Talk:Persecution of Christians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Persecution" in the Europe section

Note by a "neutral" editor: the second following subsection here is a recent discussion here primarily between two editors that appears to be about this representative addition to the section. This is in response to a Third opinion request. If the parties don't mind, I have added a new subsection (immediately below) for "Comments from other editors" such that new comments can be noticed quickly. Further, I will place my own opinion there. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from other editors

1. Viewing the Youtube video "Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Tom Holland: Speaking freely about religion (World Humanist Congress)", at 23:10 Stavrakopoulou begins her comments, first saying "It is a major point of reference in contemporary Christianity, particularly Protestant forms of Christianity, that to be treated Christian is to undergo persecution or experience some kind of persecution...". She then goes on to describe an EU court of human rights case where a woman working for British Airways was not permitted to wear a crucifix with her uniform while on duty which Stavrakopoulou described with "...she tried to say that she had been persecuted for her beliefs." Stavrakopoulou soon follows with "Those Christians aren't being persecuted..." She indicates there is a perception of persecution by some Christians in Europe but not actual persecution. Describing a perception of persecution is in my opinion insufficient to warrant inclusion here as proposed. However, if consensus warrants it could be added under a "Perceived persecution" subsection if sufficient RS show this. Although I don't think Stavrakopoulou's brief comment here is enough to argue for a perception significant enough and among sufficient numbers of Christians to warrant inclusion here either. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2. I've watched the video in the link, read the discussion, and given a very cursory glance at the page history but I may be missing some context. As far as I can tell there are two questions being discussed:

1) is Stavrakopoulou a RS for the assertion "It is a major point of reference in contemporary Christianity, particularly Protestant forms of Christianity, that to be treated Christian is to undergo persecution or experience some kind of persecution..." I don't see any reason why she would not be. To demand sourcing to a published academic paper on the subject seems excessive to me in the absence of reliable sources that contradict her claim. There are certainly no shortage of leaders and scholars within contemporary Christianity making that assertion about their own beliefs (see [2] google results) for "christians will be persecuted". My quick glance indicates that while opinions vary as to whether anti-Christian attitudes in the West count as persecution, there is no shortage of claims that the expectation of persecution is a Christian tenet.)

2) assuming the claim that the expectation of persecution is a Christian tenet can be reliably sourced, does the perception of persecution in the West merit inclusion in this article? I think we run into trouble here due to not having a split between attitudes and action like we do at Islamophobia/Persecution of Muslims, and by the contrast in scale of "persecution" in the contemporary West versus persecution in other times and places. In an article with a scope ranging from Nero's Rome to the Tokugawa Shogunate to blasphemy laws in contemporary Asia, we have to decide how to handle instances of minor harassment or complaint. I don't have an opinion to offer here, as I can see benefits to including it and to leaving it out.

In summary, I think the sourcing issues are unfounded but the inclusion/exclusion decision must ultimately be made on stylistic/scope-defining grounds. Is there another article where the state of Christian and anti-Christian perceptions in the West might be better addressed? -- LWG ^talk 17:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

3. In the west, Christians are persecuted, but not nearly to the extent of those in eastern and mediterranian areas. This is in part due to the freedom of religion laws existing within many western countries, and the Christian orgins of some of those countries. However, in eastern and mediterranian countries, this the belief that to be treated Christian is to "undergo persecution or experience some kind of persecution" is most certaintly true. The Pew Research center found that Christians are the most wildly persecuted religion in the world (with over 130 countries where either the government or , with many countries making it illegal to practice Christianity altogether, and in countries such as North Korea, Yemen, and Afghanistan, it is legal to kill Christians. OpenDoors, a Christian orginization, keeps a World Watch List, a list of the top 50 countries where Christianity is illegal, and has conducted lengthy research for each country listed. However, neither of these research groups define persecution as simply being disliked. I believe that we should model persecution as something that would be considered a crime if not done towards Christians. In conclusion, this quote should not be located in the Europe section. Tokerjoker5000 (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

4. Put your comment here, free of charge!

Original discussion between OP and a disputing editor, with minor involvement of a third editor

I listened to the link and it doesn't really support the recent addition - lots of qualifications, the context is that some mainly protestant individuals think they are being s=persecuted by secularism but compared with Christians in the Middle East its nothing. Its a throwaway comment in an specific audience which is not a RS anyway. The Addition of the Castelli quote (an excellent article by the way) doesn't really work either as that looks at a very specific political context in the US (not Europe). I've removed it again and please don't reinstate without agreement here first please -----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snowded it is my burden to establish consensus in the talk page, and I was really happy to see that you had the good will to open the discussion on Stavrakopoulou. So thank you. As for edit, I can not understand what your objection really is. a)Do you think the speech by Stavrakopoulou is not a RS? b)Do you think that there is a disassociation between the source and the text? As for Castelli, would you be ok to let her as a source and re-word the text, claiming that Persecution Complex exists only in the US, until we solve this out? Cheers! Cinadon36 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't take casual remarks in a conversation as a RS - if she seriously advocated it then it would be published in a reliable source. In any event it is so heavily qualified as to not support the text you use here or elsewhere. Castelli might support a statement in another section -----Snowded ^TALK 09:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I do not think that is a casual remark, it is a formal debate she is taking part. And, which section would you suggest for Castelli?Cinadon36 (talk)

Its a series of discussion points and she picks it up in the context of (i) its a small number of people and (ii) they are not really being persecuted. Given that she is an academic she would have pubished the material if it was serious enough and that would be a reliable source. I take part in a lot of academic debates and I only consider myself held to pubished material. It doesn't support the text you are trying to use. As to Catelli its in the context of the US and if you read the article its a lot more nuanced than you imply in your use here. If you think its valuable then I suggest your draft a text here with the full context of her paper and we can look at it. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not have access to the whole academic work of Stavrakopoulou. But that particular speech seems enough to me per WP:RS As for Castelli, her work supports the same narrative. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I repeat - if it was a serious and researched point then it would be published. It is also not a speech - its a short response in an series of conversations. That is not good enough. Please read WP:RS where for a strong assertion in wikipedia's voice we really need a properly refereeed paper. Otherwise in respect of Castelli had your read the paper? I have and its very specific to a US political situation so it has no place in the Europe section and it doesn't supprt the general statement anyway.-----Snowded ^TALK 22:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read many times the WP RS, but thanks for pointing out. "For strong assertion in wikipedia voice"-->there was attribution. It was not WP Voice. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If you had read and understood the Catelli reference then you would not have inserted it to support a statement in a section on Europe when it relates to a particular situation in the US. A recording of a brief asnwer to a question (the Stavrakopoulou reference) in a different context (are they really being persecuted) does not provide an authorative reference to support the statement you inserted here (which is the meaning of Wikipedia's voice). If you can answer those questions rather than simply saying that things were "enough to me" then we can return to the question otherwise I think this is over. Your insertion on another page of the same poorly sourced material can be addressed there. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that you should see The Myth of Persecution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

its a better source but not uncontroversial - look at Radner's response (who if anything is better qualified). Our job is to reflect the balance of sources not one -----Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll grant you that: there are sources on both sides, since Christians are a diverse bunch and do no think the same. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Snowded, you cited RS policy. RS policy, as you have said, "strong assertion in wikipedia's voice we really need a properly refereeed paper. And I have explained that it was not WP VOICE as the text was attributed.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn't attribute a text, you made a statement in Wikipedia's voice and used the reference to support it. The best that can be said is that Stavrakopoulou said during a discussion that she thought .... and thats it. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know precisely what you seek to affirm, anyway, there are better sources for your claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am sure about that dear Tgeorgescu, if you wish you can add some of them. I seek to affirm that "Advances of secularism in Europe and the west in general, are seen by some fundamentalist Christians as persecution. According to Stavrakopoulou, it is a core belief of Christian Faith, that if you are a Christian, you should expect to suffer and be persecuted." Snowded, would it be ok if we turn these 2 sentences into one, and attribute it from the beginning? Cinadon36 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, describing what all Christians think is preposterous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Stavrakopoulou says and even if she did it would be far too controversial to insert without balancing material. I've put what I think is an acceptable form of words on the other article but to be honest I don't think it passes any test of weight and the recording of an answer to a question really isn't a reliable source in any meaningful sense of the word for any substantial statement. In this article we are talking about actual persecution, not imagined (which is also Stavrakopoulou point) and speculation as to motive is questionable. All beliefs - political, religious etc., assume at some point in their history that some persecution and suffering is inevitable, it doesn't not follow that it is a core belief (and it isn't in any of the Christian traditions I have studied by the way). So at the moment I don't think you have made the case for inclusion in any form, let alone that which you propose above -----Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:Of course it is, I 'd second that and we should be very clear on that. But explaining the main tenets of Christian Belief (as presented by RS) is vital for WP. Certainly, not all Christians share those tenets (I estimate that the percentage is a one figure number-that is just my pov though). @Snowded: I see that you do not agree with Stavrakopoulou-and having good reasons to do that- but she is a religious prof and we have to insert her opionion, even if it is wrong. What would you say that we delete the "persecution in Europe" section as unsourced, undue and synthesis. (see discuss it below). Cinadon36 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You have no idea whether I agree or disagree with her, you do know that I disagree with the way you used her statement to support your opinion and you should understand that I don't think you are using a RS or satisfying the WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise the existing material in that section seems fine so a mass deletion is not called for. If you want to be more specific then explain why, don't just make assertions -----Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I have an idea on how I see things but lets not argue on that, I was trying to be polite there that's why I wrote about "good reasons" but I will strike it. Existing material is not based on RS, and those sources do not even mention persecution. Not every attack on a christian is persecution, that is WP:OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Nigeria : Boko Haram

