Talk:Persecution of Christians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Splitting

Article is too long?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please split the article

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

"Present" needs a definition. If that is "2010" fine. But precision is necessary. "Current" is too vague and changes with time. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off is a good idea. But the title is important. I find that using the words "Current" or "Contemporary" are just an excuse to delete less modern history (and these are abused). The title of the new article should be "Persecution of Christians by Country" which should be a list. Countries should have their own articles and linked back to the list according to the following examples: "Persecution of Christians in Egypt" and "Persecution of Christians in Turkey". These can be linked back to the list article which in turn is linked back to the Persecution of Christians article. In summary they could be nested like this:

Persecution of Christians

Persecution of Christians by Country

Persecution of Christians in Eqypt

Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

Persecution of Christians in Turkey  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about using Freedom of Religion in SpecificCountry instead of Persecution of Christians in SpecificCountry, however, that excludes persecution that is not inclusive to Freedom of Religion (notably, discrimination is generally excluded, as is Freedom of Movement, and many other freedoms and rights.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we want an "outline" per se.

We need to split it off by section IMO. If editors are not happy with the current subsections, I think they should reorganize them here to their satisfaction. Then move them. In either event, this will still be the main article and a summary, however short, will remain along with a {{main|Persecution of Christians in X}}. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarity on split

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

Reliable source?

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

Christians and persecution

I believe the article could also do with a link about Christians persecuting non-Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.247.16 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Also, Christianity and violence. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Boundaries.

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

syria

there is a lot going on in syria now. all proven and documented. shouldnt we include that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.162.114 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Does Israel persecute Christians? Or significantly discriminate against them?

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

When I Google the words: Israel persecution of Christians I get a number of hits including from 60 minutes which has an episode on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf1z4oHygPo I haven't watched it but it seems it is a debate about whether the assertion is true of not.

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

Another website which seem to support that there is at least strong discrimination is at: http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/middle-east/israel/

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

Depends on your definition. Does discrimination include being the only Middle Eastern country where their population is growing? If so, I'd say yes.

Here's another tip - don't believe everything on YouTube or some website that anyone can publish. If you have reliable sources, bring it. --Jethro B 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Orphaned references in Persecution of Christians

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

Reference named "Kairos":

• From Gudrun Veronika Kugler: "MMag. Dr. Gudrun Kugler, MTS" (in German). Kairos Consulting. Retrieved 2010-05-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |day=, |month=, and |deadurl= (help)
• From Christianity in Malaysia: Doing The Right Thing: A Practical Guide on Legal Matters for Churches in Malaysia (PDF). Petaling Jaya: Kairos Research Centre. 2004. pp. 35–46, Appendix 1, Appendix 2. ISBN 978-983-9506-06-8.

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

Reference to Source 14 and its application to the article.

Allowing one misinterpretation of a primary source to be used as a source itself in the article only continues the error. The context of Tertullian's statement re martyrdom nowhere indicates a suicidal pursuit of death. Rather, it reflects the gospel source, Luke's letter, that a Christian must take up his instrument of death willingly in order to follow Christ. To include a "quote" that Jesus was suicidal actually shows the author's own biased conclusion; it is found nowhere in any primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B027:FE6A:2568:CFC6:6DD1:A953 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Lloyd deMause' article is an essay, not a research paper, reflecting his own bias, and should not be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.198.43 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

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

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

I haven't watched this article closely lately, have you tried at all to trim the scope creep from the article and met with resistance/disagreement? KillerChihuahua 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have, but there's so much of it that I simply don't have time to clean it all up. Hopefully I can do it bit by bit and when I'm done I'll happily remove the tag.VolunteerMarek 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, but try to not let the tag languish too long. I'll try to pitch in later when I have the bandwidth. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is also important to notice a persecution in many country without a state participation. When there is attacks against people because they are christians, I think we can speak of persecution, don't we?--Luc Ab. (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The corresponding article Islamophobic incidents lists numerous instances of non-state violence, and Religious persecution does not indicate that violence must be perpetrated by a state to be considered persecution. I'll check this article for overt anti-islamism, but scope-wise this is a non-problem. -- LWG ^talk 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that sourcing issues may also be present, and I will look into that as well. -- LWG ^talk 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note #2: As no one here is actually disputing anything, the POV tag is not needed. I've replaced it with tags that reflect the actual issues with the article. -- LWG ^talk 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just browsed the article, and checked more in-depth the subject I know better here: Spain, 2nd Republic and Civil War. I have to say what I read is an appalling disgrace, no trace is made of the events and just loose events and figures are cited with no tracking of the sequence of events that can help explain or shed some light on what the circumstances were. Additionally, the use of catch-all terms like Christian - non-Christian just may hide more complex circumstances, like Church officials at the service of big landowners (who had often seized lands belonging to the people back in the 18th, 19th century or early 20th century). Very sad article, I have to say the tag at the top is well justified until problems like this are addressed. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are Rubbish? Edit War

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

Israeli News is certainly not appearing to be a good source. Muslims in Judea and Samaria murder Christians, torture them and abduct their women with the connivance of the PA's secret police, an expert says. This is clearly not a NPOV source and its clearly a problem so the objection stands. Do a RS check if you have a problem.--Inayity (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with proper attribution, likewise international human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner from the Hebrew University. For example, take a look at Criticism of the Israeli government and you will see many attributed claims are sourced with propaganda websites like Counterpunch. In addition, as far as I'm concerned, there is no blanket ban on linking to Israel National News, just like there is no blanket on Al Jazeera (plenty used in Wikipedia). Feel free to take it to RSN if you want that changed. In any case, content is also supported by CBN News and Jonathan Schanzer from the Hudson Institute. Sources are not "rubbish" at all. If you must, try to balance the paragraph, change language, add a sourced counterargument in the article. Do something creative instead of deleting the work of others all the time.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So even when reverted by 3 editors you persist. Please report me and let me know when you do. I am not interested right now in Counterpunch, what I am interested in is a respect for Wikiepdia TALk PAGE and your habit of WP:EDITWARRING, right or wrong mean absolutely nothing when we start editing by violating the basic principles of Wikipedia. You always seem to be right, even when making no sense and having no one support you. Had I not seen your behavior across Wikipedia this incident would still need this revert. Because You MUst Stop! between the edit war not one editor (which includes the others) used the talk page. When you lose your power to bully edit, and violate wikipedia policy you also lose your voice. You seem to like making up stuff and throwing policy around but I have seen you have a poor understanding of editing with others. Yes you must balance the section, but that does not mean hostile sources should be added, people have objected respect that objection. Once reverted once, STOP--Inayity (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

yawn... I've used the talk page and addressed your objections against the given sources. Do you have anything to say about the points I just made above? If you don't, I'll restore the sourced content in 24 hours.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So you have just again proven you are only hear to edit war, Openingly admitting intention to edit war. to win by any means. As long as you are right. Let me clarify my objection. 3 editors object to your edits. The burden is on you to prove they are RS. And you still have to deal with Wiki pillars over everything you have written. You might be right, they might be right, but guess what the burden is on you. Use the RS tools to solicit the opinions of other editors and open up the debate. Work is included based on merit, not because advocates added it and source it. Good luck in 24 hours.--Inayity (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one making senseless edit-warring. Unlike you, I did made use of Wikipedia's policy, rules and pillars to explain my position. I already explained above why the given sources are reliable. Do you have anything to say about the points I made or you simply justify deleting content "because other editors (apparently) agree with me"? Guess what? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three editors may be wrong and one may be right. So far I haven't read a single argument to refute the points I made explaining why those sources are reliable and can be used, except for I don't like it... buaaa buaaa. Nothing stated above actually constitutes a counter-position to my explanation. Per Wikipedia standards it is not a counter-rationale to the points made. As long as nobody rejects my arguments with logical counter-arguments, I'll keep reinserting the content. Capiche?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Across your profile is nothing but edit war, that is how we meet. A discussion is going on and what do you do? You revert all the work to clean up the article by 3 editors. But you are right, everyone else must submit to what you agree. You read policy and ignore the pillars. The talk page is the place for discussion yet you go ahead and revert to what you like with your rationale while a discussion is in progress. Again, you are right, the discussion that went prior to you means nothing. So 2 editors vs 1 new editor, you are right we who editting for over a year are wrong. Keep it up. I been here for over 7 years. --Inayity (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

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

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

Why I reverted Palestinian content

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

The editor who is clearly politically motivated is accusing other editors of WP:IDONTLIKE but that also applies with even more force to you.

