Talk:Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Music

I don't think the reference to Deicide is supported, in anything Ive read in the last ten minutes. The songs on the album referred to could be interpreted as simply representational of Christian theology, rather than opposed to it. And the individualism versus Christianity concept doesn't itself indicate so much anti-Christianism as it does anti-religion. -Stevertigo 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Deicide, which claimed their album was "composed entirely of anti-Christian songs." Unless this interpretation is stated as a claim, and this claim is attributed properly to people who apparently can't understand a concept like first-person narrative, then it needs to stay out. -Stevertigo 20:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A few cuts

I just cut the reference to "Piss Christ." Serano never claimed that it was an expression of anti-Christian sentiment. Anti-Chrtistian sentiment by definition requires intention on the part of the anti-Christian. I also removed a sentence about some groups in America accusing some Christians of being bigots, again, this is not an example of "anti-Christian sentiment" because the groups cited are not opposed to CHristianity as such, they are critical of specific acts (which many Christians themselves are critial of). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the section on India, which limied itself to Indian legislation and actions against missionary atttempts to convert people to Christianity. Again, this is not "anti-Christian sentiment" per se. Nothing in the section described state or popular sentiments against Christianity. Conversion is by definition targetted at non-Christians, e.g. Hindus and Muslims, so this legislation is more about defending Hindus and Muslims from anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiment. If people could provide examples of laws prohibiting Christians from practicing Christianity that would be one thing, but prohibiting anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim sentiments cannot be the same thing as expressing anti-Christian sentiment. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed similar material from the Israel section for the same reason. being opposed to anti_Jewish sentiment is not the same thing as anti-Christian sentiment. Please note I did not remove the example of the burning of the NT which I agree is an obvious expressiojn of anti-Christian feeling. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on Canada for two reasons. First, the item about the memorial service at Peggy's Cove uses an unreliable and unencyclopedic source. It is an editorial column in an Evangelical magazine or journal, not an item from a newspaper. It does not provide any sources, it is impossible to verify. I googled Peggy's Cove memorial service and tried to find one other source verifying this claim and couldn't find it. The item in the Wikipedia article claimed that the minister was limited by Canadian law - which law? We need better sourcing. Second, the item about the calendar not including Christmas or Easter again fails to meet the standard of intentionality. Andi-Christian sentiment must be motivated by anti-Christian feelings. There is no evidence that this was the case here. Nothing concerning the calendar expresses hostility to Christianity. These are the only Canadian examples, so I cut the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been quite a lot of anti-Christian violence in India, much of it Hindutva-inspired. [1]. Might be worth mentioning. Jayen466 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've edited and restored a small part of the material that was there before, pertaining to that violence. Jayen466 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with content about anti-Christian violence - but if that is what this article is about, you ought to merge it with Persecution of Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So if someone were to place a photo of the current American president in a jar of apparent urine and call it "Piss Obama," should Democrats be pleased because it was "artistic expression?" Give me a break! If "Piss Christ" isn't blantantly anti-Christian what is?

Christian missionaries in India have been lynched, Hindus have stirred up violence against them. A Christian (or any other religion but Jewish) in Israel is a second class citizen. Ironic since most of the Jews aren't religious, but there it is. Student7 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If this article is about anti-Christian sentiment, then you have to have a verifiable source saying that Serrano's sentiments were anti-Christian. Provide those sources and it can go back in, otherwise you violate WP:NOR. And you still have not explained why the content in this article should not be merged with Persecution of Christians. Aren't your examples from India and israel (examples which by the way I did not remove from the article) examples of "persecution of Christians?" If so, why are they here and not in that article? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a valid question. One of the sources in the India section (the Malaysian one) states that there has been anti-Christian sentiment and that the result of that has been violence, as well as a somewhat lacklustre response from government. How to separate the two issues? Jayen466 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Content moved to talk until reliable sources are provided

I have removed this from talk for discussion:

Anti-Christian bias can be held by individuals or groups and may be the result of prejudice or grievance with political and/or social movements motivated by a specific Christian sect's dogma. It may be anti-religious in nature, or the view of an opposing religion which is critical of Jesus, or else a secular view that rejects Jesus as a person.

• I have no problem with saying anti-Christian bias can be held by individuals, because sentiments and bias are things that individuals have. But what does it mean to say it can be held by a group? If by "group" you mean an "aggregate of individuals" and all the individuals have the same sentiment, then "or groups" is redundant. Any other meaning of "group" makes no sense. Do we mean "organization?"
• I just do not follow the syntax of the secon clause. Is it a bias against a Christian political or social movement? Or is it a bias on the part of a social or political movement?
• Concerning the above, we are asserting a view. Accoring to WP:NPOV we need to identify whose view this is, without weasel words. Also, we need a [[wp:V|verifiable and reliable source for this view/views.
• What is "view of an opposing religion?" What religions "oppose" Christianity? And what do we mean by "critical of Jesus?" Christians say Jesus is messiah, all non-Christians say he is not - is this a criticism of Jesus? Is this anti-Christian sentiment? If so, all non-Christians are anti-Christians? This seems absurd on its face, but okay, according to whom? What is the source for this view? Is it a notable view? Is this a view held by the Catholic Church or another major Christian organization? Sources?
• Ditto last sentence. It sounds like the article is claiming that all non-Christians have anti-Christian sentiments. I find it hard to believe that any significant view from a notable source - our NPOV requirements - believe this. And We shouldn't put such a silly set of statements in an article unless we have verifiable sources demonstrating that these are significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I share these concerns. In addition, I don't understand the first sentence. "Motivated by a specific Christian sect's dogma"? It sounds like the bias originates in some dogma of a Christian sect. Is this trying to say something like, "reacting against a specific dogma"? "motivated by disdain for some dogma?" And you're right, of course. Premises are inadequate to the conclusion, the logic doesn't follow. If one has a secular view that Adam wasn't a real person, do they have an anti-Jewish/Christian/Muslim bias? What if it was a religious view he wasn't a real person? Holding a different opinion, or even negative opinion, is not the same as bias. These assertions need sources. There are many inadequately sourced claims in this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess. As for the second clause, I think the meaning intended was that someone may be biased against Christianity because they have [...] a "grievance with political and/or social movements that are based on a specific Christian sect's dogma". Perhaps, conservative movements allegedly based on Christian fundamentalist thought, or Catholic third-world aid projects accused of seeking converts rather than wanting to help, etc. "Opposing religions" could be religions that have made statements about the validity of Christ as a messiah, e.g. Judaism (doesn't accept him as such) or Islam (accepts him as such, but considers him superseded by Mohammed). I agree it has not been well put. Cheers, Jayen466 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the last sentence, I think it's trying to say that if someone has an anti-Christian bias, this may be motivated by their being against religion per se (e.g. more militant brights like Christopher Hitchens or perhaps even James Randi), it may be motivated by their religious beliefs, in which Christians are classified as infidels etc., or it may be because they don't believe in the historicity of Jesus (okay, that one seems a bit far-fetched). Jayen466 21:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, these views can't just be made up. They have to be significant views from notable sources acording to WP:NPOV. Jayen, your interpretations are in good faith, but what we need is the actual reliable sources from which these views are taken, and make sure they are represented accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was just to answer your question above – and I paraphrase – "What on earth did they mean?" As for sources, let's not forget that this was in the lede, where summaries of article content can stand without source. It was clearly meant as an attempt to summarise the stuff in the country sections below (US social movements, opposing religious beliefs in Saudi Arabia etc.). But it didn't work. I think you were right to take it out, and we might as well live without it. Jayen466 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein was right to take it out too. It didn't actually summarize anything in the article, and, even worse, was highly dubious opinion that made little sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The lede sentences that Slrubenstein removed didn't belong in the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm chiming in late, but I agree with Slrubenstein. When I edit articles, I always become leery of "may" in a sentence. Since that's a subjective word, I check the references (if there are any) to determine if may is original research or synthesis of scholarship. In this case, it is.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein appears to require sources. I might agree, and covinced by his argument I sought to see if the anti-Semitism article likewise used the same broad quasi-interpretationalistic strokes to indicate concepts like motivation and ideological bias. It does! So I added a couple {{fact tags}} to the large second paragraph on that article, requiring sources (per SLR's concepts expressed here) which specifically deal with the concepts in that article. What's good for this concept is good for that one, no?