I am really concerned about this article and similar related articles pertaining to persecution of Christianity (or Islam for that matter). For persecution to take place, it must be systemic or backed by the state or the masses. Yes, I do believe that Christians and Muslims were persecuted in the past at least in certain countries/kingdoms, but those are historic. As for Nigeria, Boko Haram do not even care whether one is Christian or Muslim. They terrorise whoever they like. Even I, who is neither Christian nor Muslim knows damn well that Boko Haram terrorises whoever they like and don't care about peoples' religious affiliations. How many Muslims have been killed and terrorised by this organisation throughout their rotten history? Really! This article and similar articles really needs to be looked at carefully. I am encouraged that other editors are beginning to look into this article and similar articles as it is evident that I'm not the only one spotting the original research and SYNTH which has affected many similar articles.Tamsier (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tamsier, I agree with you. Acts of terrorism are not necessarily a form of persecution. According to Cambridge Dictionary: "persecution noun [ C or U ] UK ​ /ˌpɜː.sɪˈkjuː.ʃən/ US ​ /ˌpɝː.səˈkjuː.ʃən/ unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs:" A likewise problem exists at the article "Persecution of Christians in the modern era". Even minor acts that are hostile towards a Christian (or a even a building) is listed as an example of "persecution". Cinadon36 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree its an issue, it has to be systematic and long term, not just writing rude words on a church wall.Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! I highlighted a similar problem right here on this talk page. This article and related articles are rather problematic.Tamsier (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of important new sources

Hello.

I added new highly important, what seemed to be mostly reputable sources to the article, but they were almost immediately removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&type=revision&diff=902392089&oldid=902391673

At the very least I would appreciate if we could reach a compromise, and keep the sources that fulfill the standard requirements of Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot ignore an ongoing near genocide or persecution of a few hundred million people, regardless of political reasons. It is extremely worrisome. David A (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you, as I mentioned in the edit summary, consult WP:PROFRINGE - the claim that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world is definitely extraordinary, and neither private reports completed by Christian organizations nor fox news constitute the quality of source necessary to put forward such an extraordinary claim. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please take note that research by the British government was the original source for this claim. I would appreciate if we could reach a compromise solution, rather than remove everything, regardless how reliable. David A (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Although commissioned by an MP, that report was completed and conducted by the Bishop of Truro, a religious figure and not a governmental one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore the current Bishop of Truro has a long history of involvement in overseas missionary work which makes his opinion on the matter pretty clearly biased notwithstanding whether it'd be appropriate to take a Christian religious figure at their word at this issue. This was commissioned as an independent report and as such is not a government report. It is, in fact, not a high quality source, though it was certainly presented that way by low-quality news outlets like Fox. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, his report was extremely well sourced with, if I remember correctly, around 200 references, and the British government considered it reliable. Just because religious organisations are behind the reports doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong. As long as we cite where the information comes from, and the citations fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia, I don't think that there is cause for complete removal. Why is the Pope's personal opinion considered quoteworthy, but not actual research provided by prominent organisations, and even accepted as statements of fact by the British government? In addition, The Guardian also cited the report, and Fox is considered acceptable by Wikipedia regardless of your personal opinion of them. David A (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider newsmedia in general reliable for Wikipedia; but if you go to WP:RS/N, where they're a good deal more open to the fourth estate than I am, you'll find a lot of people who think Fox should be on the blacklist. TL;DR: this is a fringe claim and your source doesn't meet WP:PROFRINGE standards; nor will it no matter how many media organizations treat such an extraordinary claim like catnip. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am moderately left-leaning myself, but definitely don't believe in censorship only directed towards conservatives and not sources that are far more extreme in the opposite direction. Regardless, I cited 3 different extremely thorough research studies, including one accepted by the British government, not simply news outlets reporting on them, and the situation has reached near genocide levels. We cannot in good conscience try to shut down public information about such a serious event. It would be very immoral. David A (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Honestly, I've mostly said my piece and fully intend to wait for others beside the two of us to weigh in, but what you're describing is covered under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it's not something Wikipedia is in the business of doing. Nor do I care one bit what your political orientation is. (In fact you'll note all I've said is that church reports and the breathless newsmedia that covers them are insufficiently reliable for a WP:FRINGE claim. And I persist in stating that regardless of how you rephrase that or what attempts at moral persuasion you may provide.) Now I'm not going to spend all day arguing about this. I've said my piece, I Oppose the inclusion of this paragraph or the Bishop of Truro's independent report. I await the opinions of others. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely the phrase "near genocide levels" is first class bullshit. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the population of Christians in parts of the Middle-East has been drastically reduced in the last decades. The British government itself states that the situation is almost fulfilling the UN requirements. Please read the reports. Couldn't we at least reach a compromise solution? David A (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Was it accepted by HM government? Can we see a source for that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stated that he accepted the report. See here for example: [3] [4] David A (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Hunt commissioned the report; one of the two sources describes it as an interim report, which suggests it has not been formally accepted by the government. Assuming the British system is similar to the Canadian one, Mr. Hunt is speaking only on behalf of himself and not of the Crown. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so should we investigate if it has been officially accepted by the rest of the British government? David A (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean it was commissioned and accept by HMG, yes we would need to see evidence for that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Where are the huge shiploads of bodies being repatriated to the UK by this Genocide? Are there new mass graves of persecuted xtians in these wicked countries causing all these genocides? Where are the tales of heartbroken xtians mourning the loss of their loved ones day after day in this genocide. Are Jeremey Hunt and the Bishop of Truro reliable. We Brits know all about Jeremy and the reliability of a Bishop is imho questionable. Add to that you yourself have stated in this thread that the british gov do not support this silliness. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In any case I'd prefer an independent report rather than one from a country where Christianity is the state religion. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there were also two investigations by what I think are Christian charitable aid organisations. Anyway, I am not good at doing research, and work 12 hour shifts 7 days a week, so I would greatly appreciate help with further investigating this. David A (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There will apparently be a final report released sometime during the summer: [5] David A (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the independence, reliability and veracity of a report commissioned by a country with a history of colonialism and a Christian state religion that would mean we might revisit whether this report was WP:DUE inclusion, and if so how, in the summer. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the perspective that just because these are Christian charitable organisations pleading for help for the sakes of poor persecuted people, such as the Yazidis, they automatically cannot be trusted, or that just because the United Kingdom has a history of colonialism, current generations somehow have hereditary guilt, and automatically cannot be trusted either. I tend to sympathise with any severely oppressed innocent people, regardless of origin. David A (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to lay off the soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@David A: The sources are problematic for this type of generalized claims. Persecution of Christians exists, but the way this is presented is implausible. The JWs currently have trouble in Russia and we know that in some extremist Islamist circles someone who leaves Islam to convert to any other faith (or to renounce it) may face death. Such cases are neither normality nor worldwide today. I also suggest avoiding comments like We cannot completely remove valid information about persecution that causes extreme suffering to a few hundred million people, regardless whether or not we dislike their faith[6] which accuses editors who disagree with what you propose to add, must necessarily hate Christianity. Propose better sources and discuss content instead of supposed editor motives. —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Noted. That was not my intention, but I will try to keep my language usage in check. However, there have been 3 prominent reports from 3 separate sources within recent months that all state that the situation is critical and getting worse, one of which, Open Doors, is just an newer version of a reference that already exists in the section of the page. I don't see why all of them are considered unreliable, or what more that is required to feature the references. This seems far too important for us to ignore. As the references mentioned, it concerns a few hundred million people. David A (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I brought offence to anybody. David A (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Open Doors is, at the very least, complete garbage - like it's less well researched, more explicitly biased and less dependable than that Kilgour-Matas debacle, and that's really saying something. In fact part of my suspicion of the UK bishop's independent report stems from the participation of Open Doors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What! "According to a report which was commissioned by the British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Christians are the most widely targeted religious community in the world..." Wow! What a-load-of-cobblers! Totally agree with Simonm223 for removing that nonsense. Everyone wants to be a victim nowadays, even those who perpetrate persecution or discrimination, and that's exactly what this article reminds me of. If the Traditional African religions are not the most persecuted/discriminated against, they are certainly up there as one of the most. And look at how short that article is! I certainly would not give that trophy to Christianity nor Islam. The source is dubious. I've been saying this for a long time: This article and similar articles have major problems and I'm glad other editors are looking closely into this article and similar. We have similar problems with its Islamic equivalent (and related articles), but this article really takes the biscuit.Tamsier (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I am not a Christian, and that this is not about who suffers the most intense persecution, but rather about how many people that are being persecuted, and since there are over 2 billion Christians in the world, an awful lot of them end up on the receiving end due to sheer numbers.

In any case, I would appreciate if you would skim through the 3 thorough individual reports before you automatically dismiss them. David A (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Brill ref

I'm not seeing anything supporting the 15-20 million statement in the URL provided for Brill. Does anyone have a better link to the information it purports to support? Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the site (their mod_security module configs rejects my client with 403 error). Would have to try from a less secure system when I can... —PaleoNeonate – 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue

This should not be turned into a list of every attack on Christians.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite agree. Lists of attacks against all religions would be absurdly long. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors from countries that were part of Yugoslavia, for instance, like adding irrelevant content to this and a few similar articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nazi Germany? 2 thing to add

One, Nazis wanted to get rid of Christianity after the war. The whole section describing then as followers of Christianity is highly biased. Second, Hitler did say the Islam would have been better for Europe than Christianity. Can anyone add those two into the article?