It is estimated that, for the past seven years, more than one thousand Christians have been emigrating from the Bethlehem area annually and that only 10,000 to 13,000 Christians remain in the city. -- So what, people been leave America for Israel what does it mean?-- it is posited there to SYNTH two different items.

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

Ok, since you have focused on writing arguments instead of spitting only ad-hominem attacks, I'll try to balance the paragraph, but I'm not willing to accept an entire blanking of a section supported by three different sources just because you think there isn't enough attribution for one sentence. I'm glad you don't object the fact that sources aren't "rubbish" per my first explanation (otherwise you would've addressed the points I made). Salam Aleikum--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well Shalom to you since we are being friendly why dont you go ahead and re-write it. And when you are re-writing it please add some balance. That would cause less suspicion regarding your motives here. And since it is a controversial edit, why not consider using more NPOV sources, then you make the point without causing the aforementioned issue. --Inayity (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you suggest we balance the paragraph? And please don't tell me "destroy it". As I explained you before, section is supported by three reliable sources (do you want to know why they are reliable? read my first comment on this talk page, don't make me "copy-past"), although there might be a lack of attribution in the first sentence (regarding statistics) as you mentioned. Are you willing to reach a compromise?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let us start with balance and then get to the sources. Because if it is balanced or written without that horrible bias, the sources are less important. What caused the issue was imbalance. I am not in Palestine, so I want to know the truth, if one source makes an accusation surly there must be a response to that accusation. Is it True? I honestly would like to know. Have Human rights commented on it? Have neutral monitors discussed this issue. Had you used HRW I would never object.--Inayity (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what would you add or how would you rewrite the information? You mentioned the lack of attribution in the first sentence and I already told you I'll try to fix that. What else do you think is written in an imbalanced manner?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We already agree with the first line, So go for it. and take it from there. You re-write it I will not delete it. Start by changing it from Wikipedia voices to "According to..." or something like that.--Inayity (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'd like this section had the same attribution and scrutiny, but let's go step-by-step.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that tone is fixed, I have tagged the section for balance, to warn contributing editors that the issue of balancing a sea of negativity is pending. I hope other editors will accept the inclusion and challenge it without deleting it, balance it where it is needed.--Inayity (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Contrary to what Inayity says, the sources are not unimportant! First, find sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, and then we can figure out the language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

U are correct, but I was dealing with a big headache and at least needed to get agreement that the tone of the section was 100% a reason why people would want to revert. I did mention before the sources were a problem.. --Inayity (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the Palestinian territories

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

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

INN, CBN, and Hudson are not reliable sources. You must find real sources. If you cannot source this to real sources, it suggests that it is not verifiable. (WP:V –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't address any of the points above. I explained you why the sources are plenty reliable in this context. If you refuse to get the point and keep saying that INN, Justus Reid Weiner, CBN, and Hudson with proper attribution are unreliable (while keeping CounterPunch in this article or Electronic Intifada in this article doesn't seem to bother you) then stop wasting my time. You are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy, while maintaining a double standard.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Double Standard? You might be the last person on Wiki that should talk about that. It was a consensus on this page just between you and me, while everyone else was uninvolved. But on another page 3 editors vs 1 you, was NOT a consensus. Flexible policy. But I would just say that we must still dismiss legally why they are not RS. I am just saying this to be fair and not hypocrictical. If something is not an RS we must still appease the editor and explain to him/her WHY they are not RS in this instance while other biased ref are considered RS (like Electronic Intifada).--Inayity (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and indeed have a stated commitment to promoting a particular point of view that often overrides their commitment to facts. WP discussions are constantly finding these sources to be low-quality. If you feel that bad sources are used elsewhere, that's a reason to suggest removing them, not adding more bad sources! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You fail to understand the main point. Justus Reid Weiner is a major authority on this and the appearance of his testimony on a source you don't like (specifically an Israeli newspaper, much more reliable than EI by the way) does not invalidate him. All those three sources can be used, because they are properly attributed. INN, CBN News and Hudson ARE indeed acceptable sources, there's no blanket on them (if you disagree, take it to RSN). And even if they are not reliable to state facts, they can be used to reflect the attributed opinion of scholars and related people on the subject. Reliability depends on context. A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS with correct attribution. That's why the opinion of recognized intellectuals are present in many articles despite they are cited by propaganda websites like EI. This is not my opinion, it's core Wikipedia's policy. Ask any administrator.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If Weiner is an authority, he should be able to get his views published in a reliable source. Editors at RSN are pointing out constantly that these sources are inferior, and the "just attribute as though it's an opinion" backdoor is not sufficient for statements of fact that you should be able to verify. Can you or can you not verify these claims? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can verify them by two newspapers and a recognized institute. Can you show me the RSN link where INN, CBN News and Hudson are forbidden as sources? It would be easier for me to believe you if you showed the same motivation to remove clear unreliable sources like those I quoted before in Criticism of the Israeli government and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world#Opposition.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think those sources are bad, don't add other bad sources to "balance" them; instead, make a case for their removal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand what I wrote. You didn't make an effort. Unlike you, I'm not disrupting anything. I believe these sources are valid, at least with proper attribution, and I'll restore them as soon as I can, because you haven't given any solid argument. Look, there's no official blanket on the sources. That's a FACT. If you think this shouldn't be the case, I invite you to RSN. In the meantime, you are not entitled to censor them. I'd like to know the opinion of an impartial administrator.

