well done in the general article on persecution, then there is nothing to discuss here and we can immediately focus on specific content, which is the main point of this second or non-normative perspective. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Many words have been spilt and I still have not been enlightened as to what the fundamental issue is. Can someone state, in one sentence, ideally with a diff of the disputed content, what the question at hand is? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you expect a diff of some change in the article, then that's part of the issue. I say, let's focus on specific changes so that we can have a diff like that or at the least have a concrete content being disputed. Others insist to discuss abstract universal rules with no specific content on the table. Moreover, they do not agree on the universal rule and I don't see that it will ever happen. Some even associate their favorite rule with policy and create an ANI because people do not agree with what they consider policy. This is the big picture. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek The dispute is over the requirement that the word persecution must be used in a RS before said source or its content can be included in this article. Beginning in section 5, "What is the problem?", it has been Slatersteven's repeatedly stated position that the word - not its meaning - must be used by the source, and without consensus support, edits are reverted regularly based on that criteria.

I have argued an alternate view that Viriditas has here stated with his own good sense: Definitions for use on Wikipedia are used descriptively, not normatively. If something has the characteristics of religious persecution, and is supported by reliable sources, then it is a candidate for inclusion. That's the bottom line: 'term alone' vs. 'term and/or meaning' as a means of determining what's in or out of this article. The rest is superfluous and serves only to muddy the waters. No one has asked for a 'universal rule'. The disagreement started about the requirement of a word, rather than its meaning, and that's it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I am happy if I have wrongly considered that you wanted a universal rule. Of course, no universal rule implies that every content is a candidate and we must decide each time by considering the content specifically. If it is what you mean, then great, I think we might have a consensus on that and start to work on specific content. No need to even discuss Slatersteven's rule, because if we have a consensus on no universal rule, it also excludes this rule. The content could be for a section on definition or something else, but in either case it will be a specific content that must be verifiable, respect WP:undue, etc.

Dominic Mayers all of this bouncing back and forth, for and against, with your many interpretations of additional peripheral "big picture" issues, is making me a little crazy. I haven't a clue what you are actually suggesting here. I have said repeatedly that I do not suggest anything that would interfere with discussion, nor do I think such a thing as a "universal rule" that would do that exists. Why in God's name would I advocate for something that I think doesn't exist? I think you've lost the bubble here: term alone is a kind of 'universal rule' and that was my original complaint; term and meaning will require a definition as a guide for regular discussion: that's the only issue I have raised. Don't overgeneralize and make it more or other than it is. Let's, please, stick with the concrete. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The impression of back and forth, "peripheral" big picture, etc. is your experience, but from my perspective I maintained the same simple position since the beginning. What I mean by "universal rule" is very simple. It's any rule that can be discussed without a specific content on the table. So, whenever I see you wanting to discuss what should be included or not with no specific content on the table, it's automatic for me that it's about a universal rule. Your discussion above is necessarily about a universal rule, because there is no specific content on the table. I always opposed these discussions, as much when Slatersteven insisted on "RS must say it is persecution" than when you proposed an alternative. My position is so so simple: just drop the stick and move directly to a specific content, some change in the article, a new section or whatever. This seems to contradict your need to set some rules in advance, before a specific content is proposed. Some times, you interpret my position as supporting your view. Other times, you see it as opposed to your view. So, you see a back and forth, but the reality is that it was always the same position, but you don't get it. OK, some times, I wrote that universal rules can be useful as long as we accept that we can violate them when a specific content is considered. That, I admit, could have created some confusion and invited discussions about rules. So, let me retract this, so that it becomes clear that my position is that there is nothing to discuss further here and that we should immediately focus on a specific content. Even the scope, which is something that must be reconsidered often, should be reconsidered with a specific content on the table. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is (and has been in the past) that people have used OR to claim something is an example of persecution and included it here bases upon (for example) the fact the victims were Christians. Unless we have (to my mind) a clear and unequivocal inclusion criterion that does not rely on subjective interpretation I fear we will go back to that situation. If someone could come up with one that was not riddled with "unless I disagree"'s I would have no issue, but no one has. We have "unless I do not agree even if it is an RS", "unless I disagree even if it is not an RS" ect etc. That is a recipe for dispute, and has been (in this article) in the past. I have expressed my position for clarity, I will not be posting more about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So, here we see again Slatersteven arguing for his "objective" universal rule so that we don't need to discuss specific proposals. He does that even though there is a consensus against this rule and the last RfC supported a content that shows its lack of universality. He seems to see eventual discussions about a specific content as evidence that the content is OR. If people still want to discuss with Slatersteven universal rules (i.e. with no specific content on the table), then I would not interfere anymore. In theory, it could work and a local consensus will be obtained and that would be perfectly fine and great, but it's not going to happen in practice. Even if it happens, it might be contested later with an RfC by any new editor. So, it's not going to be robust. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I commend Slatersteven for his decision to post no more about this. I will now take this page off my watch list. Please don't ping me - unless anyone wants to bring up a constructive discussion about some substantive issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the only thing established here is that there is no consensus on any rule, certainly not on the rule "RS must say it is persecution". For me "substantive", means about some concrete change in the article or about a view point in some specific reliable sources in relation with the content of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this is a case where there is a need to officially close the discussion with a conclusion, even though the conclusion might be only a lack of substantive issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dominic Mayers. No progress of any kind once again. I too am declaring an end.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sad that you are taken it this way, but I don't blame you. I am sure that you wanted sincerely to clarify at some abstract level (I mean here without reference to a specific content) what can be included in the article. It is a very natural goal and I cannot blame you for that. You might feel that it's not encouraging to work on this article without this minimal common shared understanding that would apply to any eventual proposed content. Also, though I don't believe (due to the reality of the situation, not from general principles) that it can work, I do not personally stop you from trying. I am simply not supporting this approach and strongly advise you to use a different approach, which is to focus immediately on concrete content, ideally something that could eventually be seen by diffs. Note that with this alternative approach, you will progressively achieve the same goal, in practice, not with abstract rules, because it will be the actual experience of the editors in terms of concrete content. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on whether martyrdom is persecution