How history is told is indeed important, and it's no wonder that there is a concept of biased ("sources" should be here, but not there) redaction in dealing with anti-Christianism. While I agree there were issues with how those concepts were expressed in the lede here ("motivated...Christian sect's dogma" was ugly, and not mine) I don't agree that the broad brush is always invalid, particularly when concepts like "anti-religious", and "opposing religion" are not really controversial, are they? If one want's to say that "Jesus denial" is not necessarily anti-Christian, fine, let's get into it. -Stevertigo 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree too that a one sentence lead is far from ideal. The fact I, the problems with the material I removed from the lead reflect problems with the article. The article has no scholarly sources on the phenomenon of "anti-Christian sentiment" nor any account of any discussion of different forms of anti-Christian sentiment, or how to distinguish between anti-Shristian sentiment and other phenomena that are similar but not the same. Instead the body is a string of examples, which skirts perilously with violating OR as I can only imagine that these are selected according to editors' views of what anti-Christian sentiment is. At best we have a couple of sources that show that Christians were offended, i.e. we know what Christians felt, but not what the alleged perpetrators felt. If the OR problems with the body were fixed, then it would not be hard to write a new lead summarizing the body.

I would like to propose an alternate solution, which I think is easier: just merge this article ith Persecution of Christians. In fact, can someone explain to me how this article is different from that one, I mean the contents, the substance?

I do not understand Stevertigo's questions about the antisemitim article. This page is for discussion of this article, not other articles. Why should I care about the antisemitism article when I am working on this one. Stevertigo, why are you directing questions about that article? Are you asking me personally?Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): SLR: "I would like to propose an alternate solution, which I think is easier: just merge this article ith Persecution of Christians. In fact, can someone explain to me how this article is different from that one, I mean the contents, the substance?" Well, like other Christian enterprises, there is some piggybacking on Jewish concepts here. Presumably Anti-Christian sentiment mirrors in some way Anti-Semitism, and Persecution of Christians nominally echoes Persecution of Jews. The Christian equivalents to History of antisemitism and New antisemitism are presumably forthcoming, but I have my doubts. For one reason or another, anti-Christian persecution doesn't seem to have as much history as the anti-Semitic kind. That's not to say there isn't any basis in history for it; just that there was (and is) a whole lot less of it.

Thus, I might agree with you SLR (only 10% for now, maybe more later) that there a merger is at least a conceptual possibility. AT issue is whether there is redundancy here. I'm not so sure. After all this article is concerned with a concept of anti-Christian sentiment itself, and not any historical events which can be loosely described as such. The events are largely historical, and don't really deal with the realm of ideas, which is what this is about. Are there any anti-Christian ideas out there? Note also that this article doesn't deal with ideas like Satanism or even the concepts behind Jesus' persecution and execution, which kind of started the whole ball rolling.

But let's not go there now, because that's historical, and its hard to deal with antiquated sentiments. Let's just deal with current sentiments, and examples of such sentiments. From that standpoint, this article alone would, to me at least, justify an article here. There are other concepts in the world, too. -Stevertigo 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please review WP:NOR and WP:V, and in the future, please abide by them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's focus on sticking with Policy. Above, Stevertigo writes, "Well, like other Christian enterprises, there is some piggybacking on Jewish concepts here." Sorry, wrong - each Wikipedia article should stand on its own, and comply with core policies especially notbility. If this article is about a notable topic not covered by another article, it stands. If it covers a notable topic covered by another article, the two should be merged. If it covers a non-notable topic, it should be deleted. That is all that matters. Referring to Antisemitism is just a red-herring, it has no bearing on this matter. Stevertigo also writes, "After all this article is concerned with a concept of anti-Christian sentiment itself, and not any historical events which can be loosely described as such. The events are largely historical, and don't really deal with the realm of ideas, which is what this is about." If this were so, I would oppose and not suggest a merge. But it seems to me that Stevertigo has not actually taken the time to read this article - it is about historical events against Christians. It is not about a concept or idea. Should we have an article about the concept or idea? Well, again, we need to look to policy. Are there signiicant views expressed in notable sources that directly address "anti-Christian sentiment?" Well, if so it would be great to have an article proviing an accurate account of those views. But I don't find such verifiable and notable sources in this article. Besed on Stevertigo's comment, it i still unclear whether this article should be deleted or merged. If it should stand alone as its own article, based on what Stevertigo said, I think people who have contributed to and watch this article really need to develop the article based on NPOV accounts of verifiable sources on the concept or idea, and pronto. If they cannot, then we ought to delete this article and wait until there are editors who are capable of and willing to do the appropriate research. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of sources of anti-Christian sentiment, mainly from ex-Christians, socialists, and practicing pagans. You can look up the films The God Delusion and Zeitgeist on YouTube and Google Video. Many comedians also tend to do routines where they criticize Christianity and religion in general. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Split and merge?

We have two other articles, Persecution of Christians and Criticism of Christianity, which I think maybe we should move some material from this article into. Here are the topics currently covered by this article:

1. Vandalism and desecration of Christian symbols
2. Vandalism and desecration of Christians' property, including arson of churches
3. Claims that 'American society and the United States government discriminate against Christians'
4. Negative popular opinion of Christianity in the US
5. Irreverent depictions of Christian symbols in American art
6. Condemnation of Christianity in the US government
7. Saudi restrictions on Christian worship, Bibles and churches
8. Saudi blood money laws
9. Banning of Christianity in China
10. UK Gay Police Association advert
11. Murder of Indonesian Christians
12. Burning Bibles in Israel

Now, numbers 2, 7, 9 and 11 seem to me to be persecution of Christianity (since they're all either crimes or large-scale, state-sponsored anti-Christian campaigns), and I don't see any compelling reason they shouldn't be in that article. 3 is a claim of persecution and could be put there too, with appropriate discussion of the dissenting point of view.

6 is criticism of Christianity and seems better placed at that article.

8 is not specific to Christians - in fact according to the source they get off lightly compared to all non-Abrahamic religions. If we do keep it in a specifically Christian article, I think it could happily go in the "other Muslim nations" section of Persecution of Christians.

4 is duplicated already at criticism of Christianity. Now that in itself isn't a reason to remove it here, because this article is given as a 'See Also' in the relevant section of that page so it's reasonable for it to have a summary there.

That leaves us with 1, 5, 10 and 12, which all deal with people being disrespectful towards Christian symbols. These would seem less obviously at home in either of the above two articles (perhaps 10 could go in criticisms as it involves a political statement about Christianity), but if we followed my above suggestions this article would be left as basically a list of desecrations of Christian symbols.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the above. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - if people do decide to move a lot of this material it'd be useful to ask for comment at the talk pages of those two articles first, but I thought I'd see whether any of you find merit in my suggestions first. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Having recently remembered this article, I intend to begin making the changes soon unless anyone has objections or better ideas. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I liked the clean outline of this article. The "Persecution..." article is so cluttered with everything since the year zero, that it is unreadable by comparison. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There may be several "higher level" articles, but is there one that contains all three, explains the differences and invokes them? I don't know what that higher level article would be called, but it affects all other religions as well. "Unpleasantness towards Christians"?  :)

I agree that "Persecution..." is very cluttered. I thought that after moving this material there I might go through it and do some tidying - certainly some of the "in 1993 four Christians were killed and then in 1994 two more had their hair pulled and then..." bits could do with summarising into a general picture of attitudes to Christians in the relevant countries. I see you've done some basic clearing up already, good job.

Perhaps a 'high-level' article is a good idea - and I'm still not quite sure where to put the items in the above list that just deal with people painting rude pictures of Jesus and so on. The challenge I think is to make sure any article we set up is clearly enough defined that it doesn't end up as a dumping-ground for any kind of 'unpleasantness' which rightly belongs in the others, as this article was when I found it. Maybe we should look at how unpleasantness towards Islam or Communism or something is done... Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see how you get to "desecrations of Christian symbols" as a focus for this article, but it would seem more natural to me to make the focus of "Anti-Christian sentiment" a discussion of negative popular, cultural or governmental opinions and attitudes towards Christians and Christianity. Irreverence towards Christian symbols, negative portrayals in movies and literature, public opinion survey data, attitudes towards conservative Christians, statements of governmental leaders condemning Christians and Christianity, etc would all seem appropriate parts of that discussion. Persecution of Christians would seem to be the natural place for any concrete actions taken against Christians or Christian groups and any specific disadvantages placed on them. Criticism of Christianity of Christianity would be the natural place for any specific, rational arguments against Christianity.