By the way, what you are doing reminds me of a little story:

The principal of a European university complains to a teacher that his Jewish students cheat on the exams. When the teacher reminds him that Christian students do exactly the same thing, the principal answers: "Why do you keep changing the subject? We are talking about the Jewish students now!"--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of expressing an intent to continue your edit war and complaining nonsensically about being censored, you should try to persuade the rest of us that these sources, widely considered unacceptable because of their poor reputation and bias, should be used here. Your accusation of antisemitism is a ludicrous nonsequitur. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to convince you. There's no blanket on these sources. If you disagree, go to RSN.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the burden might be on you for RS since you are meeting so many objections. What I would like to know is something so factual must be reported by sources with a less Zionist orientation. The level of hostility in some of those sources discredits them on the spot. And I think the editor is having trouble with one basic fundamental, Just because someone you like, or supports your POV has put something in print, DOES NOT merit inclusion in an article. Editors exercise their discretion.--Inayity (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Zionism is not the swearword that some mohammedans are trying to make it to be. A Zionist is someone who supports the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, aka State of Israel's right to exist. And that includes a lot of decent people, including scholars and serious academics. Second, INN and CBN are recognized digital newspapers, no less reliable than Al Jazeera or Maan News, two Arab news sites widely cited in Wikipedia. The Hudson Institute is an American think tank. Third, I thought you agreed to include the sources with proper attribution... don't you?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of "decent people" supported slavery and the colonialism of Africa also. And the point stands, Pro-Zionism, like Pro-Aryan nation is race supremacy and that is my little violation of this talk page for the day. Last point, Zionism is used as a negative by many groups not only Muslims, namely Pan-Africanist. See Kwame Ture--Inayity (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Baatarsaikan, this is no place to make a point. I discussed the inclusion of Palestinian related information on Persecution of Muslims, not the right place for it. You were not participating on the debate, all of a sudden removed the whole section with no explanation or participation in the discussion. I did not oppose since that was my point (I did not check all the info removed by you though). However, your position comes across as WP:Point. I would not rely the sources you added in a second, they are second parties with a vested interest in discrediting an opposing faction (Hamas, Palestinians, etc.). Definitely no detail and sweeping statements like "talibanization", etc. make things all the worse. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)'

Per WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

Those sources are WP:RS, and as opinionated sources, they are given in-text attribution. None of the facts reported are inaccurate, although opinions of course are a matter of ... opinion. That's why the attribution.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Planned Nazi persecution, Church of England

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

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

No. A lot of "planned" persecution never occurs.

Remotely possible to use in some other article, such as an article on the planners themselves, if there is one. Student7 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Split persecution of specific denominations

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

Thanks. Otherwise confuses readers I would think. Student7 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More or less done. I found nowhere to put material about Hussites and Cathars though. Maybe just link to the main articles for those? Munci (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tunisia

The text about Tunisia says « Since the Tunisian revolution of 2011, there has been religious violence consisting of Muslim attacks on Christians in Tunisia.(ref)Lawrence D. Jones (14 July 2012). "Tunisian Man Beheaded For Converting to Christianity". The Christian Post.(/ref)  ». But the link used is based on a youtube video but seems to be from the Middle East not North Africa.--Helmoony (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141230135413/http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/05/07/christians-fleeing-violence-in-iraq/ to http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/05/07/christians-fleeing-violence-in-iraq/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2655894.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kxnet.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=157762
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nysun.com/article/48233

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060627165613/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/7BB654F1-7D5C-4E7D-B251-28A6E20A461D.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7BB654F1-7D5C-4E7D-B251-28A6E20A461D.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930160153/http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Assyrian to http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Assyrian
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150508084309/http://www.minorityrights.org:80/4404/turkey/armenians.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/4404/turkey/armenians.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130511041409/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan06/Art_Jan06_07.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan06/Art_Jan06_07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in Spain

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

This is a Wikipedia page about 'Persecution of Christians'. The two first paragraphs in 'Spain' are a shameful attempt to justify that persecution, burn of church and assassination of nuns, monks and priests: [The Second Republic proclaimed in 1931 attempted to establish a regime with a separation between State and Church as it had happened in France [...] as well as further political and ideological confrontation paved the way to the Spanish Civil War and a planned extermination conceived by the ultra-Catholic military coupists (July 1936).]

This is not an article about Spanish Civil War and it's origins. And if it were the case, those paragraphs are a very partial one.

I tried to delete the paragraph, but someone restored them.

You should know how WP works. With discussion not closed, you have reverted again is not a good idea. Furthermore, you have removed verified information (two whole paragraphs), thanks for engaging in constructive editing. Thirdly, I urge you to sign your comments, which you have not, and does not give a very good impression to be honest.

The information is perfect there in that it helps the reader understand key points relevant to the statements added, as well as contextualize the political dynamics Spain was immersed during the period, and the relevant agents involved. "To justify"... that is your POV and you can stretch out that all you want, please stick to maximum detail in excerpts that may come across as contentious. As I stated above, there was no "persecution of Christians" whatsoever, there were sporadic episodes of aggression against the clergy. In fact, being a laicist or atheist (homosexual, etc.) was reason enough to be persecuted or ostracized in a society that was totally controlled by the Church up to the 2nd Republic and partially so during the 2nd Republic. There were attacks against clergy and religious officials, yes, and images, inasmuch as they represented a perceived tyrannical power. Stick to constructive editing.

There is information in the second part of the section I do not agree with, but it is verified, so I left it there. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User Iñaki denies 'persecution of Christians', justifies what he calls 'episodes of aggression' and he is at charge of editing of this page dedicated to the memory of persecuted christians? I would like that a not-spanish-ultra-lefty could inspect this two offensive paragraphs. If not, I will ask you to be be consistent and add some of this paragraphs (http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/responses.htm) into Holocaust or Jewish persecution pages, just as Iñaki says, to 'understand y contextualize the political dynamics during the period'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.190.114 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not reply to slogans or personal, ad-hominem messages. Do not ask me to add anything, add it yourself if it is relevant to the topic, accurate, reliable and makes the article better, do you understand? I requested above, adding a link to help you, to include your signature, you did not. If you do not have anything constructive to say, there is nothing I can do. However, I have started to know that tone, have you got by chance any another account? Iñaki LL (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Do add WP:INDENT for better following the thread. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How many martyrs?

The article says without source: "Over 20,000 Christians are thought to have died [...] depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000." But the main article Diocletianic_Persecution#Legacy says with source: 3000-3500 executed, maybe more. Gibbon says in "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" <2000 executed for their beliefs. 81.231.164.31 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that active persecution was a complete myth. Recent scholarly work, particularly by Candida Moss in The Myth of Persecution suggest that the whole thing could've been a propaganda campaign centered on demonizing the pagan Romans. There's no archeological evidence to directly support this theory, but a lot of the holes left by early Christian censorship indirectly support it.--2602:306:CFCA:B540:BCDE:B4E3:64BF:9F15 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Category addition

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea, China, North Korea, Nationalist Albania, Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. The Category:Persecution by atheists it is includes articles of violence or persecution carried out by atheists or atheist goverments against adherents of religions. Prevent people from freedom of worship and to impose on them that they are atheists or non-religious, burning and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept is persecuted (In the case of the oppressed was an atheist), then, is persecuted by the atheists.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that the religious were persecuted, and you are correct that some of those countries assumed a position of state atheism. But you are confusing the persecution conducted by communists and totalitarian dictators as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. That makes as much sense as adding "Category: Persecution by people with black hair". According to the cited sources in this article, the persecution was propagated by the communists and fascists upon the religious (and religious institutions) because the regime didn't want to compete with religions for influence over the populace. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; there is no "persecution" component to it. The persecution comes from the communist regime and from totalitarian dictators. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The persecution was led by people who identified themselves as atheists, They were athiest outspoked, Their actions were an attempt to remove religions of these communities through the policy of persecuting the religions and their followers and by followers of imposing a policy of atheism, through the so-called atheistic countries. If not athiest then persecuted by whom? Christians?.--Jobas (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The persecution, according to the sources, were by the polity in control at the time. The people may have identified themselves as atheists, and males, and left-handed, and fond of bird-watching, but the persecution (and also the establishment of state-sponsored stance of atheism) was a product of the communist or fascist government. See the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The source cited they imposing a policy of atheism in not peacful way, and the "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", and forceful tactics to promote atheism. These acts it called persecution that done by self identified atheists, They ban on religion and they killed and tortured followers of different religions. And they tried to impose atheism in various ways on the population? What you called killing people for their faith and harassment them and an attempt to impose atheism officially in all ways? Persecuted? and by whom?--Jobas (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the citation showing "persecution by atheists"? What you have described is persecution by communists, who also happened to be atheists. The "church" was considered the enemy of the state (not the enemy of atheists). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

impose atheism in various ways on the population from preventing worship and closing churches and torture people for practice it.? Were are taling about State atheism as states and goverments who run official policy of anti-clericalism and Anti-religious and its aim to and promoting state atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Anti-clericalism and anti-religion. That's what I said in my initial comment. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism and anti-religion policy which tried officially to promoted atheism from a state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. Which you keep ignore that fact, That they not only persecuted poeople who practice religions but also trying to impose on them atheism, and not even in peacful way. So these act are persecution from whom--Jobas (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