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

See above discussion.

All Reliable Sources refer to James the Just as a martyr. No one argues that James was not killed for his faith. WP defines Martyr as someone who suffers persecution and death for their beliefs. A martyrdom is not an ordinary death. I think that means all reliable sources say James the Just suffered persecution and death for his faith. Slatersteven believes the word persecution must be used and that martyrdom is not a sufficient simile for persecution to include James the Just here in this article Persecution of Christians.

The question is: does the term martyrdom include the concept of persecution? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That is classic WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH. You cannot just replace a term used by a source, by its definition from another source, and then claim that the result is what the first source says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet read the article and the context, so my comment here is not an answer, but I know that it's more complicated than that. It can be fine to replace a term by another term that has the same meaning, as long as it is not a direct quotation and this, of course, is not always OR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall that crusaders who died on a crusade were martyrs, as are Muslim warriors who die in Jihad.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So, the meaning depends on the context. Yet, I think it's fine that editors use some judgments to understand what the sources say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What I am not clear about is what are the so called reliable sources? Are the sources that say James the Just is a martyr unreliable? If they are reliable, what is the basis to say that they do not refer to persecution? In other words, how do we know that a source is about persecution and another is not? If the criteria is that the word "persecution" must appear in the title or something like that, it's a weak criteria. I am not arguing in support or against anything here. I am just trying to understand what is the situation regarding the reliable sources for this topic. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:v A source must say it in a way that anyone reading it would go "yes" that is what it means. You can be a martyr just for dying in a war.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not a general question that I ask. I am asking specifically for this topic, what are the reliable and pertinent sources? How do we select the sources for this topic? I am not also asking about the specific term "persecution". Wikipedia articles are not about words such as persecution, but about concepts. So, we cannot select sources only on the basis of a specific word in their title. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

wp:rs. and yes Wikipedia is about words, after all, if I say he was not a Christian martyr as he was not even Christan (as he was still technically Jewish) what makes me wrong? This is why we do not use how we interpret sources for information here, we use how RS interprets it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"This is why we do not use how we interpret sources for information here, we use how RS interprets it." You are sidestepping a question. Dominic Mayers asked how to select sources on a specific topic. Which would probably depend on how modern scholars view the struggles of 1st-century Christians with the authorities, and what have they written about it. Dimadick (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, I am grateful to see everyone here and these excellent comments. Thank you.