If we took that approach, this article wouldn't quite take the place of the "high-level" article mentioned above, but it would make the relationships between these three articles a bit clearer. This one would discuss the prevalence of beliefs and attitudes that could motivate Persecution of Christians. Criticism of Christianity would discuss the intellectual arguments used to support or justify Anti-Christian sentiment and Persecution of Christians. EastTN (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to the above here, just to be confusing. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-(something)

Not sure where this goes, or if it goes at all.

Last fall the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling upon all countries to pass laws "prohibiting the defamation of religion." This sounds nice on its face. Unfortunately, the chief sponsors of the resolution are the very governments with anti-blasphemy laws that protect the majority faith only and ban all religious dissent (i.e. not just anti-Christian, but anti-everything but Muslim. Mostly aimed at Christians, though). Hillel Neuer of UN Watch charges that the resolution legitimizes the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This is not a "reference" per se but affirms the details I've given: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090305/GPG0706/903050609

Fairly dramatic and credible IMO. But does it go here? Then where? Student7 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting and fairly scarey bit of information, but I'm not sure that it is spefically related to this article. It seems like it might be very useful for free speech or even censorship and I'd encourage you to try adding it to either or both. If you do, it would be important to avoid an appearance of OR or Synth; adding a quote from from an "expert source" would help a lot in that respect. Good luck, Doc Tropics 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with information in a totalitarian society

We like to deal in specifics here and WP:RELY references. These are not available for North Korea where, apparently, many Christians are in jail or executed, just for being Christian. We have a lot of vague figures, the type you get from a strict censorship country. Really need something here on them. Can anyone find a scholarly reference supporting imprisonment and torture? Nearly the worst in the world from all reports. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianophobia

It seems to me that this article would benefir by being renamed 'Christianophobia' - at present, Christianophobia redirects here though the article makes no mention of the word. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Christianophobia" seems a bit more loaded to me than "Anti-Christian sentiment." It has some of the same emotional overtones as "Homophobia." Given the goals of the encyclopedia, there's some benefit in using the most neutral, clinical terms possible. The redirect makes sense to me, though. EastTN (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Two sources added

Regarding this edit, I think there's a big gap between "one man sued a Bible publisher because he says Christianity is homophobic" (what the source says) and "Anti-Christian discrimination sometimes comes from homosexuals" (what the article says). A single case is not 'sometimes', and the source doesn't even say that it was anti-Christian discrimination.

And regarding this edit, is the website of this church really a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is...

I appreciate the attempt to improve the sourcing (and the other source added by the same user at the same time looks good to me), but we need to be really sure that sources support what they're cited for. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, the fact that only a bible publisher was sued is evidence of discrimination - he didn't choose to sue publishers of Koran's foe example, or publishers of any other book - just the Bible. Secondly, if the man doing the suing was homosexual (which I believe it says he was), this shows that sometimes the anti-christian discrimination comes from homosexuals. If you feel a second source is needed to justify 'sometimes', I'll get one. 86.157.200.117 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether it seems like discrimination to us or not, we can't say it is unless the source says it's discrimination - doing so would be original research. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Olaf Davis. Perhaps the solution is to change the wording of the sentence in the article to 'sentiment' rather than 'discrimination' - just a thought! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have been working on the UK page linked to from this article, and expanded it considerably. I removed the text on the GPA here, because that is covered in a more accurate and neutral way there now, with only reliable sources, and added some text describing the material in the UK article. That was reversed, with the lede from that article placed here. That is not a problem, but it is a bit pointless having one form of the information about the GPA here as well as a more accurate item there - so I have removed it. There is no point having this in two places, and that is what the UK article is for.

I have tried to add some images, one relating to anti-Christian violence in India, and one to anti-Christian expressions in music. Unfortunately, the large anti-discrimination box on the right prevents hanging them on the right, as is usual practice, so I have hung them on the left. It is quite tricky to get them lined up against the appropriate text, but I have done my best. Manson is not 'Death Metal' as described in the text, but is notoriously anti-Christian, and uses such imagery in his artwork, lyrics and titles. I created an India section in order to place the image in context, but have not as yet started to look for details about Hindu anti-Christian violence yet. When I get time I will do that, unless somebody else wants to instead. I am more concerned with UK material to be honest, although this is reported in the national press, so can be accessed. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Christophobia or Christianophobia

Long long time since I slept through Psychology 101, but isn't a phobia an irrational fear of something. Unless anti-christian sentiment can be shown as always based on fear and to always be irrational these terms seem incorrectly added, in bold, to the lede. Nitpyck (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it makes the article less credible IMO by being a bit crack-potty. It casts doubt on the rest of the article which is otherwise well written. I have deleted that sentence. Thanks for bringing it up! Student7 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are correct that a phobia an irrational fear of something. However, many terms are now used where phobia no longer requires this to be the case - eg, someone who discriminates against homosexuals is often accused of 'homophobia' even though they may have no irrational fear of homosexuals (they may simply disapprove of their lifestyle rather than 'fear' them.) Christophobia or Christianophobia are terms that follow this same approach where the issue is discriminatory behaviour or views towards the group which may, or may not, be based on irrational fear. 86.157.166.255 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian activists and Bill O'Reilly

Associating these two phrases weakens the argument IMO. Either "Christian activists" say this and quote Billy Graham or Joel Osteen or Cardinal somebody. Or say it is a political football for Fox and go with that and Bill O'Reilly who strikes me as a typical polemical broadcaster, and (sorry) not exactly "Christian" per se.

Either Christmas is being dumbed down and it is a legitimate Christian complaint or it is merely a talking point for a talking head who is not known for npov. Student7 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

I just read through the article, and it appears that those with an Anti-Christian sentiment, indeed, the entire movement, is portrayed as entirely hateful and violent. This article shows a great deal of bias, which is against Wikipedia's standards of quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.135.202 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

??? Think of an article "People who stone puppies." It certainly won't make puppy-stoners look good. That is the name of the article. Yes, these people are often bigots. They are documented here. That is the job of the editors and the article. I suppose another article can be started, "People who are otherwise nice but hate Christians." Maybe the people who appear there will appear, uh, nicer.

BTW, if you can find a WP:RELY article that says otherwise, by all means add it. Student7 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hating people who have persecuted you for centuries is not bigoted but rational.

War on Christmas

Christian activist groups like the American Family Association have spoken out against the perceived increasingly secular nature of American society, and what they have seen as the minimizing of formerly dominant Christian traditions, for example, the "War on Christmas".[7] Just because you're not for something doesn't mean you're against it. Because individual lead more secular lives does not imply they are anti-christian. Allowing stores to operate on Sunday is not anti-Christian. Saying Have a Happy Holiday to someone whose religion you do not know instead of have a Merry Christmas is hardly anti-Christian. Surely there must be some real anti-Christian stuff out there to complain about. Nitpyck (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have a good point but that is what the AFA are saying. We can't do much more than document it. If you want to take a swing at them, please do so. But this is not a forum for debates or attacks on them. -- Dront (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this is the place to question them as a reliable source. Since they are an organization described as the greatest frontal assault on intellectual freedom this country has ever faced one believes they could be described as not a reliable source. Unless of course one equates anti-christian as being pro-intellectual. Is there any NPOV group who says they are reliable? Nitpyck (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How are we to get someone neutral to say what is Anti-Christian and not? "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians", I guess they feel that it is the case. Is "Happy holidays!" undermining the Christianness of Christmas? I don't think we can even say what Christianness is in the first place but some perception by Christians like those in the AFA. One approach would be to find another Christian group that is numerous and does not think Christmas is becoming increasingly secular in nature. -- Dront (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually going the other way is better- is there any mainstream Christian organization that feels saying Happy Holidays is Christan-phobic? The fringe shouldn't be able to make the call, and if AFA are included it might be good to mention them as a small extremist fringe. Nitpyck (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourselves? What was formerly acceptable, tolerated and even expected a few years ago is now forbidden, discouraged, sometimes even illegal (public displays), to say nothing of being merely "politically incorrect." Does this strike you as the height of "tolerance?" What is "tolerance?" Insistence on your way, either secular or religious? From your pov, it is wrong (immoral), and not merely "tasteless", to utter a greeting formerly expected or accepted.