From the communists. Or from the fascists, in the case of North Korea. And what have I ignored? I don't understand your statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

From State atheism. State atheism is state that promoted atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what it is you are saying. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism and by state that promoted atheism, and by leader who were self identified atheists.--Jobas (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We have acts of Persecution that done by State atheism

No. You do not. You should read the sources again. Promoted state atheism? Sure. We some of the leaders atheists? Perhaps, but that doesn't matter. That's not why they persecuted anyone. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Anderson, John (1994). Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-521-46784-5. the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The USSR regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.--Jobas (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What you calling trying to replace religion by atheism and confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, you will call it as peacfull makers? it is Persecution, Why? as part of these State atheism to remove religion from public and Promoted atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that quote on page 3. Have you read WP:SYNTH yet? I am still waiting for a source which states "persecuted by atheists". So far all I'm seeing is religious persecution by communists or totalitarian regimes. I'm also having difficulty understanding some of what you are saying. I'll hold off on replying until you've provided a reliable source for this article which conveys specifically "persecuted by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It was also atheistic states, and dozen of sources can show that. The total number of victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million. You ignore the fact that these act were part of the atheist policies. as you can see in these sources: Religious Policy in the Soviet Union - Pagina 214, Soviet Union Since the Fall of Khrushchev - Pagina 178.--Jobas (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Atheist policies?" There is only one atheist policy: absence of belief in gods. All of the other policies you mentioned are policies of the totalitarian dictators and communist states, and aren't part of atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),

Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.) In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed.

Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)

Many priests were killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into temples of atheism. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists (an atheistic and antireligious organization) to intensify the persecution. (soruce: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494 )

After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)

You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jobas. All of that is very interesting. But, have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The name of category is Persecuted by atheists, It mean to include act of Persecution that done by atheist or self identified atheists, or atheist goverment and states, this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me, because it is not the place for that argue. The Category is about acts of Persecution that done by atheists, which I already provided reliable source about the Persecution acts, and the self identified atheists leaders as Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha and that these dictators and the ″totalitarian″ states were officaly atheist state (so how the Category don't fit here)‎. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

The Russian Orthodox Church, for centuries the strongest of all Orthodox Churches, was suppressed by Russia's atheists (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494).

In 1999, the Communist Party launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in Tibet, saying intensifying propaganda on atheism is "especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region". (source: China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet; BBC; January 12, 1999)

I dont see in this source the word totalitarian, but i'm see atheists, don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source.--Jobas (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me --Jobas

It may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543.

Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316)

don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source --Jobas

Anybody can be a reliable source, and any source can be deemed non-reliable or inaccurate, depending on the specific content being sourced. You'll have to be specific about what you would like to source to Blainey in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists"

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists --Jobas

This is false. Please provide the exact citation for this. All I see are mentions of people who commited persecution, and who also happen to be atheists.

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists --Jobas

No, I did not. I asked you to show me reliable sources which convey "Persecution done by atheists", not persecution by people who also happen to be atheists, which would be an uninformative and misleading category.

there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." --Jobas

That is a nonsensical statement; and I checked your source - it doesn't say that. Please read and understand the sources you cite.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian... --Jobas

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain in more detail?

I would still like to see a reliable source which says "Persecution by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was in the name of a Communist ideology, but that ideology was explicitly atheistic? and who can deny that that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were influnced in their. Religious persecution by the Marxist–Leninist atheism which advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism?, So how "Persecution by atheists" don't fit here when they Persecuted people of regions and try to force on them atheism.--Jobas (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I will quote @LoveMonkey: said: ″ If it was though, then atheism would not be the end goal, since you can promote irreligion against one religion or against all and still not impose atheism. Again the end goal of this group was to establish atheism as the accepted belief of the state and to remove all other forms of belief. Their goal was not to establish irreligion as the belief of the state.″

and source do show that ther been act of religious persecution that Their goal was not to establish atheisim as the belief of the state by force.--Jobas (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying here. You will quote who? Which paragraph is that in? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic appears to be saying the secular irreligious forces can not be theist and that all secular irreligious forces seek to establish that in and of its own end. However Persecution by atheists means the people doing the persecuting were atheists not irreligious secular theists. Hence the need for the distinction between people whom have irreligious goals but are say secular theists and people whom have irreligious goals but are atheists. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. Please read what I said above (it's still there). Xenophrenic (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can this image be added

As by section above, cited content was reverted and also this image. This image is also found in other wikipedia articles like Assyrian genocide. I believe the Assyrian genocide is notable for this article. Is there reason not to include it?

Assyrian genocide carried out upon the initiatives of and by Ottoman empire and Kurdish tribes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.128.42 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Personal attack and removal of sourced content

In this edit sourced content was reverted [1] and a personal attack was done in the edit summary. The edits I did were not just as claimed by the user critical of Kurds, but also of Turks, Ottomans and Iraqi Army and Palestinians. What is commmon in the edits is that they were pro-Christian and pro-Assyrian, not that they were anti-Ottoman or anti-Kurdish. What was added is based upon reliable sources and found in other words in articles like Assyrian Genocide and Armenian genocide. Can I ask the user who reverted to give a policy based reason for the revert, and other users to comment? Thanks.

Blanked content:

In the 1840s many of the Assyrians living in the mountains of Hakkari in the south eastern corner of the Ottoman Empire were massacred by the Kurdish emirs of Hakkari and Bohtan.

The Massacres of Kurdish emir Badr Khan were conducted by Kurdish and Ottoman forces against the Assyrian Christian population of the Ottoman Empire between 1843 and 1847, resulting in the slaughter of more than 10,000 indigenous Assyrian civilians of the Hakkari region, with many thousands more sold into slavery. The hostile intention of the Kurds towards the Assyrians, and the cruelty that the Kurdish forces practiced against the Assyrians, was known to the British officials at the time, although during the four years after the Kurdish invasion, no westerner was able to visit and examine the scene of the massacres.

Between 1894 and 1896 a series of ethno-religiously motivated Anti-Christian pogroms known as the Hamidian massacres were conducted against the ancient Armenian and Assyrian Christian populations by Turkish troops and their Kurdish allies (the Hamidiye cavalry). The massacres mainly took place in what is today south eastern Turkey, north eastern Syria and northern Iraq. The death toll is estimated to have been as high as 325,000 people, with a further 546,000 Armenians and Assyrians made destitute by forced deportations of survivors from cities, and the destruction or theft of almost 2500 of their farmsteads towns and villages. Hundreds of churches and monasteries were also destroyed or forcibly converted into mosques. These attacks caused the death of over thousands of Assyrians and the forced "Ottomanisation" of the inhabitants of 245 villages. The Turkish troops looted the remains of the Assyrian settlements and these were later stolen and occupied by Kurds. Unarmed Assyrian women and children were raped, tortured and murdered. According to H. Aboona, the independence of the Assyrians was destroyed not directly by the Turks but by their Kurdish neighbours under Turkish auspices.