Sources? O3000 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 WP has an extremely well done article on Hitler's religious beliefs supporting this comment: [7] all of which is well sourced to well known historians. Begin with Historiography: "Alan Bullock wrote that ... "Hitler wanted to root out and destroy the influence of the churches, though until then he would be circumspect for political reasons."[18] At the turn of the century, leading Hitler expert[21] Ian Kershaw [also]concluded that "Hitler was anti-Christian"... British historian Richard Overy, biographer of Hitler wrote... "He [Hitler] was not a practicing Christian." Historian Percy Ernst Schramm, BBC historian Laurence Rees, Max Domarus, Konrad Heiden, Derek Hastings, and more that I won't list because I'm tired of it --all conclude-- "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich".[34]. Richard Steigmann-Gall is one that disagrees--somewhat.

Move on down to the section headed "Bormann on Hitler's religious beliefs" where there are several relevant comments, with references, and "Goebbels on Hitler's religious beliefs"where there's this:

"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle."

— Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had "expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."

There is a great deal more under "Adulthood and political career" but I've run out of steam. The movement itself was no doubt diverse. The country's support was not universal. But Hitler himself cannot accurately be called a Christian--nor by most standards is his version of "positive Christianity".Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct Current Situation section

I want to redo the intro to Current situation as it contains inaccurate information. I'd also like to expand it in order to include more data and references. Here is what I want to say, anyone who is interested, please kick in with suggestions and criticisms. All are welcome. Here is the plain text without the refs:

In December of 2016, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, published a statement that "between 2005 and 2015 there were 900,000 Christian martyrs worldwide — an average of 90,000 per year."[1][2] By May of 2013, the Vatican had picked up that number and promulgated it. It gained international attention. However, the BBC has reported that others, such as Open Doors and the International Society for Human Rights, have disputed the number's accuracy.[3][4][5] Open Doors International Director of Research and Strategy, Ron Boyd McMillan, says the number of Christians killed “for faith-related reasons between 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2016 was less than two per cent of CSGC’s figure: 1,207."[6]. McMillan added: "Every year, since we started the World Watch List in 1991, the number of Christians killed for their faith has been in the 100s or 1000s, never in the 100,000s.”[5]

   Gina Zurlo, the CSGC’s assistant director, explained that the Massachusetts-based centre would count anyone who “died prematurely, acting out their faith”, including Christians killed in war. Their data assumed that most Christians would not wish to take part in warfare, so any Christians who died would have been targeted for their faith. Ms Zurlo admitted that of the 90,000 cited, two-thirds had died in tribal conflicts, and nearly half were victims of the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[39]

Klaus Wetzel, an expert for the German Bundestag, the House of Lords, the US House of Representatives, the European Parliament, and the International Institute for Religious Freedom, points out how important it is to be careful with the numbers and how they are defined.[40] He says there is a contradiction between the definition used by Gordon-Conwell defining Christian martyrdom in the widest possible sense, and Wetzel's own more sociological and political definition as 'those who are killed, who would not have been killed, if they had not been Christians.' The International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) and Open Doors use the same definition as Wetzel and only count the cases where the perpetrators killed Christians because they were Christians and anti-Christian motives can be determined. Open Doors documents cases based on direct evidence wherever this is available, but it also makes conservative estimates based on indirect evidence.[41] This approach dramatically lowers the numerical count.

Wetzel also explained that numbers are affected by several important factors: "In around a quarter of all countries in the world, the restrictions imposed by governments, or hostilities towards one or more religious groups, are high or very high. (This is consistent with PEW's findings.) Some of the most populous countries in the world belong to this group, such as China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan. Therefore, around three quarters of the world's population live in them." Another factor is that Christians are the largest of the religious groups, with 2.3 billion members, and so it would be expected that they would also have the largest numbers of persecutions.[42]

The United States submits an annual report on religious freedom to the Congress containing data it has collected from U.S. embassies around the world in collaboration with the Office of International Religious Freedom and other relevant U.S. government and non-governmental institutions. The data is listed by country and is available here: (report). Many human rights and religious freedom organizations also gather their own data. The Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte--the International Society for Human Rights--in Frankfurt, Germany is a non-governmental organization with 30,000 members from 38 countries who monitor human rights. In September 2009, then chairman Martin Lessenthin, issued a report estimating that 80% of acts of religious persecution around the world are aimed at Christians. Pew reports that Christians make up 31.2% of the world's population.[2]

A report released by the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, prepared by the Bishop of Truro in July 2019, has the number of countries where Christians suffer because of their faith rising from 125 in 2015 to 144 a year later.[43] The review says that, in some regions, the level and nature of persecution, is coming close to meeting the International definition of genocide adopted by the United Nations.[44] Between 2007 and 2017, the PEW organization[45] also found that "Christians experienced harassment by governments or social groups in the largest number of countries"--144 countries--but that it is almost equal to the number of countries (142) in which Muslims experience harassment.[46] After studying governmental restrictions on religion from "laws, policies and actions by state officials" along with social hostilities,[47] PEW has published a caution concerning the interpretation of these numbers: "The Center’s recent report ... does not attempt to estimate the number of victims in each country... it does not speak to the intensity of harassment..."[48] France, who restricts the wearing of the hijab, is counted as a persecuting country along with Nigeria and Pakistan where, according to the Global Security organization, Christians have been killed for their faith.[49]

The International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) estimated the number of Christians killed for their beliefs in 2014 at 8,000 to 9,000. In the same year, Open Doors only recorded verifiable cases which came to 7,106. In 2015, Open Doors recorded the number of verified deaths from persecution had dropped to 4,028, and for 2016, the number of deaths was one third of that number: 1207. For the 12-month period beginning in 2016 and ending October 2017, Open Doors recorded 3,066 deaths from religious persecution.[50] Open Doors says that, while numbers fluctuate every year, they estimate 11 Christians are currently dying for their faith somewhere in the world every day.[51]

Numbers of martyrs are difficult to identify accurately since religious persecution is often part of a larger conflict. This complicates identifying the act as religious persecution or political war.[18]:xii For example, the U.S. Department of State identified 1.4 million Christians in Iraq in 1991 when the Gulf War began. (Christianity in Iran dates from the Apostolic era in what was then Persia.) By 2010, the number of Christians dropped to 700,000 and it is currently estimated there are between 450,000 and 200,000 Christians left in Iraq.[18]:135 During that period, actions against Christians included the burning and bombing of churches, the bombing of Christian owned businesses and homes, kidnapping, murder, demands for protection money, and anti-Christian rhetoric in the media with those responsible saying they wanted to rid the country of its Christians.[18]:135-138 Should they be counted as victims of war or persecution?[52] There is no means by which it is possible to definitively answer this question as there is no single established standard applying to all religions equally. Generally all political actions are excluded from being counted as religious persecution.[11]:460

I will wait a little while to get your invaluable input before acting! Please comment or forever hold your peace! :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that it seems to be a balanced/evenhanded and matter of fact summary. David A (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Nazi section

To whoever wrote the section on the Nazis, neutrality seems to me to require that some mention be made of the Confessing Church and at the very least, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister and founder of the movement who died because of his constant and vocal opposition to Naziism, and not because he was an intellectual. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

being killed for being vocal is not the same as being killed because you are a Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thank you for your response. I always enjoy our discussions.

The Nazis tried to introduce the Aryan paragraph into church governance in an effort to bring the Protestants in line with the Nazi view. Instead it splintered them. The Protestants did not uniformly accept or resist--some did one, some did the other. Those that resisted, like the Niemöllers, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer and others, formed the Pastors Emergency League. They became the Confessing Church. Then they became persecuted. (Hunsinger, George. Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. United Kingdom, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.page 60+)

"This movement arose as a ...protest against the pro-Nazi German Christians... the Barmen declaration set a bold distinction between the authority of the church and the authority of the state..." (Bertram, Robert W., and Hoy, Michael. A Time for Confessing. United States, Fortress Press, 2017. page 142)

If you want to include a discussion of their effectiveness, then that is debated. My research indicates no one thinks they were very effective. But I also find no one who debates that they were Christians who resisted Nazism out of conscience who were then persecuted--and died--for that. (Romocea, Cristian. Church and State: Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.no page #s)

Bonhoeffer was vocal. He was an anti-Nazi Christian from the beginning of the Nazi movement. He wrote on the Confessing church (page 134, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Witness to Jesus Christ. N.p., Fortress Press, 1991) using the argument of the authority of the church vs the authority of the state. It was a direct response to the attempts of the Reich to assimilate the Protestant church into state Nazism and use them as part of their power base. He continued to write against the church supporting or having anything to do with the Nazis until they killed him.

Including that the "German Christians" supported the Nazis is certainly accurate, but not including those who opposed them--in almost equal numbers--is not. It certainly isn't NPOV. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that Jenhawk777 makes a good argument. David A (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We would need RS saying it was his faith, and not his politics, that led to his treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That is also a good point. David A (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and David A:

So what we have right now about the German Christians says the Nazis received their support: "due to their common cause against the anti-religious Communists, as well as their mutual Judeophobia and anti-Semitism." for which there is no inline citation and no mention of those who did not support this view.