Dominic Mayers these: What I am not clear about is what are the so called reliable sources? Are the sources that say James the Just is a martyr unreliable? If they are reliable, what is the basis to say that they do not refer to persecution? are excellent questions imo. One of the sources used is by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, a well known authority on martyrdom and early Christian persecution. In one of his many articles, this one titled WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED? (available here: [4]) St. Croix refers to James: "any Christians who were martyred, like Stephen and James "the Just" (the brother of Jesus), were victims of purely Jewish enmity". That's martyrdom, in an article about persecution, which mentions James as being a martyr and a victim, by a recognized authority in the field.

There are no sources that do not describe the death of James the Just as a martyrdom. I disagree with Slatersteven's claim that You can be a martyr just for dying in a war. I don't think most people read martyrdom in that context. A martyr dies for a cause resisting outside pressure to change. In a war, a soldier voluntarily fights for a cause by applying pressure, not resisting it. So no, that is not martyrdom as it is generally defined.

When someone is killed specifically because of their religious faith, as James was, after they and their associates have endured other types of persecution, (See James The Just and Christian Origins edited by Bruce David Chilton, and Craig Alan Evans; published by Brill, 1999, pages 182- 186 for a discussion of the persecution of the early church including Stephen, Peter and James), and their only act was to remain faithful in the face of hatred and repression, then that is martyrdom. There is no reliable source - no unreliable source - no source of any kind that does not refer to James as a martyr. He died for his faith as a martyr. That particular point is not up for grabs. That is established scholarship.

Hob Gadling no one has done this: You cannot just replace a term used by a source, by its definition from another source, and then claim that the result is what the first source says. I don't think anyone is suggesting it. But Slatersteven is absolutely correct when he says we can paraphrase, as long as anyone could come to the same reading.

Again, all the sources call James a martyr. Does being killed not qualify as persecution? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The source [5] uses the term "martyr". You used a definition in another source (Wikipedia) to replace the term "martyr" by "persecution" and claimed that the first source could be used as saying that instead of what it actually said. So, yes, someone is suggesting it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The only question that is important is whether for this specific source James the Just was prosecuted. This has not to, in fact should not, be evaluated on the basis of a single sentence in the source. We should consider the context in the source. We should also consider other sources, because a single content in Wikipedia can have more than one source. So, it's not that we need to match a specific sentence in a given source in order to avoid OR. It does not work that way, unless we want to include an exact quotation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I understand that the term "martyr" has been used as a status that is obtained when the person dies while being in service. This shows a bit weakly that we cannot systematically consider that a person is persecuted simply because he was said to be a "martyr" in some source. It's a bit weak, because all the cases that you provided happened in the medieval age, but I would not be surprised that, even much later, catholic authorities often considered as martyrs their missionaries that died in duty. Yet, it does not show that we must systematically reject all cases where the term "martyr" was used instead of "persecuted". Do you have other reasons to believe that the sources that refer to James as a martyr did not consider that he was a persecuted Christian? For example, was he killed in a battle by people that defended themselves against him? Do you have some reasons specific to this topic to insist that the exact term "persecuted" is used by the sources? I find this a bit too strict, because it seems to me that the sources provided putted this martyrdom in the context of a persecution of Christians, but I might be missing something. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is we are then engageing in wp:or when we decide which cases obviously mean "persecuted", rather than say "not obeying the law".Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven St. Croix and Chilton and Evans say the Jews acted outside both synagogue and civic law and that is why the High Priest was immediately removed from his temporary position.

James was not a crusader. Such analogies are inapplicable. Using that would be Or along the exact lines that Hob Gadling describes. Irony.

There is no 'Original research' in this. RS include James' death as a true martyrdom for faith in circumstances of early religious persecution. Your requirement that the specific word be used instead of a description of it is not just overly strict, it is not a true WP requirement, not an actual definition of 'Or' and is not sustained or sustainable in all other articles on persecution. Your requirement would be unique to this article alone, and that creates all kinds of issues for contradictory meta-data in the encyclopedia.

Is there a source that specifically describes James' death as something separate from and not a part of the early persecutions?