If you lived in, say Thailand, and got "Buddha's Birthday" off, would you be annoyed if people wished each other greetings which included Buddha's name? Would/should you press for illegality of public displays of Buddha? What expectation would you have of Buddhists, if you tried to de-Buddha, the hypothetical "Buddha's birthday?" Would you expect a medal? A vote of appreciation? Would you be satisfied with labeling the complainers as "crazies?" Or would merely labeling them as "not mainstream" be sufficient? Student7 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Point by point- public displays are not illegal. The fact that we no longer accept insults as OK - such as Polish jokes or saying Merry Christmas to Jews or Muslims or Atheists is not intolerant. Tolerance is respecting other people. From my point of view saying happy holiday instead of merry christmas is just not an example of christian-phobia. When in Thailand do as the Thais do and when in 21st century US say happy holidays and don't make it illegal to operate a business on Sunday. If I knew Buddha's birthday I might wish my Buddhist friends a Happy Buddha Day -if I remembered. I expect no medals. Asking the sales help in your store to say have a happy holiday is not anti-christian. AFA has every right to their opinion; but the fact that some fringe organization sees anti-christian actions does not mean anti-christian actions have occurred. Nitpyck (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the German section.

I deleted the whole German section as the reference is from here and it is not specifically anti-Christian but widespread anti-Cult and anti-Sect discrimination. The section was added back in June 2009 and correctly highlighted the more widespread scope but was then chopped down to only show "Christians". That is not right as it is only presneting the anti-Christian POV and so does not represent the sentiment of the reference. At best the original text should be in the religious discrimination articles but certainly the POV version can not stay here. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good move. German society is ethnically and culturally relatively homogeneous and not very tolerant of diversity. There is discrimination for all those religions that cause unadapted behaviour in normal life such as standing around in the street for hours displaying religious tracts or wearing only red clothes and doing processions with chants of "Hare Krishna". As far as it concerns Christian sects, this is an inner-Christian phenomenon. Hans Adler 07:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian section

This section is clearly in need of a rewrite. It reeks of pro-Christian bias. It'd be appreciated if someone knowledgeable in the area could chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negative Drew (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this whole section be deleted? It isn't actually information ,it is just a perceived bias against Christians, whenthings like world youth day were heavily publicised/approved of by the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.64.3.2 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably most of it can go. Some is reasonable, with descriptions of what the media has focused on, but it's all dressed in defensive language ('attack', 'trivialise' etc.) and a lot is just silly - Christopher Hitchens is more famous than his brother, so the media is biased?

I don't have time to do a proper weeding now, but if anyone else feels like giving it a go I'd be interested to see the result. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the first 3 refs in depth and not a word in the first paragraph is actually supported by the sources cited; even the direct quote is taken out of context, comes from a blog (not a reliable source for that purpose), and fails to support the assertion that it's attached to. Most of the rest doesn't seem to contain any concrete information about actual anti-christian sentiment, just a general rant about perceived bias in the media. I'll review further and also look at earlier versions of this section for comparison, but I don't see much useful content here. Doc Tropics 22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the entire section is the work of a single editor and the rest of it follows the pattern set in the first paragraph. As an example, the text claims "The Australian secular media have traditionally been very critical of Australian Christianity. This includes placing a large emphasis on areas where Australian Christianity is declining and reporting increases in Australian Christianity as a threat to general society,[21][22]" However, neither of the two refs actually supports the claim being made, and neither uses the phrase "...Christianity as a threat to general society...", or anything remotely like it. Rather, they are both examples of what this particular editor considers to be media bias, and in reality are perfect examples of Original Research and Synthesis on the part of the editor. Every claim and associated reference that I checked was the same thing....opinions backed up with examples of anecdotal evidence rather than credible secondary sources. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding regarding the difference between media bias and actual anti-christian sentiment (ie, one relates to what kind of news stories may get run on any given day, the other resulted in the very real abduction, rape, and murder of several young girls). At this point it seems best to remove the section pending some possible future rewrite. Doc Tropics 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Doc. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd wording in lead

The lead currently says:

1) "Anti-Christian sentiment is found in opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity."

Aside form being somewhat awkward phrasing, I'm not sure this is general enough of an assertion to be made without reference. The way it's worded, it implies that any opposition to Christians or the practices of the religion includes anti-Christian sentiment. The doesn't logically follow. One can oppose any given Christian for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his Christianity. Or one could oppose practices of Christianity for reasons other than being opposed to Christianity in general. For example, a Christian church in a neighborhood may have the practice of singing as part of worship. If the accompanying music is loud enough to break a local noise ordinance, that practice may be opposed, even though there's no "anti-christian sentiment" involved (the complaint about the practice is due to things unrleated to its nature as a religious practice.) Additionally, opposition is an action, sentiment is an emotion/idea. Linking the two seems an odd bit of scope shift. I think this needs to be reworded to be less awkward, more precise, less POV, and more encyclopedic. I would suggest, but would like feedback on:

"Anti-Christian sentiment is a term used to generally describe expressed intolerance of Christians, Christianity as a religion, or Christian practices and ideas."

2) The lead goes on to say, "Christophobia or Christianophobia are also according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians".[1]"

Is this a reliable source under Wiki standards? This sounds like very specific jargon that is not universal, but being represented as such. Even if this bit is kept, it should be altered so that it is not stating as fact what "Christophobia", etc , is, but reporting on what someone else says it is. That is not what is currently reflected in the text. At the very least I would recommend relocating this out of the lead, if not deleting it all together. Jbower47 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic sentiment vs Islamophobia

Unfair treatment

Ok people, when Wikipedia speak of anti-christian sentiment the article do not have the name "Christianophobia", but the first, soft, denomination, but when Wikipedia speak of anti-islamic sentiment the article have the powerfull name of "Islamophobia".

That's not intellectual honestity, any editor to restore justice in this must do one of these alternatives.

1) Call the articles "Anti-Christian sentiment" and "Anti-islamic sentiment".

2) Call the articles "Christianophobia" and "Islamophobia".

This comment was not written in rage, just a concern about fairness in Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.240.230 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably true, but unless you want to change the name of this article, you need to propose the change on the Islamophobia article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was quite surprised to see the rather lenient title "Anti-Christian sentiment" when I first arrived at this article, as compared to the severe and loaded "Islamophobia". --190.19.100.143 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

shouldn't persecution of christians in modern muslim countries,china and india be mentioned here too?

christians get worse persecution than in the countries mentioned in this article.

This is definitely reported in "Persecution" articles. The problem may be in countries where Christians are actively persecuted, that it is sometimes difficult, or impossible, to prevent violence from entering this article. We split a long time ago into "sentiment/persecution" articles and this seems to have worked out well. But if you can find "sentiment-only" material that is referenced, great. Student7 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Secular vs religious

This was deleted:

"===United States===

Where same sex marriage is legal, justices of the peace and other civil officers have been forbidden to decline to marry people based on the officer's conscientious objection.(ref)[2](endref)(ref)[3](endref) In Vermont, a same-sex couple, with ACLU support, sued a resort for declining to cater their reception on grounds of conscience.(ref)[4](endref)"

The editor stated that it was civil (secular) not religious, therefore not reportable. I'm just wondering where that sort of thing goes?

To use another example, let's say the civil government (as in France) says head scarfs must not conceal the face. This is aimed at Muslims. But since the secular government requires it for "everybody," then not reportable as "Anti-Muslim"?

To reword, all the secular government has to do, to remove anything from the moral sphere is to create a law, then it automatically becomes secular and nobody should have scruples about it? (except for Iran which has a theocracy. They don't get a free pass!) In other words, can the secular authority dictate morality to the point of getting someone fired.