Here is a source that says "On all sides, opposition to anti-semitic prejudice is cited as the reason Bonhoeffer risked his life in opposing Nazism." (The Bonhoeffer Phenomenon: Portraits of a Protestant Saint. N.p., Fortress Press. p.112)

We have now "Thus, the Nazi government consolidated religious power", using the past tense, "consolidated," thereby implying the Nazi government did accomplish that without mentioning opposition. What we have says the Nazis did so "by using its allies in order to consolidate the Protestant churches into the Protestant Reich Church." as if the Protestant churches were one consolidated thing united by the Nazis. This also has no inline citation.

(Romocea, Cristian. Church and State: Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.) has no page numbers but do a search for the Barmen Declaration. At the bottom of that first page it says "...the Confessing church and its constituting Synod of Barmen were an attempt to mount a resistance." The Protestant churches were never united either in favor or in opposition to the Nazis.

Then we have "Like other intelligentsia, Christian leaders were sometimes persecuted for their anti-Nazi political activities." which attributes two possible causes of death to Christian leaders--for being intelligentsia and for political activities--without an inline citation.

In (The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1999.) on page 206, it references an essay Bonhoeffer wrote titled "After ten years" wherein Bonhoeffer describes how "none stood fast" against the Nazis on moral grounds alone, that only those ready to sacrifice in the name of God would do so. In his own words, Bonhoeffer says religion is his motive for opposing Nazism.

The rest of that existing paragraph now reads "Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy, were murdered for their suspected ties to the Polish Resistance or left-wing groups, or for sheltering Jews (punishable by death)." also with no inline citation.

Go back to the Cambridge companion on page 30 for an explanation of how Bonhoeffer's theology influenced others to resist Hitler. This source: (Butler-Gallie, The Revd Fergus. Priests de la Resistance! The Loose Canons who Fought Fascism in the Twentieth Century. United Kingdom, Oneworld Publications, 2019.) discusses some of the religious reasons for Polish clergy's resistance.

So what we have now already makes claims about the reasons for the death and persecution of these people--without sources. And the sources don't seem to say exactly what we do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are no valid sources that factually back up these claims, and Wikipedia has been used to twist or falsify information in a manner to attack Christians and Christianity in general, then I agree that the claims in question should obviously be removed. David A (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@David A: Thank you for such a reasoned response, however, I don't know that I have necessarily reached that conclusion. I observed the absence of some pertinent information and sourcing, and that's all I'm prepared to claim. Assuming sources can be found for what is already in this section, it's my view that other material on the opposition to the Nazis should be added to what is already here--which needs better inline citation. There was support for the Nazis within the Protestant church, that's a fact, but there was also opposition within the Protestant church, and that should be in this section as well in my opinion.

Or, I suppose, the other option is that none of this particular discussion should be here at all since it can be seen as off topic. This is a page about the persecution of Christians. Beyond a simple statement along the lines of "While some in the Christian churches supported Nazism, others were persecuted for opposing them" and then, perhaps, having some discussion of those that were persecuted and how, it is valid to argue the rest of this is off topic for this page. We need consensus on this.

Slatersteven asked for a source supporting that it was Bonhoeffer's faith not his politics that led to his persecution, and that has been provided, though it would more accurately be stated that it was faith that led to his politics. He was executed by the Nazis after a closed kangaroo court trial with no witnesses, and it is not known that he was genuinely guilty of anything but letting his faith lead him into vocally opposing them. That deserves a mention in my view whatever approach we end up with here.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies if I went too far. David A (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

David A No apologies necessary, truly. You may be right for all I know, but I suppose that's the point--we can't really know someone else's motives. What we can know for sure is that there is insufficient sourcing and the material presented is not representative of the full scholarly view. That we can fix. What do you think about whether this discussion of how much Christians supported Hitler or not is off topic for a page on the persecution of Christians? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and David A: Would love to hear back from you guys with your opinions on the best way to handle this. I am okay with keeping and modifying it, or omitting and just adding the persecuted, either way, but I would like some consensus before acting on this, so your views are both important and needed. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems rather off-topic to me, but I am not the best person to ask. David A (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree they say what you think they say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Since I didn't post anything about what I think they say, I am going to assume that is not intended for me. Interpretation is not the issue. They say what they say. What matters is that there is insufficient inline citation to support what is said, and that the sources say different things. What we have does not meet WP standards. That's what matters. If you have an argument otherwise, please explain further.

The second question is also significant: is this discussion off topic for a page about the persecution of Christians? It is, obviously, but I don't mind including it anyway as peripherally significant to the actual topic, but that still requires adding the material on opposition and those that were persecuted. That is the actual topic and it's not in this section at all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I should have said they do not support the claim he was persecuted because of his Christianity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If he was a vocal critic of Nazism, it's hardly a surprise that he died at the hand of the Nazi's. Seems a very long stretch to say it was persecution related to his religion. Hitler was not known for suffering criticism well. O3000 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 Glad to see someone else weigh in, but I have to admit this is confusing me. To you and Slatersteven: What standard are we using across this entire article as the standard for proving that a person is persecuted for their faith? Please clarify this for me, because I thought we were going with "a person who is persecuted, who would not have been, if not for his/her faith." Are we adding "sitting quietly and saying and doing nothing" in addition? If that's the standard you are using, then it's a unique one, and one that must eventually conclude there are no persecuted peoples of any kind, because pretty much all martyrs said and did things that put them in the gunsights. They all acted and spoke out about their faith, did something that brought attention to themselves: converted, proselytized, went on missions, preached, everyone of them, knowing that bringing such attention was dangerous, and that keeping quiet and doing nothing might save them. Requiring Bonhoeffer to not have spoken or acted doesn't seem in line with the rest of this page--or reality--which might matter.

If a person is going about the normal practice of their faith, or at least what is seen as normal by them, wearing their hijab, or preaching, or whatever it might be, and because of those normal practices, they are marked out, harassed, and eventually killed, isn't that what this page is about? Assuming we are discussing Bonhoeffer, that's what he did. He was preaching and teaching and writing, because his jobs were those of a preacher and a teacher and a writer of theology. That's how he spoke out--by practicing his faith.

Acting on his faith was part of what he saw as 'normal' as well. He said ethics only have meaning if they are acted upon. He wrote a book on it called The Cost of Discipleship. In his dissertation he said "genuinely theological concepts can only be recognized as established and fulfilled in a special social context." He practiced that.

Concern for the survival of his faith is what drove him. In the Cambridge companion, on page 33 it quotes him as saying: "The question at stake in the German church is no longer an internal issue but is the question of the existence of Christianity in Europe;" He was right too.

Because of everything he believed in, he opposed the Nazis taking over the church, and opposed what they proclaimed, and action and causality cannot be legitimately separated in his life and character. He practiced his faith, he acted on it, according to it, specifically, and it got him killed. Here's a source that shows that beginning on page xv:

If you have a reliable source that shows definitively that Bonhoeffer was anti-Nazi because of politics, or because he was among the 'intelligentsia', or because he disliked Hitler's mustache, or for any other reason that was not rooted in or driven by his faith, or that he died for any other reason, then please include it here.

In the section of this page on "Current situation" I have already quoted multiple references concerning definitions and standards on what a persecuted person is and will find more if needed. Please find some reliable sources that reflect your position, and especially the definition of persecution as requiring a person be 'non-active' that seems to be being applied here. It's what the sources say that matters, not personal opinion.

Whether we include Bonhoeffer specifically or not, none of this addresses the need to include the Confessing church in this page. The quote I referenced above "...the Confessing church and its constituting Synod of Barmen were an attempt to mount a resistance." from directly contradicts what this article says now, and I do claim there are no sources that say the Protestants were ever consolidated. I am guessing that's why there is no inline citation to support that particular claim along with the others referenced above.

Sources are necessary for this discussion to have any real value.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

If you go back over talk page archives you will see I have always said "RS have to say it was religious persecution, not just being a Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thank you for answering. What I see is that the standard in this section is not the same that is being applied to the rest of the article.

The direct cause of Bonhoeffer's death is a matter of debate--that can and should be included--but the possibility that he died because he acted out his faith is sufficient to include that debate in a page on the persecution of Christians. Saying otherwise is like claiming the civil war wasn't actually about slavery, it was state's rights.

The standard of RS has not been applied to what is already in the article--which has some factual problems. The full content of the sources include the Confessing church and the lack of unity toward Hitler among the Protestants. I would like to see a unanimous concern for the standard of RS's being equally applied to that problem.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Nazi’s killed millions of people. We cannot look at the death of one Christian, who may or may not have been killed because he was Christian, and say this is persecution of Christians. O3000 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: This article's lead contains this statement: In the 20th century, Christians were persecuted, sometimes to the point of genocide, by various governments, including the government of the Ottoman Empire, which committed the Armenian Genocide and the governments of atheistic states such as the Soviet Union, Communist Albania and North Korea. Are you suggesting changing that as it applies to the Nazis? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I don't understand your point. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Objective3000, and David A: A discussion of the politics of those who supported Hitler is off topic to a page that is supposed to be discussing the persecution of Christians and should be tagged accordingly. I propose deleting it altogether, as it is also unsourced and clearly POV as well. It is important to remember that anything without a source can be deleted on WP by anyone.