Between 1915 and 1921 the Ottoman Empire together with their Kurdish allies conducted a series of massacres against ancient indigenous Christian populations of what is today western and eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, north eastern Syria, north western Iran and Lebanon, known as the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide,Greek Genocide. and Great Famine of Mount Lebanon. which accounted for the deaths of up to 3,500,000 Armenian, Assyrian, Greek and Maronite Christians, and the deportation and destitution of many more.

The Assyrians suffered a further series of persecutions during the Simele massacre in 1933, with the deaths of approximately 3000 Assyrian civilians at the hands of the Iraqi Army led by Kurdish general Bakr Sidqi, and Kurdish and Arab tribes looted Assyrian villages.Some villages were completely burned down and most of them were later inhabited by Kurds. The Hamidian Massacres and Assyrian Genocide (1914–18) were followed by a further series of killings in 1933, with the Simele Massacre which accounted for the slaughter of thousands of Assyrian Christians at the hands of the Iraqi army led by Kurdish genereal Bakr Sidqi.

See the contributions of 87.189.128.42 (talk · contribs) and my comments on their talk page. If other editors wish to have this restored, fine, so long as the material copied from another article is attributed. The IP must know which material this is. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If the material has to be attributed then I have to add it back myself, as it would be too complicated otherwise for others to figure this out(And I myself need to recheck as it was several articles). I will in this case add back with attribution from which wiki page it came from, and also applying NPOV changes before adding. Is this ok?

I have now added with clear attribution and with NPOV changes made. I will now let this article be, but please discuss if further NPOV changes need be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.128.42 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

The ongoing genocide on Christians in the Middle-East

Should this be referenced within the article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3311716/Christians-face-wiped-Middle-East-TEN-YEARS-killed-ISIS-forced-flee-persecution-warn-Catholic-aid-groups.html

David A (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

100 million persecuted Christians

The article misrepresents what the number provided by open doors actually means (To be fair, Open Doors themselves do that as well). It's derived from adding all Christian populations from the regions they have self-reports of persecution from. "face persecution" evokes the false notion that there's actually evidence of something happening to that number of people on a personal level.

It's also outdated, open doors now says it's 200 million. https://www.opendoors.de/christenverfolgung/weltverfolgungsindex/wie-kommt-open-doors-auf-ueber-200-millionen-verfolgte-christen Atanar (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212075001/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wars_Of_The_Vendee to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wars_Of_The_Vendee
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129233351/http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/achievers_view.asp?a_id=28 to http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/achievers_view.asp?a_id=28
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65ET4dKFm?url=http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=129 to http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=129
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716195407/http://www.artukraine.com/commcrimes/inferno.htm to http://www.artukraine.com/commcrimes/inferno.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926204151/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.persecution.org/whitepapers/indonesia-2002-06-01.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904073347/http://www.international.kabargereja.tk/2011/09/ambon-violent-clashes-between-christian.html to http://www.international.kabargereja.tk/2011/09/ambon-violent-clashes-between-christian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014073944/http://www.assyrianamericancoalition.org/documents/policy/AtTheTippingPoint-NPProvinceSolutionFull.pdf to http://www.assyrianamericancoalition.org/documents/policy/AtTheTippingPoint-NPProvinceSolutionFull.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013055300/http://www.bhutan4christ.com/reports.html to http://bhutan4christ.com/reports.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721150130/http://www.gfa.org/news/articles/bhutanese-christians-barred-from-attending-worship-services/ to http://www.gfa.org/news/articles/bhutanese-christians-barred-from-attending-worship-services/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425030154/http://www.opendoorsuk.org/news/press_releases/pr_090213_wwl09.php to http://www.opendoorsuk.org/news/press_releases/pr_090213_wwl09.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opendoorsusa.org/persecuted-christians/persecuted-country-profiles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Persecution of Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304014428/http://www.opendoorsuk.org/resources/country_profiles.php to http://www.opendoorsuk.org/resources/country_profiles.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713221505/http://www.opendoors-de.org/downloads/wvi/weltverfolgungsindex2012.pdf to http://www.opendoors-de.org/downloads/wvi/weltverfolgungsindex2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402110942/http://www.christianfreedom.org/the-christian-winter/persecution-in-pakistan/ to http://www.christianfreedom.org/the-christian-winter/persecution-in-pakistan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002080241/http://www.worldevangelicals.org/lausanne/data/resources/IJRF_2008_Vol_1_Issue_1.pdf to http://www.worldevangelicals.org/lausanne/data/resources/IJRF_2008_Vol_1_Issue_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728125232/http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/152651 to http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/152651
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615115945/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/12/20-churches-aceh-face-threat-demolition.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/12/20-churches-aceh-face-threat-demolition.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320013239/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&dd=18&nav_id=73300 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&dd=18&nav_id=73300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024141407/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F10%2F22%2Ffocus%2F9749626&sec=focus to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F10%2F22%2Ffocus%2F9749626&sec=focus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501063653/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823001257/http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/news/story/2007/04/070419_turkey_slayings.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/news/story/2007/04/070419_turkey_slayings.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905083724/http://www.bhutanaudit.gov.bt/About%20Us/Mandates/Constitution%20of%20Bhutan%202008.pdf to http://www.bhutanaudit.gov.bt/About%20Us/Mandates/Constitution%20of%20Bhutan%202008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212832/http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/miscPublications/I-R/pdf/45-Veliath.pdf to http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/miscPublications/I-R/pdf/45-Veliath.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mormons

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

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

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

If Mormons are included as percuted Christians it dilutes the true nature of Christian percution. If Mormons are included then all groups that call themselfs Christians should be included. There are many groups that claim to be Christian include Jim Jones, Branch Davidians, the K.K.K. or other cults. All have their percution story. I do not think this artical was ment to address this sort of subgroup claims. The very fact they have to use a secular religious studies field to attempt to establish it's self as Christian creates questions. If this page is to be used to create the sense that Christians as a whole agree that Mormons are Christian because a religious studies claim it, I can find many religious studies that claim it is a cult. Most Christians do not agree that Mormons are Christian. Most Christian call Mormons a cult. It is easy to check this on the web. Many churchs are set up to help those that want to escape this cult. The accurate think to do is remove referances to Mormons and their claim to be Christain. It should be addressed on a page about cults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.41.16 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"It is easy to check this on the web."