Another wording: that which isn't illegal is automatically mandatory? Student7 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, but disagree with the reasoning. This article is about anti-Christian sentiment, not anti-gay sentiment from Christians - it's just off-topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant to say - being sued for opposition to same-sex marriage goes into Same-sex marriage or Opponents of same-sex marriage. The lawsuits are not "because" the group is christian, but are "because" of their treatment of homosexuals. If a secular institution (the ACLU) sues a secular institution (a resort), I fail to see how that is in any way related to anti-Christian sentiment. eldamorie (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I may as well respond to Student7's comment earlier in case he is thinking of repeating it - it's nonsense to claim that a law allowing same-sex couples to marry is targeting Christians who believe their religion requires them to oppose civil rights for LGBT people. This is not comparable to France's law against the burqa - that is explicitly targeted at the burqa, that is its purpose. The analogy would be something like a law forbidding the population at large from creating or displaying crucifixes - but it's totally not anti-Christian, no one is allowed to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is gays that are being "inconvenienced." Christians are losing their jobs or being sued. "Law of the land" can be like Dhimmitude. Different in that gays are a small minority, but heavily supported by an anti-religious judiciary. At least the Muslims had the excuse of "greater good for the greater number." Student7 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, in that comment you departed from any semblance of talking about reality. An anti-religious judiciary? LGBT folks "inconvenienced" and Christians the ones oppressed? Try again, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that opposition to homosexuality is by no-means a defining characteristic of Christianity. There are plenty for whom homosexuality is not some massive sin. As a result, claiming that support of homosexuality is somehow indicative of some kind of anti-Christian bias is ludicrous. eldamorie (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with with the basic statement. There are Catholic priests (for example) who are homosexual, but (like all priests) are expected to be chaste. The problem here is forcing Christians to marry (or demonstrate support for) actively practicing homosexuals. It is the "actively practicing" part that is the problem for Christians. Christians may either resign, or fold their business, a subservient status. In effect, believing Christians may no longer become Justices of the Peace, or Town Clerks, for example. Kind of like Egyptian treatment of Christians, but for different reasons. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of believing Christians have no problem with actively practicing homosexuality. See above. No-one is suggesting that clergy be forced to perform homosexual marriages - if that was the case you might have more of an argument. What about Christian proponents of racial separation (for example, the Aggressive Christianity missionary training corps)? Is it anti-Christian sentiment to force pro-segregation justices of the peace to marry interracial couples? eldamorie (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Student7, your comment is just completely divorced from reality. Christians a subservient status, what absolute rubbish. The law does not prevent Christians from holding any position. It may prevent homophobes from doing so, but I know a great many Christians who would be offended to hear the two equated. At any rate, this is irrelevant to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Student7's spot on. There was a case in the UK about this issue. A woman refused to oversee a civil ceremony because it was 2 men but I believe she offered to refer them to a colleague who did not have ethical objections to homosexual "marriage". I believe she lost her job for putting her principals over "minority rights". The only funny thing was she was a minority in her own right being a Black female. While it's true there are 'christians' who proclaim support for homosexual marriages I think you'll find most\all of those take a very liberal view of Christianity\the Bible. I did a quick Google for the story but can't find it. Christian persecution in the West rates almost as little mention in the MSM as it does overseas.

Oh, while I think about eldamorie's comment that nobody is suggesting clergy be forced to perform homosexual marriages, too late. Australia's not yet legislated homosexual marriage but it's already being suggested that churches\pastors will be forced to either perform unBiblical marriages OR refuse to perfom marriages. Depends how quickly\agressively the homosexual activists are I guess. That's the sort of state sanctioned Christophobia that's feared. Guess it's simpler in places like Iran or North Korea, you get shot for being a Christian not merely expressing Biblical opinions :)- 118.208.39.236 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"already being suggested that churches\pastors will be forced to either perform unBiblical [sic] marriages OR refuse to perfom [sic] marriages." by whom? I see these claims all the time, but they are never actually from policy makers. Also, having a liberal view of Christianity/the Bible does not make anyone less Christian. I suspect that your biases are showing. eldamorie (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, these "Christians" along with Jews, Muslims etc. are NOT being discriminated againist for being Christian or any other faith. They are not allowed to participate in a job if they are not willing to do the work. For example, someone afraid of flying really shouldn't be an airline stewardess. Don't you think a defense attorney ever defends someone who they completely disagree with or know that they are not innocent. Anti-Christian sentiment should only be a term used for those who are discriminated againist because they are Christians. Since the belief in "opposite-sex marriage only" is held in other religions too and DOES NOT apply to all Christians it is a completely different issue. It is also never a good idea to pit two groups againist each other.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to see any response. Figured I'd speak up in support of Student7's points and at least show he\she\it :) isn't a minority of 1.

Obviously need spel chek  ;)- Eldamorie, yes I'm aware that policy makers haven't come out of the closet saying this, but think of the votes that could be affected if they were this explicit. It's simply a matter of intelligent people publishing the implications, and the pollies failing to demonstrate protective measures. Liberal view not any less a Christian? Depends who defines Christianity and how they do so. If you say any white person that's been in a church, loosely the Islamic definition I think, then yes many 'christians' will support homosexual marriage. Of course by that definition most homosexuals are 'christian'. I prefer something more solid i.e. how the Bible\Christ defines a Christian. I read something by Sam Harris the Fundamentalist Atheist\Anti-Theist in which he noted a distinction between professing 'Christians' and genuine Christians. If someone who hates religion notes that sort of distinction, and I'm not even sure how he was defining Christian, surely you can understand that lumping everything under 'christian' is problematic. For the record, yes I know I've biases but there's no such thing as neutrality with Truth merely accuracy.

Rainbow, it's a matter of so called sexual rights taking legal precedence over Biblical ethics\requirements - yes Jews and Muslims may share comparable values but that's irrelevant, like equating homophobia and paedophilophobia. The problem isn't that Christians are unwilling to do work, it's that they cannot act in such a way that it opposes their ethics. In Oz one of the parties currently making up our government is quite clear they want to restrict religious freedom, and that sexual rights always triumphs anything else - for now polygamists, paedophiles and other sexualities excluded. If Christian Schools for example are legally forced to employ homosexual teachers, teach homosexual practices, promote infanticide (abortion) etc, as is now the case in the UK, it presents major problems. 118.208.39.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

The problem is that your definition of "Christian" is a minority definition. This discussion does not seem to be about improving the article (especially since the item removed that started the section had nothing to do with Christianity, hence its removal). The issue is a framing issue, as one wing of the Christian right is redefining words to paint themselves as oppressed. If it isn't explicitly about religion then it isn't anti-religious sentiment, it's merely a side effect. Period. eldamorie (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that the fact that a person has to follow these laws isn't inherantly anti-Christian any more than certain drug laws or anti-Rastafarian or Native American spirtuality. Keep in mind there are actually organizations that believe in racist beliefs. I mean extremely racist beliefs. These churches are not permitted to burn a cross in their neighbours yard no matter how much their belief says so. A church not being allowed to commit ritual suicide or sacrafice is honor of their deity (or possibly God) is not anti-_______ sentiment. Its common sense.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Easier, perhaps to see through the context of Dhimmitude. If I lived in an Arabic country, how might I legally deprive a non-Muslim from office. Well, if they don't believe in polygamy and the country allows it, clearly they should not qualify.

But here, we have the secular arm carefully constructing "rights" for 4% of the population, which BTW doesn't seem particularly mandatory (e.g. not on a social par with "equal education for blacks" for example), in order to deprive the plurality Christian religious believers from holding certain constitutional offices. And continuing to construct them so that they may possibly be deprived of holding any political, elective or bureaucratic (or public business). Most of these rules were constructed by a few people and not voted on by the public. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, the purpose of these laws has nothing to do with Christians, nobody has provided a source stating that this is even happening, Christians as a whole increasingly have no problem with homosexuality, and once again, these laws are not designed specifically to oppress Christians. eldamorie (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the expressed theory. But once you start crossing a "line" someplace, all actively secular activity becomes anti-religious. Once a society has reached "that" point, the only reason for going "more than obviously required" is to be anti-religious. That is, the social payoff for homosexual marriage seems secondary to annoying/inconveniencing/disenfranchising Christians.

While toleration of homosexuals should be universal among Christians, per se, encouragement of homosexual activity is limited to an increasingly uninhabited "middle ground" between Evangelicals/Fundamentalist and Catholics/Orthodox Christians. The numbers are few though the headlines are great. Student7 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for intruding upon this discussion, but how does this relate to the article or to improving the article? It seems to me that no one is arguing for any inclusion and rather that we are discussing politics mostly akin to the US. Can we leave it here? I am sure there is another forum better suited for discussing politics. -- Dront (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Scope?

Looking through this article, it seems to me that almost all of this article's content belongs in Persecution of Christians. Looking through it, I cannot find a single example which shows "Negative attitudes" rather than "Acts committed against Christians". I am sure that such examples exist, but right now there is no reason not to merge and delete into Persecution of Christians. Any comments? -- LWG ^talk 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree; the persecution article is already quite large and focuses on more severe historical events. AV3000 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the persecution article is large, but what makes this article different from an arbitrary selection of content that was deemed too minor for inclusion in the other one? As far as I can see, the two articles cover exactly the same thing: various violent acts that have been committed against Christians. -- LWG ^talk 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. For example, the first section is music. No violence. Just hatred which is sentiment. "Persecution" should be reserved for violence. I think that is how it was divided up a year or two ago. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point - the article seems to be a content fork for an existing article. 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One-sentence ledes are useless

Slrubenstein removed this text from the lede, leaving only a terse dictionary style sentence:

"Anti-Christian bias can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of prejudice or grievance with political and/or social movements motivated by a specific Christian sect's dogma. It may be anti-religious in nature, or the view of an opposing religion which is critical of Jesus, or else a secular view that rejects Jesus as a person."