But I don't want to act arbitrarily. I want consensus. It isn't looking as if we are going to reach agreement, per se, so let's see if we can find some kind of compromise. The alternative to deletion is, let's replace it. I am hoping you all will demonstrate your commitment to collaboration with this effort.

• Let's change the first sentence to: "Hitler and the Nazis received some support, and some opposition, from Christian communities." The different factions should be named. (This is the consensus of the sources.)

• Let's either leave out the claim of "common cause in anti-semitism", or include something like this: "Supporters had common cause with the Nazis against the anti-religious Communists, as well as a mutual Judeophobia and anti-Semitism. and add: "Opponents of Nazism rejected anti-semitism as evidenced by their refusal to accept the "Arian" clause the Nazis attempted to impose on the Protestant churches." page 42.

• Next, it says Once in power, the Nazis moved to consolidate their power over the German churches and bring them in line with Nazi ideals. which is true, but lacking an inline citation. Let's add that RS, move up the sentence The Third Reich founded its own version of Christianity which was called Positive Christianity, a Nazi version of Christianity which made major changes in the interpretation of the Bible by saying that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but not a Jew and it also argued that Jesus despised Jews, and the Jews were the ones who were solely responsible for Jesus's death. to immediately follow, and also move up The syncretist project of Positive Christianity was abandoned in 1940. to close this paragraph. Adding the needed inline citations of course.

• Move Some historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and it would be completed after the war. to begin the next paragraph, and let's include attribution of says this. Otherwise that will have to be tagged too, so let's just fix it. I recommend reading this:[8], look at the sources, and pick any you like.

• This: Thus, the Nazi government consolidated religious power by using its allies in order to consolidate the Protestant churches into the Protestant Reich Church. should simply be deleted as unsourced and factually incorrect. This never happened. There is no RS that anyone will ever find saying it did.

• Remove the phrase Like other intelligentsia, as both unsourced and unproven. Christian leaders were sometimes persecuted for their anti-Nazi political activities is sufficient--with a source--but some examples are also necessary. It can't be left as a bald statement without support. That is un-encyclopedic. This is an article on the persecution of Christians. It should also say that, whether it is persecution for political activity or religion is debated, when it is, but some examples must be here, or this also doesn't belong on this page.

Let's add some See also's: Righteous Among the Nations, Confessing Church, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer at least.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Objective3000, and David A: This is a fair proposal that you are welcome to modify as long as you do so with RS. If there is no response in a reasonable period of time, I will go ahead and make these changes. If any problems follow, we can do an RFC, or go to arbitration and cite this discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do not mind, but I am not the best person to ask. David A (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As a general comment, I think the section is too long. I have no problem with inclusion of the Bruderhof, and Jehovah's Witnesses as these were indeed Christian groups, albeit not mainstream, that were persecuted en masse. I think persecution for the purposes of this article must require that large numbers of Christians were persecuted, particularly when we are talking about the Nazis – experts at persecution. I don’t see that in the case of the Confessing Church, and certainly not in the case of Bonhoeffer. These aren’t even strong enough for a see also. If large numbers of Lutherans were sent to death camps, that would be different. I’m not comfortable with the move to consolidate power of churches or invention of a new brand of Christianity. Haven’t Christian leaders attempted such themselves over the ages? It’s an interesting historical point, but I’m not sure it fits this article. There has been real persecution that fits and I don’t see how it makes sense to dilute the gist of the article. O3000 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: First off, please note that in my offer of compromise, I did not include Bonhoeffer, since he seems to be causing so much heartburn. Second, please note there is no such thing as a numerical requirement to qualify as persecution according to any standard by any recognized contemporary authority on this topic.

• The US Department of State has an office of Religious Freedom that tracks worldwide religious persecution through its embassies.[9] They use the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if you go check it out, you will find Appendix C: The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and this: "Considering that religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed..."
• State department reports include the persecution of individuals.
• The International Society for Human Rights, Open Doors, The International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), and Klaus Wetzel, an internationally recognized expert in the field of human rights all use the definition: those who are (killed, harassed, mistreated, etc.) because of their religion who would not have been if they were not Christian, or Muslim, or atheist, or whatever.
• There is no such thing as a numerical requirement to qualify as persecution. Individuals do get targeted, and they matter too.
• Neither this article nor this section can simply make up its own definitions and standards. WP must go by the sources.
• If I understand you correctly, you are voting for deleting the contested material, but you are doing so based on an artificial standard that doesn't actually exist in any source, is that correct? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you say that persecution of Christians includes one Christian, then this will be a very long article, including every country. Do you wish to equate the US with the Third Reich? Seriously, we need to exercise editorial discretion. 22:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

I absolutely say that persecution includes every single person who experiences it, because that's what the sources say the authorities in this field say. If there is a source other than personal opinion that says otherwise then please present it here.

This accepted definition does nothing to extend the length of this article as this article is not a list, it's an overview. A listing can be found in the WP article Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era. It isn't necessary or desired that we duplicate what's available elsewhere.

This article is an overview of those who have been persecuted, who would not have been persecuted had they not been Christian. That's the going definition of religious persecution according to the sources I reference above with no numerical requirement. That definition can be interpreted in two ways: that they are targeted simply because of the existence of their faith, or that they acted because of their religion--perhaps they converted, or went on a missionary journey, or refused to participate in sacrifices or spoke against tyrants--and were then targeted. In every age, in both aspects, these have always been defined as persecution, and are still defined that way.

Editorial discretion requires following WP guidelines: Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. [10] Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I am following DUE. I am not stating an absolute, numerical requirement. But, we cannot include every instance. And, this has nothing to do with representation of differing viewpoints. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: My proposal above omits any mention of Bonhoeffer. I think by definition that's wrong, but I offered it as a compromise. Accept it or not, but let's stop going over the same ground based solely on personal opinion.

I have given sources that state that individuals are persecuted, and that individual persecution is still persecution. The inability to mention every instance does not preclude mentioning that fact at all.

I am willing to delete the entire discussion and replace it with a single sentence as mentioned above: "Hitler and the Nazis received some support, and some opposition, from Christian communities." To which I will add: "There were also individuals who acted on their beliefs by doing what they could to oppose Nazism, antisemitism, and aid individual Jews, and many suffered accordingly."

That would be sufficient I think, without mentioning a list of people, and could then move on to the groups.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there were individuals, who could have been any religion, non-religion, philosophy, personal moral code, upbringing; that were persecuted for being anti-Nazi. This article is about persecution of Christians. Claus von Stauffenberg was persecuted by the Nazi’s by your definition – and he was a Nazi who believed in the invasion of Poland and the use of Poles as slaves. This sounds more like persecution of some people, some of whom happened to be Christian. I don’t think it’s DUE. You’ll need to find some other editors to convince. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I am back to including at least a few of them by name, which leads us back to Bonhoeffer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that. O3000 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for anything, as near as I can tell, not keeping it, or deleting it, or adding to it. So far, it looks like no one but me is even attempting to see what the sources say, while still disclaiming what I have produced. No one has directly responded with an alternate compromise suggestion. It's becoming extremely frustrating, and I am beginning to think we need a third party to arbitrate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and Slatersteven: Can we not at least try to make some effort toward collaboration? Offer something, anything, that takes my concerns into consideration. Please. Make a suggestion if you don't like mine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points: On April 9 1945, Reinhold Niebühr, the most outstanding Christian theologian of the twentieth century, wrote an article titled "The Death of a Martyr" where hcharacterizes Bonhoeffer's death as a martyr's death.(The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, page 22)

This book goes on to say that what Bonhoeffer referred to as the "four mandates" of faith "reflect the endeavor by Bonhoeffer to address the 'great moral dilemmas posed by the war and the need to resist a blatantly evil government."(The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, page 41).

Along with the other references that clearly say it was faith that led Bonhoeffer to oppose Nazism, it is impossible to assess how much Hitler's motives to persecute this person were hatred of Bonhoeffer's kind of Christianity--which has been historically established--or other. That's the constant problem with a sociological definition of persecution that depends upon identifying and proving the motives of the persecutor instead of defining it by the impact on the victim's life. That's why there is no established legal definition based on that sociological one.[Rempell, Scott. "Defining persecution." Utah L. Rev. (2013): 283.] at [11]

Second point: I have contacted the Teahouse about this, and am posting a request on the Dispute resolution notice board. Collaboration is not happening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Christian to oppose Hitler. I think it makes no sense to list individuals when so many people have been persecuted in the last 2,000 years. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, one does not have to be Christian to oppose Hitler, but this is a page of Christians who were persecuted, and if there were Christians who were persecuted by Hitler because they were Christian, it at least deserves considering including some mention.

Everyone can not be included. Again, I agree, but omitting them entirely gives a false view of what sources say. Perhaps one person dying seems insignificant to you, but I doubt it was to them or those who cared for them. Still, I get what you're saying and agree that listing all individuals would be prohibitive and that's why I have not proposed doing so. I have simply suggested a mention--whether it includes any names or not. How about this: "Along with other opponents, many Christian individuals chose to act out their faith by opposing Hitler, Nazism and aiding Jews, and many were persecuted and died for it." Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

But they were not persecuted for being Christian. They were persecuted for being sane. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha! I have to say I love that answer Objective3000. However, it doesn't move us closer to a consensus on this page. But at least I'm smiling for a bit here. Thank you.