That's the only question that truly matters in order to answer this Rfc fairly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

---

(ec) Slatersteven, trying to understand the sources is not OR, but the opposite. I would say that there is more chance of misinterpreting the sources if we adopt a strict attitude based on the mere occurrence of a word or lack thereof than if we try to understand a sentence based on its context. We cannot interpret based on our personal feeling a term such as "martyr", but we can use the context to determine objectively what is the meaning of the term in its context. There is no OR going on here. So, please do consider the points made by Jenhawk777 (and the questions that I raised) and let's have a useful discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• My 2 cents In the Venn diagram of martyr and persecution, there is an overlap, but not always. Some martyrs die on crusade and so are not victims of persecution. Some are persecuted financially or are tortured but do not suffer death and so are not martyrs. So it all depends on the context: the two terms cannot, therefore, be used interchangeably. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. The RfC question is not a good one. The RfC should be closed as being an unclear question (if we all agree) or modified to include the specific context (but I don't know if we can modify the question of a RfC after it has started.) BTW, I believe that the notion that a person killed in war can be a martyr is a concept that only exists in some religions and is not accepted outside the religion, but it still exists. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Question. Is the issue that James the Just should not be mentioned at all, because it's martyrdom is irrelevant or that it's OK that we mention him, but we should use the term "martyr" given that most sources in the context of persecution, thus in a way that is pertinent, refer to him as a martyr? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Dominic Mayers:

  • Yes, I also agree the question is not as good as needed, and your version is more to the point than mine which is too general. You are right in your description of the question as, should James the Just be included in this article: no, because his martyrdom is irrelevant to the concept of persecution which is the topic of this article; or yes, because all reliable sources describe James' martyrdom as being a result of the earliest persecutions of the church. Say it however you think is appropriate. Please change, adjust, reopen, do whatever you think is needed for getting some resolution of this. I agree.
  • BTW, this is just an aside to this discussion, but for your own interest, here is an article on the efforts that have been made to define persecution in international refugee law: [6] On page 126-127 it says, "According to Belgian case law, serious assaults on physical integrity are regarded as ‘persecution’. Additionally, murder and physical maltreatment are necessarily elements of persecution, according to rulings upheld by the Council of State of The Netherlands". This modern definition is used on WP to define ancient persecutions, since the ancients had no such concept of their own. In Antiquity, the state had the right to do what was necessary to maintain the peace, including the torture of witnesses, so they had no concept of persecution as such - they only had the concept of martyrdom. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Laurel Lodged Using your math example, a true Venn would represent the larger groups as "A" and "B" and the smallest group - "C" - in the overlap between them. "A" would be those who die without it being persecution such as crusaders. "B" would be those who suffer persecution without death. "C" - martyrs - would be the smallest group - the overlap of the two - where both requirements are met. Therefore, this example does not really prove anything about martyrdom not including the concept of persecution.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• New argument. I would like to add to the arguments already given here in support that "martyr" and "persecuted" cannot be used interchangeably. The expressions "martyrs of the persecution", "martyrs during the persecution", "martyrs in the persecution" have been used in books throughout history, as can be seen in this Google ngram. If we replace "martyrs" by "persecuted" in these expressions, the new expressions are pleonasms and no ngrams at all are found in Google for them. The idea is that martyrs are often a part of a persecution of a community or a religious group, but we cannot use them interchangeably. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposal to close the RfC

I suggest that we close the RfC with the conclusion that "martyrs" and "persecuted" cannot be used interchangeably. This answers the question of the RfC, but it does not mean that the martyrdom of James the Just is not pertinent in the context of this article about persecution. It's a different question that we can address after the RfC is closed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree to closure. I apparently suck at making up these questions, so I also agree that after this is closed, another Rfc should be opened by someone who is better at formulating questions than I am - thank you everyone here for caring and taking the time to participate. I apologize for my poor ability to formulate on point questions! Hopefully it will get resolved anyway as other good editors are persevering through. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• • The Rfc is closed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Dominic Mayers I am looking forward to that new Rfc question - hopefully. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: You should propose a content that can be further discussed in view of its inclusion in the article. It's impossible that the previous discussion had no influence at all on any details of the content to be added. It is always better to discuss with a specific content in view. We will only do another RfC if this discussion stalls. I am still here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, my mind and opinion has not changed, so it might be best to cut straight to a new RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

We just had an RfC and some useful conclusion was reached. Your position on the original proposal might not have changed and you might imagine what the new proposal (that takes into account this useful conclusion) is going to be and disagree even before you see it, but that's not good enough to justify another RfC. We only do an RfC when a serious effort toward a local consensus has failed. Disagreeing before an effort was made to take account a previous RfC does not enter in this category. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It will anyway be useful for the RfC to see clearly in this talk page what is the essence of the proposal in terms of content in the article and also see a brief description of the position of every one involved in the debate expressed in terms of this content-based proposal. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

So Dominic Mayers this is awkward. Your statement above about a different question that we can address after the RfC is closed. led me to think that was what you intended to do. I don't quite know what to say.