In addiction to contradicting WP:NOT (dict) and WP:LEDE (explanation), his removal seems to be pointless, and unsupported by a reason. If you could give your reasons, SLR, we can probably work with it to recompose the lede in accord with your concerns. -Stevertigo 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you try reading the previous section? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Missed it. -Stevertigo 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you missed the edit summary here too ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be correct to describe as (necessarily) bias anti-christian views which are anti-religious in nature, or the view of an opposing religion? Generally if X is some view, belief or practice anti-X views are (or are not) bias depending on whether they are (or are not based) on prejudice or reasoned argument; in other words anti-X views are not necessarily bias, although they may be, or they may be put forward by those who are biased. Of course a person may be biased (or prejudiced) against X but nevertheless put forward fair, reasonable and non-biased criticisms of X.--Philogo (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Philogo raises important points. However, the real question is whether verifiable sources expressing significant views make these distinctions. If so, such views and sources should be the building blocks of this article. But someone has to go out and find out what the reliable and notable sources say! Moreover, it is still unclear to me why this is not merged with Persecution of Christians Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's lead is:

Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.

[emphasis added).

It is thus appear to be either (1) offering a (stipulative or descriptive) definition of the phrase Anti-Christian sentiment or (ii) making a statement of fact. It is not clear which. If the former it would surely better read:

The term Anti-Christian sentiment means a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.

if the latter it should surely say (since it is not self evident):

Many people beive that Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.

If the former then it would appear to be some unusual use of the term anti..X sentiment, since in normal English, on both side of the Atlantic, to the very best of my knowledge, Anti-X sentiment does not MEAN a bias against X. Eg Anti-murder , anti-capitalism, anti-communism, andi-americanism, anti-greed sentiments do not MEAN a bias against murder , capitalism, communism, americanism, greed although the sentiments may (or may not) be felt or expressed by those who happen to be bias. If it did then, presumably anti-anti-christian sentiment, and anti-atheism sentiment would mean respectively a bias aginat anti-christianlty and a bias againt atheism. If the latter, on the pother hand, it should cite some sources that make this claim of fact. To do otherwise would be both POV and OR--Philogo (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So far this discussion has been dominated by four people, one of whom (me) does not have it on his watchlist. Can other people who watch this article chime in? If most people are uninterested in this article, that itself is an argument for deletion or merge. Please, aren't there others who have views? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Here are my thoughts per Slrubenstein's request. I agree with Philogo that "...Anti-Christian sentiment means a bias..." would indicate a specific term since that's not what 'anti' usually means, and that therefore we'd need to source it. I also don't think that sources exist to justify it, because I don't think that is what anti-Christian sentiment is usually used to mean.

The "many people believe..." version is better, but still far from perfect because it leaves an article called "Anti-Christian sentiment" which gives only the viewpoint that sentiment is synonymous with (or stems from) bias. Without making clear who believes that, and who disagrees with them and what they say, we're not doing the issue justice at all. We could add something to the lede to incorporate this, but the fact would remain that the rest of the article is mainly about hate-crimes against (or state-sponsored persecution of) Christians and doesn't mention much 'anti-Christian sentiment' of any other kind. Given this I'm inclined to agree that the best course of action is a merger into one or more other articles. I'm going to say more in the section below. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ameded accordingly, but although I am no expert it does not seem that all the content relates to crimes per se. Eg It says

Christianity was banned for a century in China by Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty after the Pope forbade Chinese Catholics from venerating their relatives or Confucius.^[11]

It is not clear to me that article is saying that the banning of Christianity was illegal any more that it means to say the Pope's forbidding Chinese Catholics from venenrating their relatives or Confucius was illegal. It appears to me that the article is mainly about (or imply lists purported) hate-crimes actions or statements against, restrictive or critical of Christians or Christianity, in a word anti-christianity, which would be a simple and accurate title. It might then encompass some less anecdatal and more interesting material, e.g. Anti-Christianity in Roman Times, Anti-Christianity in the 19th Century, Principle obejections to Christianity, the cases against Christianty made by other religions, criticisms of aspects of Christianity by Christians &c.--Philogo (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did mention state-sponsored persecution as well as hate crimes: I agree that China's ban was probably not illegal.

Of the five example topics you list immediately above, the last three would seem to me to fit perfectly well into the criticism of Christianity article (indeed, some are already covered there). There may be specific topics I haven't thought of, but I do wonder how much 'room' for this article there is that's not taken up by the other two. For example, under the umbrella of Roman anti-Christianity, feeding-them-to-the-lions would clearly be 'persecution' while the writings of Julian the Apostate would be 'criticism'. There may be other stuff which is neither and would therefore belong there, but I think we need to be careful about avoiding overlap - currently there's a lot of that, as I make the case for below. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

"Anti-Christian sentiment is an opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity. Christophobia or Christianophobia are also names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians" according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE).[1] It is the counterpart of Islamophobia, which is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam.[2]"

This sentence is biased, and just plain wrong. It exemplifies all that is wrong with this article itself. It implies that fear or hatred of Christianity is in some way wrong; when it is quite arguably the only correct moral stance. At least some Christians were, and are dangerous, and their dogma itself is often hateful toward anyone who believes in modern rights and freedoms.

In their holy text, "The Bible", God directly advocates slavery: and in accordance with His will, Christians (and their Jewish forebears) have continually practiced slavery for over 2 thousand years. It was not until the atheist uprising in France, followed up with a direct assault upon Rome itself, that the Christian priests gave in a little, and imprisoning or torturing human beings for thought crimes like "heresy" and "atheism". It wasn't until after the Age of Reason that we stopped having three sets of laws: one for noblemen, one for priests, and one for the common man. It wasn't until after the Christians were stopped from running roughshod over the rest of the society that modern society and modern civil rights got started at all.

To this day, the modern country of Canada (not even 150 years old yet!), still cites "Blasphemous Libel" as a crime worthy of JAIL time. At this very moment, the Canadian Constitution requires that Canadians fund Catholic schools; but not any other form of religious schooling.

Right now, all of major Churches of Canada are being sued in a massive class action lawsuit; and will be forced to pay reparations for the deliberate acts of torture, rape, abuse, forced sterilization and deliberate genocide of the Native Canadian **schoolchildren** that they committed starting in the 1890s, and continued on up to the 1960s. Listen to the pain in the voice of the 75 year old native woman who describes how, as a young girl, she was first raped by a priest, and then had a nun take her newborn baby from her, and throw it into a furnace, and THEN tell me: and tell HER why her fear and hatred of the Christian Church is not valid. Listen to Canada's Truth and Reconciliation hearings, and the United Church minister who was thrown out of his parish for daring to expose the horrible truth to the authorities and the general public.

Ask any boy who was violated by a Catholic priest, only to face lies, stonewalling, and vicious condemnation of the victim coming straight from the Vatican for daring to speak out against one of their own, if it's really so wrong to fear or hate "some or all" Christians. I'd say that boy has every right on earth to hate the priests who molested him, and the Church officials who tried to cover up the crime, and hide it from the public view. Ask anyone who's been offered the choice between a much deserved financial settlement from the Church, and the right to see the truth published, instead of having the truth hidden behind some Church settlement "gag order".

As an atheist, I feel that any religion that decided it was okay to burn humans alive for atheism is wrong, is hateful, and is deserving of hatred and condemnation. That includes Christianity, Islam, and anything else that dares stand in the way of free speech, equality of rights for all people, and all the general good modern social behaviour that we take for granted now, but that only the atheists hoping for the dawn of the Age of Reason dared to fight and die for.

Eliminate the bias that implies that Christianity ever was or is an undivided social good, or somehow undeserving of hatred for it's hateful treatment of others across the centuries, or why it alone should somehow escape the just condemnation for its crimes. Christians have wronged the rest of society, repeatedly and horribly, and as of yet, remain unpunished for the crimes of the faith while retaining the wealth garnered from their oppression.

It's not wrong to hate Christianity for it's evils. Their God advocates slavery; He considers women as mere objects to be owned, like cattle and donkeys, and He is so enthralled with blood sacrifice that He even kills His own son rather than break with His own bloody handed traditions.

By the words of it's own God taken from His own Holy Scriptures, Christianity largely opposes everything that the UN Declaration of Human Rights stands for; all that is considered right and good and fair, according to modern ethics.