Since we know Hitler personally hated Christianity, and tried to transform it into his Nazi Aryan vision of what he wanted it to be, instead of what it was, doesn't it follow that all of those who insisted on holding onto the kind of Christianity that he hated were then persecuted because of that? He was a megalomaniac so really, how can anyone, ever, know for sure? Yet these people died.

And so I am back to restating that this is a definition, applied here, in this section only, that differs from the standard in the rest of the article. But again I also restate that I am willing to let that go in order to get consensus on deletion of this unsourced material and replacing it with a couple of simple sentences that are found in--basically--ALL the sources: the Protestant church was divided in its response to Hitler, and some Christians who opposed him died for it. Surely that is acceptable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and Slatersteven:. One more try before dispute resolution takes over.

A lot of this seems to come down to the definition of religious persecution which is not defined in this article--for good reason--there isn't one. There are separate understandings, and it's possible to see that in this article--especially in what makes this section stand out from the rest.

Although religious persecution is an aspect of most refugee appeals, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the immigration regulations, omit any explanation of the meaning of persecution.The federal courts have recognized persecution as “ill-defined." Legal scholars have not attempted a definition because, "by and large, scholars do not believe that a unified definition is possible."

The sociological definition of religious persecution is "any unjust hostile action, that results in something the victim sees as harm, that has religion as its primary motivator." The difficulty with this definition is the ability to prove motives. Scott Rempell, Prof. of Law, explains how this causes problems for refugees seeking asylum: "The perceived unfairness of the requisite causal connection between the persecutor’s motive and the resulting harm has been a main focus of [Refugee] scholarship." Other's motives just can't always be proven--as is the case in this section in this article.

Katherine L. Vaughns has noted that this lack of definition might be appropriate considering all the different situations the single term is required to cover. "Any attempt to define the term must be flexible enough to account for the unfortunate inventiveness of humanity to think up new ways of persecuting fellow [citizens]."

Rempell asserts that harm is at the core of persecution assessment. I think that's what needs to be held onto here.

Open doors and others such as The International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) use this general definition: 'those who are killed, who would not have been killed, if they had not been Christians.' It is possible to interpret that in two ways, as I think I already described, but it is identifiable as the primary working definition of this article--so far. That is the same standard that should be applied here, which would require including the Confessing church and Bonhoeffer.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 I observe that you have made some of the changes I suggested without bothering to inform us here. Not cool to cut us out of the loop, but good those changes have been made. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As this is not at DR, can we not have two discussions at once?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I didn't think this was an aspect of DR, but sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a rule, but it would be cutesy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha! Cutesy? I don't think I'm allowed to respond there yet--and he hasn't--but I wanted to tell him thanx, and fuss a little of course, but that's all--nothing of any substance. No addressing the elephant in the room here. Just an acknowledgement. Surely that's okay and isn't really pertinent to the DR!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan

Slatersteven, you reverted my edits with an edit summary saying the content might not be relevant. The departure of the Sikhs rendered the Christians homeless and they were forced to clean rubbish, which continues today (1,2). Unless you can think of a specific reason why this shouldn't be included, I will be restoring that material although I will trim some material about the Sikhs. If you have any doubts, please read the original source which provides context.[12] --1990'sguy (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, does it say this was persecution because they were Christians, or because they were homeless? As this seems to be more about caste, not religion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Caste and religion are not separate issues. GPinkerton (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Err they are not lower caste because they are Christian, they converted when they were already lower caste. "Like thousands of other lower-caste Hindus, Mr. Eric’s ancestors converted to Christianity centuries ago, hoping to escape a cycle of discrimination that ruled over every aspect of their lives", both spruces are clear, this goes back to before they were Christians. We need sources saying this is discrimination because they are Christians, not low caste.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As you say Christianity in itself can identify a group as low-caste, or out-caste. Christians can themselves be construed as a low-status group with the system of caste. GPinkerton (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's well put, GPinkerton. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the edit in question can be restored. There was no serious issue there. Wareon (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:v, the source must says its persecution because they are Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wareon, I have already restored it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions

Regarding these edits by Jenhawk77, the sources don't look so good. Specifically for the first claim we have: an editorial in a Lutheran journal, Fox News, and a paper that makes this claim with citations to a conservative think tank and a book published by LifeWay Christian Resources. Not necessarily saying the claim is incorrect, but we need better sources here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:. So first off, the first reference is not a Lutheran journal. Journal–seek says "Dialog is equally concerned with quality scholarship and with the mission of the church. ... it has no official tie with a church. ...Its audience is made up of those who appreciate theological scholarship including academic theologians and church leaders". Second, it is not an editorial, it is a journal article in an academic journal. Is there a possibility of bias? Yes, of course, because there is a possibility of bias in everything, but this is an academic journal, so it is not more likely to be biased than any other source.

The second one is indeed through Fox news,, which everyone loves to hate, but they quote an Italian study from a group called CESNUR - center for studies on new religions. However, it's old news, and it's FOX, so I will go ahead and remove that one.

I don't know where or how you got your characterization of the next source: , but it is a published article in a journal of sociology. About the journal where it's published, Sage says, "Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, the first journal of social work research, is one of the most enduring and highly regarded scholarly publications on family and community-centered social work. Published continuously since 1920, the journal has a longstanding focus on person-centered, asset-based approaches to practice and policy."

You don't like the article I guess, and if you disagree with it, that's cool, bring references that support an opposing view, and we'll publish that too. If you read what I write, anywhere, you will note that I love including everything on a controversial view. If you believe the statement here is controversial, then let's do that.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Second, it is not an editorial, - it literally says "editorial" at the top. It's published in a journal about the Lutheran church and it's edited by a Reverend.

Regarding Fox, thanks. We have an article about CESNUR, which doesn't make it seem promising, but it's not a source I've come across before so will hold off casting judgment at this point.

but it is a published article in a journal of sociology - it's not itself a study of the most persecuted religions, it just makes that claim in the course of making its point. The sources it cites for that claim are a conservative think tank and a book published by LifeWay.

The burden is on whomever wants to add material to show that it's due/that the sources are good. I'm flagging here that you've made an addition to a controversial article using sources that seem questionable. I have not actually removed it, but would be curious to know what others think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Okay, I checked back, and I see that you're right about the first one, it is an editorial, though not a journal about the Lutheran church--still--my bad. I have removed the second, and I am thinking your complaint about the third is just as well--it's not a study--and that is what's needed. So it turns out this was sloppy on my part and a good catch on yours, so thank you. I will go dig more--for whatever can be found one way or the other. I love Wikipedia. We make each other better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your continued efforts! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites You're welcome--and thank you right back! So far I have this.

There's this one: [13] that is the full pdf text of this: which says "In addressing the persecution of Christians, we are focusing on what is probably the largest and widest manifestation of religious persecution in the world today." Sage goes on and on about his qualifications and that, before it was published in this journal, it was first a research article presented to the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Secretary of State on Religious Freedom Abroad. Not really a study per se, but still a research article.

I really like this one: [Johnson, T.M., Zurlo, G.A. Christian Martyrdom as a Pervasive Phenomenon. Soc 51, 679–685 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-014-9840-8] it's at [14]. Resource Request is attempting to get full access for me. It references this one which is crammed full of data and Tables and all kinds of statistics. Unfortunately, I can find stats on Christian persecution but not a comparative statistic along the lines of who is most persecuted. Table 4-10 might be it but I can't see it, so I'll make another request for that and we'll see what it says.

This is an actual study: which I will quote part of here: "Chapter 8 takes the detailed results from the previous four chapters and examines the larger trends which emerge from these findings. These trends include (1) the consistent rise of religious discrimination across world regions ..., (2), (3), (4) and that on average, Christians are the most persecuted religious minority worldwide and Muslims are the least persecuted, (5), (6) ..."

This one says "Christians are the world's most persecuted religious group" on page 255. It's published by Image publishing [15] which is Catholic, so you may not like it anymore than the "Lutheran" one.

That's what I've got so far. More to come hopefully.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, yeah, CESNUR is not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, can you see how the "International Journal of Missionary Research" would have a dog in the fight? As would World Christian Trends? As would, $DEITY help us, "The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution"? We need neutral sources, because the claims of 20th Century persecution are in many cases rather obviously ridiculous or at the very least wildly inflated. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Rhododendrites: Sure, but since I already agreed and removed CESNUS, that's kind of moot, don't you think? Neutral sources are not a requirement of WP. See below. Your opinions of inflated data are not backed up by State department data. The only reason I have not referenced them more here is because their data is all given one country at a time and I would have to practice Synthesis - or list all 144 countries here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, proposition: claims of 20th Century persecution are in many cases rather obviously ridiculous or at the very least wildly inflated

Evidence: [W]hen you hear that 100,000 Christians are dying for their faith, you need to keep in mind that the vast majority - 90,000 - are people who were killed in DR Congo.

This means we can say right away that the internet rumours of Muslims being behind the killing of 100,000 Christian martyrs are nonsense. The DRC is a Christian country. In the civil war, Christians were killing Christians.[16]

The BBC article also points out that in arguing for higher numbers, apologists attribute significant numbers of Christian-on-Christian killings as martyrdom. So if you're going to count Christians as an oppressed minority, logically, you have to acknowledge the possibility that the major oppressors of Christians are other Christians - something which was true throughout much of European history, of course (I have Huguenot ancestors). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Why go over ground already covered to make points I already made? That's a waste of my time and yours. I make no claims about Christians as an oppressed minority. In fact, I think I say they are the majority in two thirds of the world's countries.