The "web" is not a reliable source, and much of its contents are unreliable. Religious studies is an academic field, and reliable by definition. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Europe

Can editors look at the whole of the [Europe section]? I'm not sure any of the material is strong enough to be in this article. The incident in Denmark doesn't seem notable and doesn't seem like persecution, ditto the one incident in the Italian section, and the Kosovo section seems to talk about something other than persecution too. As the article is tagged as overlong, I think all these sections could be deleted with no loss.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The Denmark section has one source that was challenged apparently. The Italy one happened in a boat in the Mediterranean and probably doesn't even count as being in Italy.--Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Raising an issue about the article's redirects/ missing topic

An article about the fear or hatred of Christians or Christianity currently does not exist on English Wikipedia. Consider the fact that for all other major world religions (save for Buddhism), there is a stand-alone article discussing this subject: Antisemitism (for Jews/Judaism), Islamophobia (Muslims/Islam), and Anti-Hindu sentiment (Hindus, Hinduism). This stresses the need to create the article "Christianophobia" or "Anti-Christianity" (note: Don't confuse this with Criticism of Christianity). Here's the current situation - the following redirects should be re-evaluated:

• Hatred of Christians - redirects to Persecution of Christians (this article)
• Anti-Christian - redirects to Persecution of Christians (this article)
• Anti-Christian sentiment - redirects to Persecution of Christians (this article)
• Anti-Christianity - redirects to Persecution of Christians (this article)
• Christianophobia - redirects to Persecution of Christians in the modern era

The creation of a short article about this topic seems to be the best solution, whether it be called "Anti-Christian sentiment", "Christianophobia" or another similar term, and the redirects should be modified accordingly. Relevant content form this article could be moved to that future new article, which would also solve the current WP:LENGTH issue this article has. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo

The sources do not connect events in Kosovo with anti-Orthodoxy sentiments. The destruction of churches might happen for a variety of reasons, for example identification of them with an oppressing governmental force or a particular ethnic group. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to inform all editors of this article that during the past few days user @Ktrimi991: made several failed attempts to remove entire sections in three different articles: Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Christians in the modern era, and also Anti-Orthodoxy. All those sections were relating to one subject: crimes of Muslim Albanians, committed against Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. The same user tried to delete all those sections unilaterally, before initiating this discussion on the talk pages. I would urge all editors to take a good look at the nature of all those deletions, since they were rightfully reverted by several editors. Sorabino (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This section is incredibly POV, and even offensive. Why must we compare what happened in 2004 Kosovo to... Kristallnacht? Kristallnacht preceded the Holocaust and that is what it is known for in most of the Western public's memory. Last I checked there is no genocide of Serbs in Kosovo occurring, let alone the Holocaust. This is emotion-targeting melodrama that actually cheapens the Holocaust, and it is despicable. Why is it placed on a page about "persecution of Christians" when Orthodox were targeted while Catholics were left untouched or even participated? Furthermore, why is the fact that these events had entirely nationalist causes omitted? It is widely accepted that the violence in Kosovo was due to the conflict between Albanian nationalism, which unites Christian and Muslim Albanians, against Serbian nationalism -- not Islam versus Christianity (which again, is the religion of many Albanians including in Kosovo). --Calthinus (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Calthinus. Although I don't think only genocidal persecution is important enough to count in this article, the fact that Catholics were part of the allegedly "persecuting" population it seems hard to justify its inclusion in this article, or why it should be considered persecution rather than ethnic conflict. Do any editors think the section is justified, or should it just be deleted? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley I have removed the section --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with removal of this section. Unfortunately, its just a mission by several users to remove sourced section per IDONTLIKEIT from numerous articles as user above mentioned. Section is properly sources and truthful, and if someone is offended by it, well, its content. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Many editors talked about this here and two other talk pages. If you disagree, you are alone against many. By the way, the source is a Serb newspaper that does not say Serbs were persecuted due to being Christians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

Currently the article states:

A massacre of 6,000 Vendée prisoners, many of them women, took place after the battle of Savenay, along with the drowning of 3,000 Vendée women at Pont-au-Baux and 5,000 Vendée priests, old men, women, and children killed by drowning at the Loire River at Nantes in what was called the "national bath" – tied in groups in barges and then sunk into the Loire.

The primary source is:

• Anchel, Robert (1911). "Vendée, Wars of the" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 980–981.

I have appended a {{failed verification}} to that citation because what EB1911 states is:

They re-formed at Le Mans, where they were defeated by Westermann, and the same officer definitively annihilated the main body of the insurgents at Savenay (December 1793). Regular warfare was now at an end, although Turreau and his "infernal columns" still continued to scour the disaffected districts. After the 9th Thermidor attempts were made to pacify the country. The Convention issued conciliatory proclamations allowing the Vendeans liberty of worship and guaranteeing their property. General Hoche applied these measures with great success. He restored their cattle to the peasants who submitted, "let the priests have a few crowns," and on the 20th of July 1795 annihilated an emigre expedition which had been equipped in England and had seized Fort Penthievre and Quiberon. Treaties were concluded at La Jaunaie (February 15, 1795) and at La Mabillaie, and were fairly well observed by the Vendeans; and nothing remained but to cope with the feeble and scattered remnant of the Vendéans still under arms, and with the Chouans ('q.v.). On the 30th of July 1796 the state of siege was raised in the western departments.

The citation and most of the text was added to Wikipedia in 2008 (Revision as of 16:31, 27 October 2008 ) by user: Atomicdor who is blocked two days later a sock master. So I suggest that people interested in this article spend some time checking the paragraphs on the Vendée making sure that the facts all have reliable sources to back them up. -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the sentence.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Citing Nero

In the current version, ref 9. and ref 11 are citing "Nero". But there is no Nero at the source section. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is fishing - e.g. Senegal section

Under Senegal's heading, the article states:

During government protests, some crowds turned their violence against Christian churches. Some of the infrastructure was destroyed.

I didn't realise that a one off burning of 1 or 2 churches by a small group of people who were demonstrating against the Senegalese government and burning anything they could in a country which has only tolerated two religions i.e. Islam and Christianity (compared to how Traditional African religions are treated there and in many African countries) all of a sudden becomes persecution of Christianity. Really? This article is fishing. There are some countries added here which are questionable and should be removed. I am concerned this article is "stretching it a bit." I think the persecution of Christians is mostly historical. I am willing to accept that there are small pockets of cases around the world where Christians are persecuted, but not to the extend where it merits such a lengthy article. Persecution of Christians has been mostly historical. Perhaps our experience editors can weighing here, as I am concerned about the POV being pushed here. Tamsier (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

References

It is the same token with the previous section on this talk page. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one then who could see the fishing, POV and SYNTH going going on here? This is a major concern and several related articles.Tamsier (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No Tamsier, you are not the only one but may I ask, what exactly is "fishing" in WP terms? I am aware of POV and Synth. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Persecution in Europe