What's not to hate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.112.114 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is supposed to be about improving the article, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Opinions are not relevant.

Do you disagree with footnote 1 or footnote 2, or both? And what exactly do you find wrong with the WP:RS? Student7 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

General tone

I wonder if all this petty vandalism should be reported. There are teens and twenty-year olds everywhere who will defame anything if given the chance. So what? I would be more concerned with the government posture or tacit support for this vandalism. See Israel, for example. Someone spitting on the cross or writing obscenities is "not nice," but so what? Having the church uh "desecrated" (I'm on a kid-friendly library computer that censors stuff) seems like the authorities are ignoring loitering by vagrants. Also disconnected is the very polite treatment that religious tourists get. Without that, no tourism. Some of these are out of the tourist eyes - e.g. vandalism in churches used by locals. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, graffitis with anti-Jewish obscenities are normally quoted as examples of anti-Semitism (e.g. in the current Antisemitism article). And spitting on religious symbols is a clear expression of hatred towards a given religion. The position of governments is more relevant to "persecution" articles.

84.74.98.74 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article under discrimination?

This breaks the neutral point of view rule of wikipedia.

For example, check: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anti-fascism. It says "Anti-fascism is the opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals".

Well, Anti-Christian is the opposition to Christian ideologies, groups and individuals.

Christianity has been as destructive to the human race as Fascism. Also, Fascists movements have been around for 100 years, and killed a few million people. Christianity has been around for 2000 years and murdered way more people.

But wikipedia says Anti-Fascism "fights" fascism, while Anti-Christianity "attacks" Christians.

Both movements fight against a retrograde ideology that is harmful for the human population.

almafuerte@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.41.173 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the title of the article. It isn't called anti-Christianity. This one is about a sentiment. Nowhere does this article say the sentiment "attacks" Christians. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Islamic world?

How can this article gloss over the entire Islamic world? Anti-Christian sentiment is quite strong in much of it. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Egypt

The source says, "Since the fall of the old regime, however, the Copts have been exposed to an escalated level of discrimination. As a result, about 10,000 Christians have left Egypt since Mubarak was deposed -- and many are wary of returning now that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups are likely to seize control of the country."

I wrote, "Since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, Egypt's Coptic Christians have been the target of growing discrimination. By mid-2012 10,000 had fled the country."

How is that "not supported by source"?—Biosketch (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming the source meets WP:RS, but the phrasing you used doesn't necessarily meet WP:SYNTH. The source doesn't quite support the exact phrasing you used. You make the assumption (reasonable, but an assumption) that all the Christians who left were Coptic Christians. That may well be true, but it isn't clearly supported in the source. That's the first thing that comes to mind to me, anyway. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed the second page of the source. The cited statement is correct. Veritycheck (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per User:John Carter's observation I've changed it to just say "Christians."—Biosketch (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti

The following text was deleted, '“Death to Christians” and “We’ll crucify you” were painted on the Baptist Church in Jerusalem while similar hate graffiti was found on a Greek Orthodox monastery. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the pope’s custodian in Israel, wrote to Shimon Peres and warned the president that “red lines have been crossed and we cannot remain silent.”He was asked to put an end to the attacks.'

1) For starters, this is Custodian of the Holy Land which can be piped to shorten, I suppose. It is the pope's emissary, and therefore worthy to quote. 2) He is defending, not RC churches, but a Protestant church and and a Greek Orthodox church. That is significant. It is also significant that he is addressing the President, not the local constabulary, for example. 3) Yes, the wording is significant IMO. Graffiti doesn't come out of nowhere. If someone is writing it, someone is saying it. 4) Someone has to cleanse this - not easy to remove. 4) In a RC group, per-arranged, we found an Orthodox nun the only resident of someplace we wanted to see. She was clearly terrified to let us in! Maybe of Arabs rather than Jews, but still terrified. This sort of stuff is not funny. Student7 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bible burning

While this was clearly an expression of anti-Christian sentiment, it's not like Christians worship the bible/NT. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, in another context, with burning a bible, per se. There are few "sacred icons" in Christianity. For Christians, the Bible is just words printed on a page. (For Jews the same, except the hand-written, letter-perfect, Torah is extremely expensive! :) Student7 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Jews explicitly identify as Jewish, not Christian. So it makes no sense to put this story, if it belongs here anyway, under anti-Christian sentiment. If anywhere, the story belongs on the Messianic Judaism page, since according to WP:RS it only involves this particular group (who identify as Jewish). To claim otherwise, would be pure original research. Also the sources don't identify what the motive behind the burning was, so putting it here is more original research. Avaya1 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As Messianic Jews self identify as Jews, then this belongs on the Anti semitism page. I propose that it be moved there. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The story would fit better on the Messianic Jews page. It shouldn't be on the anti-semitism page because the sources don't identify what the motives behind it were, so putting it under an "anti" page is original research. We shouldn't go beyond simply reproducing what the reliable sources report. Avaya1 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This action fully meets the definition of anti semitism as per the wikipedia page, one of which is 'Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.' That page is full of anti Jewish actions, which are classified as anti semitism, and which do not take into account the motives of the originator. Since you have argued that we should use the self identify of MJ, which is Jewish, then this does belong on the anti semitism page.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is remove it altogether, since editors can't come to any agreement as to where it should go.—Biosketch (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Burning the New Testament is unequivocally an expression of anti-Christian sentiment. It was widely reported by news agencies around the globe and thus has a legitimate place in this article. Veritycheck (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would think.

What the intelligent reader is looking for here is not total lack of anti-Christian events but reaction by the authorities. There is a) no reaction or actual encouragement of hostility by the government, b) a lot of verbal breast beating which may mean the government wants tourism but doesn't really care otherwise or c) the government actively pursues the investigation of misdemeanors and prosecutes miscreants. Israel definitely wants the Christian tourist trade, which is quite lucrative, but may not really care what happens to local "heretics!" Student7 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Part II

Now we have "were burned by three teenaged Orthodox students of Judaism. Uzi Aharon, the town’s deputy mayor, told CNN he had collected the New Testaments but that he did not plan for them to be burned. The youths had done so while he was not present. Once he found out that the fire was going, he put it out."

I really don't care much about this entry anyway, but this does not sound very credible. Let's say Catholics in Italy "collect" (from where? Someone must have had them originally!) copies of The Da Vinci Code. They stack them in the plaza, pour lighter fluid on them and then and only then, do they set fire to them. The "Deputy Mayor" (what is the Deputy Mayor doing anything for? In most cities, the "Deputy Mayor" stands in for the Mayor when he is absent. He doesn't lead demonstrations unless he is at odds with the mayor). The Deputy Mayor says, "Gee Whiz". Just because we "collected them, stacked them up in the middle of the plaza and poured lighter fluid on them, doesn't mean I wanted anyone to put a match to them! As soon as I found out, I came back with my fire extinguisher and put the blaze out. The books, of course, will be redistributed to the owners, from which we took them illegally!"

This reply sounds silly. I mean, funny-silly. It does not sound credible. We can leave it there as a joke I suppose.... :) Student7 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Recentism?

At first glance, it appears that this article only discusses things that happened within about the last 20 years. My understanding is that there has been some anti-Christian sentiment in the world for a couple of thousand years. Is this article suffering from WP:RECENTISM? If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title? What is the defining period of time? Is it only an account of "current events"? (That would seem to be a news article, not an encyclopedia article.) –BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the article is a selection of recent news stories, which also seems to content-fork from the Persecution of Christians article. Ideally, the article would summarise academic discussions of the history of Anti-Christian sentiment, rather than just quoting recent news stories. I wonder whether merging this article with the Persecution of Christians article is something to consider? Avaya1 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right about recentism. We either need to change the title or include stuff from centuries ago. Not really looking forward to the latter as it will expand the article dramatically if we are detailed.

Some time ago, we decided to fork "persecution" to shorten the article! Didn't notice your remark until I added a hatnote. So physical violence goes into "persecution." Hands off stuff goes here. It makes it easier (!!) to discuss, as well. (No, really!) Student7 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Easier, anyway. Yeah, this article really should include more information about the early anti-Christian sentiments, although, evidently, it looks like a lot of the reasons for early persecution of Christians might have been added to that article. Honestly, I was wondering why the two articles both existed before, but Student7's comments make sense. I tend to think that persecution is, in some way, a subgrouping of sentiment, because people tend to have feelings before they act on them, so, maybe, we might structure them both with this as, basically, the main article of the two, and Persecution of Christians being where the specific actions taken against them are put? So, as a purely hypothetical example:

==Rome==

The people of ancient Rome really hated Christian hairstyles. They passed laws outlying specifically Christian hairstyles, which included, in some cases, involuntary haircuts.