The question you raise on who is doing the persecuting is one that recurs here and in [Religious persecution] on a regular basis. Should this article include a more complete listing of information on the persecutors than it does? If not, there should probably be a descriptive sentence at the top that explains that list is somewhere in a separate article--and then we should write that article as a stub or a sister article.

According to (which is crammed full of statistics and tables and maps), on page 230, there is Table 4-5 listing 60 religious traditions, with numbers of persecutors and victims. Comparing the numbers of persecutors to persecuted demonstrates quite clearly that the major oppressors of Christians are not other Christians. Other Christians have and do persecute, but in small numbers comparatively.

Still, this is a valid concern and a fair question: how much of this should be included in this particular article? It should certainly be somewhere. I do agree with that.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent revisions by JzG

@JzG: You removed the statements of method that are part of what establishes Open Doors' credibility, and then say prove their credibility. I include info on the credibility of the other sources, so removing Open Door's alone seems biased and non-neutral. Why should we listen to any of them seems like a valid question. It should be there about Open Doors just like the rest. Please replace that or allow me to do so.

You say 'include independent sources that verify Open Doors' claims', and I believe there is only one that doesn't already do so, (the paragraph on the most dangerous countries). PEW also has that information, so I will go add that and replace that paragraph accordingly. WP doesn't have a reciprocal arrangement with PEW, so I am wary of quoting them, as it's caused me grief in the past, but I will this time.

I have no objections to any of the other changes, though a couple of them puzzle me: activists? Everyone in the field of human rights is an activist - including the State Department council on religious freedom and the United Nations council established for the same purpose. They say of themselves that they advocate. They even say they 'interfere' and try to help at times; they don't just record data and ignore it. I would be interested to see if you could find a human rights organization that isn't activist. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, the statements of method and the rest were all cited to Open Doors or other sources that don't pass the test of "reliable, independent, secondary". You added some of it back in, again with sources that fail the same test. Open Doors is an activist group and we can't take their statements at face value, and we can't assume that something they publish on their website is significant unless it's reported by other sources.

Don't use activists as a primary source is a pretty simple rule of thumb I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: The reference on WP's reliable sources page on biased material: [17] says Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...". I included that in-text attribution. Give me a WP ref that says what you say about advocacy and I will comply.

Otherwise, if you think Open Door's numbers are wrong, find a reliable source that says so, and we'll put it in here. Find a source that debunks their methodology, we'll put it in here. Find something beyond your personal opinion that says what you think, and we will put it in here to make sure all points of view are represented - as WP says. You can see that is exactly what I did concerning the Gordon-Conwell quote. Until you find something that says otherwise, I am left to conclude your objection is personal, not WP, and therefore not something I need to adhere to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, Wikipedia sources need to meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. A primary sourced reference to an activist website fails all three. If a statement by a member of an activist group is not repeated in a third party source then including it from the primary source is almost always WP:UNDUE. In this case it's also superfluous: the BBC source points out that the vast majority of "martyrs" were killed by other Christians.

When we say we can include biased sources, we mean the normal bias of newspapers and other reliable sources. It's not an excuse to include primary references to opinions by activists published only on their own websites, and to interpret it as such is a repudiation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That's why there is a presumption against self-published sources.

To be absolutely clear, I have no view on whether Open Doors' numbers are right or wrong. My objection is based entirely on normal application of policy. Don't include primary sources that have a vested interest in the topic. RS means reliable AND independent AND secondary, not OR. OK? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Open Doors has no numbers as such. They have a list of countries, whether there is high or low levels of persecution, and what type of persecution, and they include specific stories usually with people's names and location. This is the same approach taken by the UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM [18] which describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan U.S. government advisory body, separate from the State Department, that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress." The USCIRF lists "Countries of particular concern"' as well as "SPECIAL WATCH LIST COUNTRIES" that are the same countries as those on Open Doors World Watch list.

Open Doors' claims are also the same claims made by PEW research concerning levels of persecution and types and what countries: [19]. PEW also uses description, not numbers, in the same manner as Open Doors.

And, it's the same in the State department reports: [20]. You can read the same stories found in Open Doors - and more of them - in the State department reports if you take the time to go through the report one country at a time, which is how they are posted. According to PEW, there are 144 countries in the world persecuting Christians, so plan on that taking awhile. I am through about 50 of them so far but I wanted to read them all - not just the 'bad' ones - so I could have the full overview, and I started last year, and now a new report is out, so I have to start over... Sigh. Perhaps you will read faster than I.

Applying the WP standards on biased sources that editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering shows that Open Doors has no independence from the topic at all. It is a charity that is run as a Christian ministry. They are an activist organization with an agenda, (all human rights organizations are) so that's against using it.

However, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Fact checking with other sources indicates Open Doors facts are reliable in spite of its bias, so that's in favor of using it.

I don't find your argument that what WP means when they refer to biased sources is the normal bias of newspapers and other reliable sources is a valid argument. It seems quite clear that a biased source is something beyond the normal, since WP says Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Open Doors fits that description, and the rules apply accordingly. It is a biased source, which can be used if its facts are accurate.

The Undue weight argument falls short as well. Undue weight[21] says, Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Open Doors does not promulgate a minority view. The high levels of persecution in the listed countries is the majority view, as shown and verified by the US State department, PEW, et al. Undue weight doesn't apply to the majority view.

I would say this mixed bag means: use Open Doors as a reference sparingly, with third party support, making sure to say it is a Christian organization, but with those caveats, that using it is perfectly acceptable.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, per WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE, we don't include primary-sourced claims made by activist groups. If you want to include Open Doors, then find secondary sources that cover their claims. Your analysis is predicated on a desire to include one specific source you like, mine is predicated on our standard approach to sourcing and is independent of the specific group involved.

This is not a topic where we are so short of material that we need to go mining the internet for self-published statements by activists, and that's doubly true when those activists have a vested interest in the specific content. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I am going to use the other sources just because you have raised this objection, but that doesn't mean I think you have proven that it is a valid objection. I am simply choosing to cooperate in the spirit of WP. You have made statements about "we" don't do this, as if speaking for WP, but you offer no references where WP says we don't include primary-sourced claims made by activist groups. Where is that exactly?

Open Doors is not a primary source, it's a secondary source. Its data comes from the State department and other human right's groups just like everyone else's.

I did get those additional sources. I included two of them above. Did you not read what I wrote, or just not bother to check what I said? Is factual accuracy not the actual issue here?

My analysis is predicated on a desire to use all the material available that can be considered dependable. The advantage to using Open Doors is that they collate the data. Like PEW. Their conclusions are the same as USCIRF, however, so I will use them instead, but it's evidence of bias on our part that we will accept the exact same information from one source and not another simply because they are a Christian organization. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

attribution

Christianity also enjoys dominant group privilege in the US and some other Western societies.[1] needs to be attributed in the text - so and so says or according to what's his face or some such thing - because this is not a universally agreed upon view. There are those who disagree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Like who? GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Szasz, Ferenc Morton. Religion in the Modern American West. United States, University of Arizona Press, 2000.page 193, "traditional forms of Judeo-Christianity no longer hold the same cultural dominance".

"The characteristics of a post-modern age of globalization ... is no longer dominated by the West ... it is post-colonial, post-European, and post-Christian". page 51, Fasching, Darrell J., et al. Comparative Religious Ethics: A Narrative Approach to Global Ethics. Germany, Wiley, 2011.

There's The Decline of Established Christianity in the Western World: Interpretations and Responses. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017.,

The Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750–2000. N.p., Cambridge University Press, 2003.

The West was built on Christianity being favored, no argument, but that has been declining for quite some time. This: [[22]] shows PEW's results for "Key facts about government-favored religion around the world" showing that "Roughly one-in-five (22%) of the world’s nations have an official state religion and a similar share (20%) have a preferred or favored faith tradition." Islam is the official religion in nearly two-thirds of the countries (27 of 43) with an official state-endorsed faith. Christianity is favored in 28 countries where the government has an unofficial, but preferred religion. These countries include Italy, Poland and Russia, as well as Argentina and Guatemala. Religious groups that either are officially recognized or unofficially favored usually receive state funding or other resources for religious education, the building and upkeep of places of worship, and other activities.

According to this: [[23]] the West mostly has nation-states "with no official or preferred religion" they "seek to avoid giving tangible benefits to one religious group over others (although they may evenhandedly provide benefits to many religious groups). For example, the U.S. government gives tax exemptions to religious organizations under rules that apply equally to all denominations." Not favoritism. Not dominant group privilege in the US. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because Christianity is not a state religion in the US doesn't mean its adherents are not the dominant social group; that claim is absurd. Just because the iron grip of religion on public life is slackening does not mean it is anything other than dominant in the West. There isn't a country in the West where Christians are a minority. How many American presidents have been non-Christian? How many western heads of state or heads of government? How many non-Christian denominations are state-funded out of taxation in Germany? How many nations of the UK have an established state religion that is not Christian? And so on. GPinkerton (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Christianity is a minority region in the Netherlands. Atheism is the dominant preference there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's true of a number of states, but atheism is not a religion and there is no religion larger or more dominant than is Christianity in the Netherlands. GPinkerton (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, go back and take a look at what the claim in the sentence actually is. It claims Christianity is the dominant group in the West, which is clearly not true for much of it, and it claims privilege. These claims are not supported by contrary information like this: 2015 report “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.”)