I have read sources 385, 386, 387 (current version) and there is no mention of persecution. An attack on a Christian somewhere on planet Earth does not constitute persecution. (needless to say that I am appalled by this kind of atrocities). Cinadon36 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hence I suggest deleting the section on the grounds of Synthesis, Undue and unsourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Will you @Tom harrison: be kind enough to explain the reasoning of re-inserting the section of Europe.[2] Clearly, non of the cited references are using the word "persecution". They are rather using the word attack. An attack by one or more criminal(s), does not constitute persecution. Not every religious hate crime is persecution. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Christians being attacked because they are Middle Eastern Christians is indeed persecution, by definition. Do you have anything else besides your opinion? Khirurg (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have RS that talk about christian persecution in the middle east? If not, should we cite you? Cinadon36 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A random attack by a criminal is not persecution. Persecution is related to a systemic attack at a religious group. Upgrading a single attack as persecution is SYNTH and OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. Did you read the sources? Khirurg (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems it is not just my opinion. According to WP's article on persecution: Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group. According to Cambridge dictionary[3]: to unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs. A sigle attack is not an act of persecution. Unless a Reliable Source claims that there is "persecution", a WP editor can not "ugrade" a single criminal attack to the level of persecution.Cinadon36 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it seems, it is your opinion. Read the source. First, the RS describes multiple incidents against Christians. The source also uses the term "persecution" to refer to these events - did you notice that? Do not be so fast to edit-war to remove WP:RS and impose your POV. Remember, it is WP:BRD; it is not RRRRD. Dr. K. 19:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read the BBC article no mention on persecution. No mention of the term at the CNN's article. Yahoo news link is not working. I have asked about the danish and german article here. So it is pretty clear who is POV pushing. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is an evasive non-answer. The Danish RS makes clear mention of persecution. That you could not find it in the sources you mentioned is irrelevant. Do not be so quick to attack other editors on such specious grounds. There are two key indicators of POV-pushing: Edit-warring and WP:NPAs. You, apparently, fulfill both. And you don't have to ask for help in translation. You can use Google translate. Dr. K. 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So the whole section on persecution in Europe is based on an article about a woman being persecuted? Who is pov-pushing is very clear. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing is uninformed. Your response strongly indicates that you have not read the Danish article. If you had read it, you wouldn't have made such obtuse WP:NPAs toward other editors. Dr. K. 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So let me understand, telling me that i am a pov pusher is ok, while telling you that you are a pov pusher is WP NPA?Cinadon36 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Read my response again: The key word here is "uninformed". Accusing me of POV-pushing, based on uninformed allegations So the whole section on persecution in Europe is based on an article about a woman being persecuted?, which clearly indicates you have not read the source, is a false statement and an NPA. Your false assumptions, allegations, and edit-warring are prima facie evidence of POV-pushing. In short, if your statements are based on the wrong facts, then they are designed to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and are indeed WP:NPAs. Dr. K. 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36, please stop removing sourced material. It sounds you are opposed to the very topic of the article. In that case you should send it to AfD. Good luck. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg please stop adding attacks on christians and branding them as "persecution". I am opposed in the section of "persecution in Europe" that is not supported by RS. Clearly the specific section by itself is creating a false narrative. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Hudson Institute a Reliable Source in Context?

Is Hudson Institute a Reliable Source in Context? The sentence is "Persecution of Christian Arabs exists in Denmark" is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence. WP:REDFLAG Cinadon36 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute is a reliable source. If you disagree, ask about it at RSN. Dr. K. 20:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will do as you suggest. Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the discussion at RSN. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about acts that were historically committed against Christians because of their faith. For acts in the modern era, see Persecution of Christians in the modern era.

But there are 9 subsections on the persecution of Christians in the modern era. Some of them, are blatant OR, as they are branded as persecution by users- Many sources do not even mention persecution. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If a source does not say it is persecution tag it unverified, or OR.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes @Cinadon36:, modern cases of persecution should be moved to the other article. What are not persecution should be removed or tagged. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there is a separate article doesn't mean everything should be moved there. Modern-era persecution should still be mentioned here, albeit in WP:SS form. Khirurg (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This article says that "This article is about acts that were historically committed against Christians because of their faith. For acts in the modern era, see Persecution of Christians in the modern era". A summary would be OK though. The article as is now is mostly/largely focused on modern persecution. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A summary (ie a paragraph) would be ok, but this article has effectively turned into a list or WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems we have two options:

1. Delete the whole of the modern section and rename the article to say 'Historical persecution ....'
2. Remove the historical qualifier and merger [Persecution of Christians in the modern era] into this

I'm open to either -----Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Both options are pretty reasonable, thanks @Snowded:. I 'd prefer the second one, as the article "Persecution of Christians in the modern era" may lack notability. (I am not suggesting there is no persecution of Christians by extremists nowadays) Cinadon36 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"modern era" or Modern history includes everything from the late 15th century/early 16th century onwards. Are you suggesting that there has been no persecution of Christians for the last 6 centuries? Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe "current era" would be more suitable.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone actually look at the article Persecution of Christians in the modern era? It states: This article is about persecution of Christians since 1989. Very short era... New titles will be necesssary, I guess. But the "modern" article is comprehensive enough to be a separate article. --T*U (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fringe POV

The article portrays Denmark as a place where persecution is taking place. Not even mentions the mainstream opinion that Denmark is a religious safe heaven where christian church enjoys some privileges. See Freedom of religion by country#Denmark and Christianity in Denmark. Obviously, some fringe opinions are pushed to gain undue notability in WP. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

something doesn't have to be the norm to exist -----Snowded ^TALK 15:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Plus, Raymond Ibrahim is a reliable source. And using wikipedia articles such as Freedom of religion by country#Denmark and Christianity in Denmark to argue against is pathetic. Khirurg (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If there was persecution in Denmark, that would have been notable by many sources. The article misrepresents the status of Christianity in Denmark. @Khirurg: Using the world pathetic to argue against an opinion, is ultra-pathetic. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the "many sources" trick now? Forget it. Khirurg (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that the {{fringe}} template I have placed, has been reverted by Khirurg. (clearly per WP I do not like it.) Cinadon36 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh you "noticed" that, did you? I'm glad you did. Raymond Ibrahim is a reliable source. To call him fringe, and then tag-bomb the article is highly disruptive (not to mention WP:JDL). Khirurg (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim is RS on works that are not published via fringe right-wing outlets.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ibrahim Raymond is ok provided its not articles sourced to fringe sites like the Gatestone Institute. He has had some difficulties in getting published on violence against Christians and its been right wing sites (some fringe) that have published his work. Those that are fringe outlets like i.e the Gatestone Institute should be avoided as they would not meet RS, not due to Raymond but because of the failing of the wider organisation and their credibility issues due to other writers.Resnjari (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also Raymond in his book refers to just one incident of violence against Christians on 90-91 [4]. If its going to be in the article at the very least it should noted as something like "incidents of persecution against Christians have occurred in Denmark..... etc" and not a sweeping generalisation that its widespread. @Cinadon does have a point about Denmark and how it is presented in the article.Resnjari (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Regnery is definitely conservative but not "fringe right wing". @Resnjari, I am open to rephrasing. Khirurg (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Regenery is absolutely NOT a reliable source. Including its ravings is absolutely WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hold on guys, Raymond is now doing a PHD etc and published in places that are RS. Can't sources from those places be found and used instead? He has after all published heaps over the years on this topic.Resnjari (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've looked around and yes Regnery as a publishing house has published the works of fringe authors like Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter [5], [6]. However would it preclude Raymond ? The parent company Salem Media Group who owns Regnery also owns other publishing brands like Xulon, which is a self publishing outlet and not used on wiki.Resnjari (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Salem Media Group is a propaganda firm. They own a lot of dubious sources. Regenery is one of the worst. There's no world in which a book published by them meets the WP:EXTRAORDINARY bar required for the claim that Christians are persecuted in present-day Denmark. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ok.Resnjari (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That source is a recent addition, and it should not be added again till things are clarified at RSN. Since there are other sources mentioning claims on persecution in Denmark, we could add to the article sth like "Some sources have described acts of violence in Denmark as persecution". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RS of course. Otherwise this merry-go-round starts up again. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute is also not a reliable source. They're a heavily biased think-tank and their opinion pieces (what's used here) are dubious at best. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully support Simonm223 here. This is a fringe viewpoint and especially bizarre given that Denmark remains one of the few countries in Europe to be not secular but constitutionally Christian. R. Naser's Crucified Again can at best be called a polemic and thus relying on it poses pretty deadly issues where NPOV is concerned. But even where those sources are concerned it is an ethnoreligious rather than a religious "persecution" (i.e. not systemic but by... random gangs...), because it is Christian Arabs that are targeted, not the vast majority of Christian Danes. --Calthinus (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It hinges on the RS question Dr.K. said this had been discussed at the RS notice board - can we have a link? -----Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is possible for three to be persecution, just not state controlled. After all I could persecute anyone of you here (another name after all for harassment). Here is the link [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I found that - brief discussion - I got the impression from the comment by Dr.K. that there had been something more substantial. If there isn't then I'm happy to support deletion but Dr.K. is an experienced editor so I'm inclined to wait for his/her response -----Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, although it is true that the dictionary definition of "persecution" does not say that it has to be state-backed and also says that "harassment" is a synonym, there is obviously a big difference between you "persecuting" someone on WP and being thrown to the lions or decapitated because of your faith. Perhaps 'persecution' should be defined in the article. Saying Christians are persecuted in Denmark, an officially Christian country with a state church is quite obviously someone pushing a personal opinion with a heavy POV whether it is in a RS or not. I would say such a statement would need to come from a UN report or the like, not just one or two writers. I am glad that Denmark has been taken out of the article and do not think it should be put back in .Smeat75 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: Thank you Snowded, for your vote of confidence. It is flattering, especially coming from an editor I greatly respect. In this case, this is my take on the events: Initially, I thought the Hudson Institute was prima facie an RS. Then at the discussion at RSN the first two commenters accepted that the Hudson Institute was an RS but with attribution; a third commenter voiced concerns regarding the characterisation of the incidents as persecution, without commenting on the reliability of the institute as a source, as far as I can recall. Subsequent to that, the discussion at RSN stalled. Based on the fact that noone until that time had voiced any objections about the Hudson source, I formed the opinion that it was ok to use it, or at least until RSN changed its mind. Then the revert - warring started, and it caught me by surprise. In my edit-summary, I tried to explain the RSN verdict as I thought it stood by the time the edit-warring started. My edit-summary was intended as an invitation to further discussion at RSN, but that obviously failed to stop the reverts. Then the whole thing exploded, and this is where we stand now. What I take from this is that politics and religion form a particularly combustible mix. I should have known better than to involve myself in this area. But c'est la vie. I hope this clarifies some aspects for you. Best regards. Dr. K. 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If the sources are fringe no need for the content to be in the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I must note though, @Cinadon36 as a newbie is turning into fine editor, as many of us more experienced hands (me included) did not identify the section and content for what it was, fringe. Kudos to @Cinadon36! :)Resnjari (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smeat75:Of course there is (as Rowan Williams said). And I agree, we need to define what we mean by persecution. We need inclusion criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