I'm afraid I do agree with Slatersteven that the discussion that preceded the Rfc - "What is the problem?" - directly answers your last comment and covers the requirement for a discussion that failed to reach consensus. Perhaps Karma1998, who first added James and was reverted, will jump in here and add something more, but otherwise, we are at the same impasse now that we were before the Rfc. That's my fault of course, I asked the wrong question, but I had hopes you would ask the right one.

Slatersteven's correct that none of the Rs mention persecution - specifically the word - but I am also correct that every RS says he was martyred for his faith. So on what basis would you argue for his inclusion in this article? It seems like common sense to me that religious martyrdom is a de facto subset of persecution - though not a synonym :-) - but that isn't an argument I can use apparently. I could still use your help with moving this forward, otherwise we will remain at stalemate indefinately I'm afraid. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Good evening @Jenhawk777:: I apologize, but I haven't followed much of the discussion. I would simply point out that the execution of James, brother of Jesus can, in my view, be considered persecution, since Josephus himself states that some citizens were "outraged" by Ananus ben Ananus's actions and Lucceius Albinus was enraged by this act, meaning that it was a political act of persecution by the High Priest toward the early church.--Karma1998 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 I agree completely, but Slatersteven is also correct in that we need a source that says so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet, we can say someone was killed in the same way that reliable sources do in a similar context without going into these details. I mean, if the sources do not bother to discuss the subtle relation between martyrs and persecuted (a subtlety that becomes a complicated question in itself), we should not have to worry about that either. I don't see how the conclusion could be at the end that we cannot say that someone was killed when the sources say so in a similar context. We just need to be careful that what we write does not say more than what is said in the sources and do not raise issues that are not raised in the sources. The previous RfC is useful in that context. If we are sure that we don't do that, then we are fine. If still someone disagrees, then we do a RfC to check with others. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers I Agree with and support all that you say here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC:Should the following be included

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to close protracted discussion which is moot. Further dispute may be opened at the relevant noticeboard in the future per the stated concerns of participants. Disputant(s) asked to mind WP:STICK. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Josephus reports in the Antiquities of the Jews that High Priest Ananus ben Ananus took advantage of the death of Roman procurator Porcius Festus to have James the Just and others stoned to death. This act angered the new procurator Lucceius Albinus and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa II, who had Ananus deposed and replaced by Jesus ben Damneus.

And

The first official hostile act of the Empire towards Jewish-Christians happened under the reign of Claudius: according to the Acts of the Apostles[2] and ancient historians Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Orosius, Claudius had both Jews and Jewish-Christians expelled from Rome because they were causing disturbances. Both groups were re-admitted in the Capital after Claudius's death.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Include

• Include; a clear majority of editors here feel that these instances of people being nasty to other people for religious reasons may usefully be taken within the scope of this article. We do not need a precise pseudo-legal definition of that scope, nor do we need to produce RS that specifically attach the label of "persecution" to these particular events. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would favor including Ananus' executions, as evidence of how Second Temple Judaism dealt with its religious dissenters. There should be secondary sources commenting on the topic. I don't see Claudius' expulsion edict as particularly relevant here. We have an article on Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome, and the modern scholars suggest that it was targeting agitators within the Jewish community rather than being a religious policy. Suetonius even names an agitator of the era (Chrestus), whose identity has been debated. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I join people here and generally support inclusion of verifiable material as long as it is presented in a pertinent manner in its context. This being said, I am against this RfC because it was an abuse of the procedure that prevented a discussion, claiming that a good one already occurred, which is not the case. I am generally opposed to an approach that could invite visitors to only give a quick opinion and not really discuss to help reach a consensus. It's important to invite discussion of the sources so that those who play a role of patroller in Wikipedia can see where the problem lies even when every editor is polite and breaks no Wikipedia rules, except the natural rule that we must discuss in a productive manner and WP:consensus. In this case, it might not create any harm, but in general, when we feel the problem is a problem of communication, it's not an RfC that is the solution. I am assuming that every one acted in good faith, but there was a misunderstanding, perhaps even a fear, that a discussion of sources meant OR. On the contrary, these discussions of the sources (with reference to WP rules when useful) are much needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Exclude