“The most religious countries are in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America, while people generally are less religious in Europe, North America, East Asia and Australia.

The share of adults who consider religion to be very important in their lives is generally low in Europe, where 23% of survey respondents in the average country say this. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia and Romania, where at least half of people say religion is very important, are above the regional average on this measure, while in most countries in the Baltics, Scandinavia and Western Europe, fewer than one-in-five say religion is very important in their lives”.

All I said was there is a need for attribution. I didn’t say anything about removing it or even adding the alternative view which would also be appropriate. Laurel Lodged is correct in citing the Netherlands. Atheism is mentioned in this article. And it demonstrates the error of the claim in the sentence. You know what? Never mind attribution. It’s been effectively shown to be a factually incorrect statement. It should be removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton Christianity's history in the West is not part of the claim being made by the questionable sentence, the claim is only relevant to current status, so most of your above questions are inapplicable. The statement in question has been removed.

If you want to put something back, that's fine but you will need to demonstrate neutrality by including a summary of all pertinent information: two-thirds of the countries in the world have a majority Christian population with some having Christianity as a favored or state religion, but that does not necessarily prevent persecution for non-state favored Christian denominations or sects. Two examples are Eritrea and Mexico. Then you will need to include that, while so-and-so (quote your reference) says Christianity is favored in the West, indications are that in the majority of the West, according to PEW only one in five favor religion saying it is important in their lives. In places like Germany there is state support for the official Christian church, but recent statistics indicate only about 3% of the population attend church there. (That's also PEW, you'll have to find it). In the Netherlands, Christianity is a minority group. In the US, Christianity is still the majority religion, and while the state gives tax exempt status to it, it does so equally to all religions there.

Include something other than a single opinion based statement, something that shows neutrality, and I will be good with putting it back if that's what you want to do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 has set out the position very clearly. "Dominance" is one thing; it can be a simple numerical superiority over the next most numerous religious group. "Group privilege" is entirely different. It can follow from dominance, but not necessarily so. For example, the Church of Ireland had group privileges for centuries, even though it never claimed more than 10% of the population. In the USA, as already cited, no group privileges follow from dominance, since all religions benefit equally. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? How many non-Protestant US presidents have there been? How many of those were assassinated? In the Netherlands, Christianity is the state religion and the largest and most dominant one and enjoys dominant group privilege; as has been pointed out, a group need not be a numerical majority to be a dominant group. Whether or not people view religion as important or go to church has absolutely nothing to do with the dominant position Christianity exerts in the West, including in the US, Ireland, and the Netherlands. There are morning Bible readings in the White House, and who could forget the president's learned ramblings about "Two Corinthians" ... ? GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of vehement personal feeling here but no reliable secondary sources. There are some. I went and looked. It's an interesting idea with scholarship on both sides. I challenge you to do the work needed to present this with encyclopedic neutrality. I will then support you and its inclusion - properly attributed within the text. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I advise care. A lot of this is confounded with race which is actually a separate topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you put it back without bothering to discuss it further here saying that "American Christians claiming that inability to enforce their beliefs on others is somehow "persecution"." I'd really like to see a valid source for that claim. I won't remove it again so as not to have an edit war, but I will call for a request for comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Statement in the lead

I request input from other editors on this sentence in the lead: Christianity also enjoys dominant group privilege in the US and some other Western societies. Although it's in the lead, it is not a summary of anything, as there is no discussion of it anywhere in the text. It claims one point of view, making a statement in Wikipedia's voice, without mentioning other viewpoints, and most importantly without defining what "dominant" or "group privilege" mean or refer to. And it is unattributed.

Perhaps a discussion of what the sources say on this should be in the text somewhere, perhaps under current situation, but imo, it should most definitely include a discussion of what these terms mean with regard to religion, (not race or social class), in sociology, and psychology, and with some reference to how these terms are used on a practical basis in research by PEW and other sources like them.

Then there would need to be some explanation of what impact this has on persecution, since that is allegedly what this page is about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) I have difficulty understanding why the sentence is there at all. There are many countries in which christianity is the largest religious group - inc US and the rest of the Americas, Europe and Australia/NZ. Presumably persecution (as distinct from sectarianism - which is not meaningfully persecution of christians IMO) is rare/non-existent in countries where it is predominant. I don't see the point of the text at all - it's somewhat akin to saying polar bears don't live in Africa. The Rfc is very vague, and does not ask a sufficiently specific question, but that is my response to the text for what it may be worth. I would also point out that since the subject is not expanded in the body of the article, it should NOT be in the lead at all, since the lead is meant to be a summary of the main points of the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Also (Summoned by bot) (but this page was on my watchlist anyway). I suspect the intention of the sentence is to make a claim about [sorta kinda] the Christian persecution complex as it exists in the US. That notion is talked about obliquely in the "current situation" section, but not directly. For the article as it exists right now, that sentence does seem a bit out of place in the lead, but it seems like the body itself could do more to summarize that clearly relevant sub-topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• The statement is there because it provides context. One very large source of complaints about persecutions of Christianity in the popular media is loss of historical privilege in majority-Christian countries. We need to be clear at the outset that this article is not about that, but about the actual persecution of Christians. As an alternative I wouldn't mind a DABlink to Christian persecution complex, which would serve the same purpose. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  I support the addition of a link to the Christian persecution complex with a removal of the sentence itself from the lead. Globally it cannot be claimed, so limiting it to a link seems right, but so does including it as it's pertinent to the definition of persecution. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Guy I'm sorry, I can see you are passionate about this, but the problem is your sentence does not provide sufficient context, and even if it did, it can't be in the lead without representing discussion in the text.

  So add it to the text, as I suggested above. Do the necessary work. PEW provides two possibilities for the kind of favoritism you assert: one being governmental through law, and the other being social. (see the full report referenced there for an expanded definition).

  Western governments are secular institutions which bend over backwards to treat all religions equally, so that's pretty much out as proof of favoritism. The Justices of the U.S. Supreme court have written a lot on the religious clauses since the 1990s and it all supports the idea that religion is not favored but is protected. It's a fine line, but most of your examples of favoritism listed above actually fall under the legal definition of protection of religion. Justice Scalia especially has written a good bit on this concept in practice including allowing praying in public.

  As far as social favoritism goes, those statistics from PEW on how people view religion are directly applicable. If religion isn't important within society then it becomes impossible to demonstrate a social basis for it being favored. There is disagreement in the sources about this subject of favoritism, so that should be included in "context" if you choose to add this.

  Globally, there are states that have Christianity as their official religion, and there are states that can be said to favor it without that official designation. There is religious persecution that is real (and not a complex) in some of these countries such as Eritrea and Mexico. I have already said that in current situation, but perhaps that could be expanded.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Passionate? Not especially. But I have seen this article used by evangelicals to claim that Christians are the most persecuted people on Earth, always in a context of pleading against gay people to have normal human rights. So to describe persecution of Christians without mentioning that in much of the world they are the ones persecuting everyone else, seems a bit of a miss. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's in the article but not very prominent and as such it seems out of place in the lead.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy First I want to say that it seems clear you have been badly hurt, and I am deeply and genuinely sorry for that. I don't know any one that pleads against gay people having normal rights, but if they do, shame on them. The world is full of the well-meaning but misguided, and it's up to the rest of us to rise above that and not let it drag us down to their level. An article on religious persecution is an article on human rights. We are all appalled at the suffering caused by violating those innate rights for any reason. There is no one here who will argue otherwise, I am sure.

Still, Wikipedia is not a platform for venting our personal views. If I could, I would be glad to vent right alongside you, but WP is an encyclopedia, and it has standards we all have to meet. Neutrality is one of those.

I have added some content to the current situation section that includes your quote. Please accept this olive branch as an attempt to meet you part way in this. I am still in favor of removing the sentence from the lead and including the previously discussed link. I hope we can work this out and be friends down the road. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps reading the Current situation section would help with some of these facts as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You should stop personalising this. Guy seems rather dispassionate about this and "your trying to meet him halfway because he's badly hurt." Bullshit!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho He is the one who stated that his need to have this sentence in the lead is because I have seen this article used by evangelicals... That seemed personal to me. I responded with kindness, while also attempting to depersonalize this for him. If I am wrong, I still acted in good faith.

But this is an RFC on a sentence in the lead and not a referendum on my motives. So, thank you for your input, but let's stick to the point.

The sentence cannot be in the lead without representing content in the body. Even my adding a paragraph in current situation doesn't really represent sufficient content for a mention in the lead - look at how much content there is in this page - picking out one random idea for personal reasons is not WP standards. He clearly has a bone to pick with Christians, but this isn't the place for that.

As it stands right now, there is an obvious consensus on removing the sentence from the lead and adding a link to Guy's favorite topic. As far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved accordingly. Without further comment, on the actual issue, I will remove the tag and act on consensus opinion, within 24 hours.

Thank you everyone for answering the call, for your straightforward views, and for helping out when others need it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If the bullshit in here gets any deeper we are all going to need boots to wade thru it. Take your own advice and stick to the topic. It's not a referendum on JzG's motives and your doing a piss poor job of painting them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, badly hurt? Not hardly. I am a cis white man who has been a foundation governor of a church school and a member of a church council. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I read that incorrectly Guy. I hope you can see that I acted in good faith. Are you okay with the conclusions of this RFC? No one has supported leaving the sentence in the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion has ended. The sentence is removed. Thank you all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)