1989?

What's with the splitting of the modern era at this particular year? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it is in order to keep Soviet era grievances all together. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bit ORy to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm a commie and even I'm not going to touch that one. Go ahead if you like. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Albania

The only source for Albania is an American government employee (it is currently in twice). I challenge that this is sufficient sources for us to make this statement in Wikipedia's voice. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the United States government is not a reliable source on what communist governments do. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be the entire Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, rather than a single individual. The publication has two (listed) Editors overseeing the compilation (Zickle and Iwaskiw), then being signed-off by one Louis R. Mortimer, Chief (bureaucrat) of LOC FRD. It is most certainly a reliable publication. I've also made note of similar coverage in The New York Times, Washington Post, and The BBC (and expanded the section a bit with content from these sources). -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 the Albania section is actually warranted -- see Religion in Albania, plenty of sourcing there -- quite significant persecution occurred both in the Ottoman period (Christians were second class citizens and rebellious Albania saw Muslim warlords take this to extremes -- like multiplying the tax on Christians by 27 or deporting Catholics from sensitive regions during wartime) and in the Communist period (when all religions were equally oppressed -- albeit in reality the Orthodox had it a bit better than Muslims who in turn were less affected than Catholics). --Calthinus (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, plenty of RS on this.Resnjari (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm disputing the source, not that it's due. The Federal Research Division is an arm of the United States government and can not be considered reliable for reporting as fact things that happen in communist countries. If there are independent sources, please feel free to include them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So we attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Or one of the people who say there's other sources that don't get a paycheque directly from the empire that spent the last century trying to destroy socialism can insert some of those independent sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also Dsprc in their rush to revert me, failed to notice that the section, as phrased is in gross violation of WP:COPYVIO. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No soapboxing please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't soapboxing to say that copying text directly from a source, regardless of its reliability, is a WP:COPYVIO problem - which I noted in my edit summary when I removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why it was not indented as a reply to that comment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The other bit was clarifying my rationale for challenging sole-sourcing to a US bureaucrat statements of historical fact about communist countries. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Which has now convinced my that your objections are not based on anything more then POV pushing, and not a valid concern over accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong; I have pretty strong factual reasons for disputing the accuracy of the US government as a source for statements of fact on the internal actions of communist countries; but this isn't a bias I expect Wikipedia to ever correct so I'll reiterate my two requests: 1) sources independent of the apparatus of the US government supporting their claims 2) removal of WP:COPYVIO content. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Which materiel is coptvio?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven the stuff you fixed; which is why I thanked you for that edit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 I trust the commie Albania section is good now? If not I can fetch in-domain refs later.

Resnjari I've added an Ottoman section using a lot of the sources the two of us used on Islamization of Albania. Could you make sure all the refs are correctly placed? A pair of eyes that is not mine would be useful.--Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus Refs 213 and 214 are duplicates with differing URLs and layouts, the same document though. Other than that my complaints are resolved, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Works produced by the United States are in the Public Domain and ineligible for monopoly copyright protections, per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105. Thus, no copyright violation is possible. Wikipedia requires only attribution for plagiarism concerns, which is resolved by the citation. If one takes issue with reliability of LOC FRD works: RS/N, RFC or PR are more appropriate venues for such matters. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, looks good. Thanks for filling in that historical gap in the article. One other area for a future section is the persecution of Christians in Anatolia post battle of Manzikert until the conquest of Constantinople. Orthodox Greek speaking Byzantines where most affected after the arrival of nomadic Turks. Their rule, the undermining of Church structures and the targeting of the Christian population due to their faith over centuries by many of the rulers resulted in a religious Islamisation and linguistic Turkification process that formed the foundational population group from which most modern Anatolian Turks (who today number some 50 million in comparison with Orthodox Greeks -some 10 million) stem from. For those interested see/consult the study: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century [8] by Speros Jr. Vryonis (1971).Resnjari (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of material about PRA era persecution. That wouldn't be an issue. In fact there is also enough bibliography which states that those persecution policies are still active in post-communism Albania too (demolition of churches, etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari yeah more info on what happened in Anatolia should be added. However, I don't necessarily think that restricting the rights of Christian churches is necessarily "persecution of Christians" -- I think in this case the phrase or some synonym should be used by the source. I recognize this can be tricky but I think in practice it shouldn't be hard: i.e. forbidding building of churches, yes persecution, forbidding proselytizing? No I don't think so. --Calthinus (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not just the forbidding of churches but attacks against churches and the ecclesiastical structures and people being targeted because they were Christian. The transformation of Anatolia's Orthodox Greek speaking population into a Muslim Turkish speaking population involved persecution. Vryonis goes into this quite a lot via RS. Definitely an Anatolia section is required. The persecution that happened resulted in one of the most influential changes upon history as this new population that emerged from the Orthodox Greek speaking Byzantines created the Ottoman Empire which then went on to conquer the remaining Orthodox Greek speaking areas of Trabzon and in the Balkans that shaped the destinies of the Balkans and the Middle East for centuries to come. It would not have happened in large part without these persecution processes of the 11th-14th centuries. Just sayin' Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Vryones offers detailed information about various levels of persecution during the 11th-16th century period. I'd created a map based on his list.Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)