• It is not clear from the sources provided this was persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Even though it is very polite and we can assume that it was done in good faith, it is necessary to make the objective judgment that this comment fails to take into account was was said by many other editors and does not contribute to a discussion that should be based on valid criteria to support inclusion or exclusion. It's not an RfC that was needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I came here only to help in a previous RfC. My understanding is that Slatersteven showed an incapacity to discuss the proposal, as can easily be seen in the previous section and other sections before. An RfC should only be called after one has shown some efforts to discuss, which did not happen. The question (or the proposal) of the RfC should first reach a stable status that is unlikely or less likely to need to be modified before we actually do the RfC. Of course, editors that visit the RfC are welcome to discuss the proposal, but this must happen before people can vote on inclusion or exclusion. An RfC should not be a way to avoid having a discussion with an open mind. So, I removed the sections that invite for a vote at this stage. Once the discussion will have reached a mature state with new visitors, if any, we will start to collect "votes". Besides, an RfC should never be a vote. The purpose of an RfC is to restart with the help of new editors a discussion that has stalled. It's not a vote. It's a way to help reach consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

We also need to know if people agree with the proposal or not. It is standard practice to have sections for agree and disagree. Also you should not alter another user's posts.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The rules say that editors should discuss in good faith before doing an RfC. Do you prefer that we request an admin to close the RfC on this basis? I like the fact that some new visitors come here to discuss, as should happen in a RfC. So, I think the current situation, which do not invite quick "votes", is fine. The part that I modified was after your signature. The RfC does not belong to you. Besides, people can still give their opinion. We only removed the "vote" perspective. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed the inclusion of this, at length. And wp:agf, if you think I am asking in bad faith take it here wp:ani do not use it to justify altering the text of an RFC (no matter how minor). And you can not alter a users post, period, it does not matter if it is unsigned WP:TALKNO.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You do not answer the question and instead take any opportunity to accuse others of breaking rules. In this case, you might be right that one should not even modify the structure of an RfC created by someone else, I don't know. But, I am asking you, do you prefer that I insert back the quick vote sections and request that we close the RfC on the basis of a lack of an adequate discussion on the proposal before? Note that there is no need for a discussion to insert a content, like Richard Keatinge did. What he did was welcome and perfectly fine and I supported that. However, we do need a discussion done in good faith before calling an RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes do that, that is what you should have done in the first place.

But I would point out we have been discussing inclusion of this material for 9 days.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nine very long and frustrating days, yes Slatersteven, and I have no doubt at all that your motives are good, and your reasons are about protecting the article - I do not for a minute question that - but there are ways to compromise without compromising the integrity of this article. I know you are an experienced enough quality editor who knows how to go about that. This nine days reflects that you have made no offers of meeting any of us part way. I offered something below, if you don't like it, offer something in return. Please try. I'm begging - I can't take 9 more days of this. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First, the discussion before the previous RfC does not count. It's the discussion after this previous RfC that counts. I came to help in this previous RfC and clearly, I know as a fact that, after the RfC, the proposal has not been discussed properly. You kept stating that it is OR, against WP:V, etc. without saying anything concrete. After a while, you finally took a different position and stated something more concrete : The sources do not support the conclusion this was anything other than a legal execution based upon breaking the law, Josephus does don't tell us why he was executed, just that he was. It is OR to say "because he was a Christian" (as I said the church did not even exist at this time). The majority, in fact, all participants thus far, rejected this argument to exclude the content. The main reason is well stated by Richard Keatinge (see above). You have not replied to that. You should have replied and see where it goes before doing an RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I (literally) have no more to say than I have been saying for the last 9 days. But I shall repeat it, wp:v is clear, a source must say it explicitly, that it should not require interpretation to come to the conclusion an edit is drawing. To do that directly violates wp:or "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.".Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So either ask for this RFC to be closed, or allow it to run its course, but let's not go over the same ground that has been gone over for 9 days.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Your request is my command. But really, I already posted a response to that request once citing the article by DeCroix. Here is another. "James was executed because of his (Jewish-)Christian proclamation and mission. Since Josephus states that James was accused of breaking the Law, and, according to Acts, Paul had to face the same accusation, Munck () draws the conclusion that they both died as Christian martyrs. Hengel relates the execution of James to the persecution of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem."

Sean McDowell, page 6 footnote 13, says fatal and non-fatal persecutions were not described by a single term in any of the early literature on the subject, and that one must die for the faith to be considered a martyr.

However, in researching more deeply on James than I ever have before, (I now consider myself as knowing more about James than I ever actually cared to know) I found sources quoting scholars saying James' death was political. It is a minority view, but imo, if James is included in this article, that must also be mentioned. Something along the lines of: There is debate over the cause of James' death and whether he was martyred for the faith or killed for political reasons. There are multiple sources for that. So I propose including the original mention of James along with this caveat. Would this be an acceptable compromise?

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Well, there's obviously no way to know for sure why James was executed. But most scholars seem to assume that he was killed because of his faith, so I think we should include this, perhaps by also stating that "a minority of scholars think that James was executed because of political reasons". "Breaking the Law" in 1st century Judaism could mean basically everything, from political to religious accusations; however, the fact that G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, who was usually very sceptical toward Christian persecution claims, included him among religious-persecuted Christians is significant, in my point of view. --Karma1998 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If RS say it, can we please source it to the RS, and not a primary source? This has (literally) what I have been asking).Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk's compromise is fine with me. As others have pointed out, the concepts of "religion" and "politics" were not well-separated at the time, and quite possibly nobody would have cared if they had been, but let's not start a disagreement about that. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, Richard Keatinge, Dimadick, and Karma1998: If anyone of you want this RfC, let me know, but note that an RfC might prevent discussion instead of encouraging it, because visitors do not always take the time needed and it creates a superficial "large consensus" with people that goes away quickly and then there is no more discussion possible locally, since it would be against this "large consensus". I prefer to ask to close the RfC and raise the case in some adequate noticeboard. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to add that when I look that the comment of Jenhawk777, it's obvious to me that it's not the time for an RfC. We need to do our homework first, with the sources that are provided. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers You are probably right, and Slatersteven is being as precipitous as I was, but if it's okay with you, I would like to wait and see if he responds to my proposal for a compromise. Let's give him a while to cogitate before arbitrarily closing this. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 I completely 100% agree with you - or you agree with me - either way we have a very small consensus! Whoohoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Back to the adequacy of the RfC, when visitors come, if some do, and see that we are having a normal discussion regarding what sources say, as it should happen normally, they will not understand what they are doing here. If the purpose is to invite other editors to work on the article normally, the RfC is not the appropriate tool. One must do an RfC after there has been a discussion and it's clear that the proposal is mature, all its aspects have been locally discussed. It's not the case here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to add that I support this "small" consensus. Oops, wait, I must not vote. Just joking, but I really think that this issue should not have even been raised. If there is a debate about whether it was because of his Christian faith or not, then it seems obvious that the point of view should be included together with the alternative point of view while respecting WP:Undue. Restricting the scope to cases that are not debated would be artificial. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please close this. It is pointless to have an Rfc over including something that's already included. That decision was made before you.

If you want to pursue this, a new decision about narrowing the scope of this article and removing James would have to be made. That would be a different discussion and would require an entirely different Rfc, so whether you want to pursue this or not, it would still indicate that closing this particular Rfc is appropriate.

In determining whether or not to pursue this, please consider that there is a consensus here that should be honored.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It should not have been included until the RFC was finished.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Note as well that two users (including me) have objected to the inclusion of the Claudias text. So even if we keep James the Claudias text should be removed as not having consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven check the diffs. The sentence on James goes back to [7] 2020 where it was corrected by GPinkerton, but it was already present (incorrectly attributed as Annus II) before then. James was not added during this discussion. James was already there. I will happily agree to remove Claudius - if you will recognize that this makes the situation different and close this Rfc.Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And this is not some tit for tat negotiation, so with that I will elect to not close it to allow others to decide what there is consensus for. Text should be added or removed based on consensus, not as part of some negotiation. I suggest you ask for a formal close at the appropriate venue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Negotiation is by definition give and get, tit for tat, compromise. Perhaps that explains the lack of it here. Surely you can see that the pre-existence of the text in the article changes the discussion for everyone, but especially for you. Text should be added or removed based on consensus, absolutely, and in this case it would have to be a discussion concerning removal not addition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you ask for a formal close at the appropriate venue. Okay. Done. [8] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.