For more information, see Persecution of Christians.

Maybe making that the sort of "standardized" format might make it easier to divide content between the two articles. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

I have to question the neutrality of this article. It reads like it was written by Christians exclusively to portray themselves as weak helpless victims and Anti-Christians as bigots and aggressors. I mean, discrimination? Come on. Furthermore, for an article about Anti-Christian sentiment there isn't much information about the other side of the coin, the opinions and views of Anti-Christians. Where's Nietzsche's philosophy, for instance?

I believe an article about discrimination and discriminatory actions against Christians should be placed in an article called "Anti-Christian discrimination" or "Christian discrimination" or "Discrimination against Christians" and this article should be reserved, instead, for expounding on the Anti-Christian point of view, in all its myriad forms (and yes, including the violent discriminatory POV). -Red marquis (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea. I propose that this article be merged with Criticism of Christianity while "Anti-Christian discrimination" or "Christian discrimination" or "Discrimination against Christians" be merged with Persecution of Christians. -Red marquis (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another would be to transfer the contents of this page to "Anti-Christian violence" if the progenitors of this article insist on having a page highlighting negative attitudes towards Christians. Anti-Christian sentiment is just too broad a term and does not always include violence or bigotry. Who do I go to to make this happen now? As it is, it isn't doing Christians much favor in appearing unprejudiced either. -Red marquis (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, a previous organization/editor forked this article off, deliberately to distinguish mere prejudice from violence. I think the thread at Talk:Anti-Christian_sentiment#Split_and_merge.3F discusses that in some detail. So we have deliberately moved away from vague titles to specific ones. I suppose that "Persecution" and "Violence" could be merged, and maybe "Discrimination" and "Anti-Christian Sentiment" could be merged. "Criticism" is different entirely from the other two and involves, or should involve, criticism of practices, high level stuff. The others are what practitioners suffer at the hands of the "anti-s".

I wouldn't feel too bad for Nietzsche, he has plenty of articles. See, for example, Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is not deliberately non-neutral, its content is just too restricted in scope – only dealing with random misdirected hard-rocker vandalism – there are systematic anti-christian terrorism in Iraq near and in Mosul. I think there are important conflicts in Sudan and in Nigeria in which christians are parts. In judaism and islam there should (naturally because of crusades etc.) be an anti-Christian sentiment. The article name associates to an emotional mood only, while it actually is about discrimination and hatred. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no mentions of islamic massive persecution of christians all around the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.14.162.23 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is in two places Islamic terrorism and Persecution of Christians. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I know little something about what's going on in Israel, and that part of the article sounds *exclusively* written by missionaries. Missionizing is limited *by law* & absolutely NOT because of the missionaries themselves; the acts of violence are against missionaries who do stuff like hand out tracts at playgrounds, not against the converts, & if the acts are not punished by the Israeli authorities, it's because these people aren't supposed to be doing anything in the first place! I guarantee you that the "We Killed Jesus" graffiti was NOT written by Jews, but by Jew-haters, seeking to make Jews look bad (not that no Jew has ever vandalized a church, don't get me wrong, but that specific bit of graffiti? Inconceivable, since most Jews who are violently opposed to Xianity deny Jesus even existed). I could go on, but I think my point is made. I would clean up the section, but it would actually mean erasing & re-writing it!!FlaviaR (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I challenge the neutrality of this article. According to Phobia Dictionary, Christophobia means Fear of Christians, http://www.blifaloo.com/info/phobias.php it says nothing about hatred or intolerance. The source currently cited http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930 (CCEE) is clearly biased in favor of christians and christianity in general. The source is NOT valid, the page gives a "not found" error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorstag (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Moorstag (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Moorstag

Israel

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

---

The section on Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements concerning numbers and frequency of incidents. I have removed this limiting the section to cited facts that detail the incidents more inline with WP:NPOV guidelines. If we are to list apologies for anti-Christian sentiment in one section, than certainly each other country listed in the article would have to do the same. As the focus on this article is "Anti-sentiment" lets keep it restricted to just that. Veritycheck (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya1, concerning your unexplained revert: Good Faith reverts require a comment at a minimum as a courtesy. Better yet, if you take issue with an edit, your constructive feedback would be welcome here to work towards consensus. Let’s discuss it. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Verity Check. The consensus against including it here follows general Wikipedia policy. 1. The meaning of the incident is open to interpretation, and the sources state that explicitly. 2. It doesn't involve a Christian group (Messianic Jews identify themselves as a Jewish group - and Wikipedia follows self-identification for categorising religious groups). If the story belongs anywhere, it is on the Messianic Judaism page. 3. As for the tone of the passage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not just to lift blanket editorial style statements from the articles we quote. We only reproduce what the source actually shows. So there are more incidences than reported, you have to have a source showing that.

By the way, we already discussed this as a group, so before adding your new edits, the onus on you is to get some consensus - not vice-versa.

Avaya1 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Good to have you in the discussion. The edit you have reverted to contains a lot of WP:OR such as "a few instances" and "some instances". In fact, if you look at the source cited for those inclusions, it actually reads, "many" and "has been going on for years". This is quite disingenuous. The edit you have reverted corrected that. As far as hundreds of copies of the New Testament being burned, it really is of little concern who they belonged to; be it Jew, Muslim, or Christian. The act of the burning in itself is considered heinous to Christians and was in deed widely reported around the world and not limited in discussion to Messianic Jews. The information has a place in this article. The content of the edit you reverted included absolutely no editorial opinion but simply stated facts and was a little more concise than it had been previously. I would ask you to detail much more clearly what parts of the entire edit you feel are unwarranted and on what grounds. Until then, as I stated at the onset, I will remove the WP:OR that you have reintroduced and leave the article to the bare facts as stated in the sources. If you are still unhappy with it, I suggest you yourself edit it to remove the WP:OR and include the Bible burning incident as you see fit. I'd be happy to go forward but will not accept the section as it was. The edit minimized and hid facts where it should have neutrally related all the relevant incidents giving them their proper weight. Veritycheck (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit deleted a lot of content about the official reaction to the incidents, and the qualifiers about the number of incidents (for example, from the sources it appears that two churches have been vandalised or painted with some graffiti?). As a compromise, I will remove the qualifiers. As for the bible burning, the sources explicitly say that the intention is unclear. The bibles belonged to Messianic Jews (not Christians), the government was rounding the bibles up as part of the official policy against evangelisation, and the destruction of them would likely have had more to do with anti-evangelisation than anti-Christian sentiment. Either way, the intention behind it is not clear and categorising it as anti-Christian sentiment is WP:OR. Even categorising it as anti-Messianic Jewish sentiment would be WP:OR (and Messianic Jews should be counted as Jews according to Wikipedia policy for self-identification of religious groups).

"The act of the burning in itself is considered heinous to Christians" For it to be considered anti-Christian sentiment, then it has to have anti-Christian intention behind it. The intention of the perpetrators is essential before ascribing sentiments to them. Avaya1 (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the WP:OR and working together to resolve this. I’m sure you agree that members of one faith minimizing the offence that has been caused to another is disrespectful at best and has absolutely no place in an article of this nature. I am curious why you originally deemed it significant to add the inaccurate quantifiers, "a few instances" and "some instances" and have only now deleted them rather than correcting them to what they were stated as in the original source, namely "many" and "has been going on for years". I’m fine without them being included for the moment but thought it valuable to reflect on why you no longer think quantifiers have a place here. No doubt, you may learn something about your own personal WP:BIAS. (Note: I have since noted that you have edited the article once again choosing to include one minor incident while leaving out many other harsher ones. I suggest you remove this yourself or be ready to accept the inclusion of numerous other examples, which I can equally provide restoring WP:BALANCE. I recommend doing the former.)

If you seek citations about the distress caused to Christians about the burning of New Testament bibles in Israel and the nature of its anti-Christian sentiment, I will be happy to supply you with them. I have found many from reliable international sources. I don’t have time for further edits at the moment but will be back shortly. Then again, I invite you to go ahead and add the edit yourself if you get to it before me. Step-by-step we can get this article to better reflect reality and show due weight which it is sorely lacking as it stands now. Veritycheck (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Distress caused" by the bible story is irrelevant. For us to categorise it as anti-Christian sentiment, there has to be some information about the perpetrator's intentions/sentiments. Additionally, that story doesn't even concern Christians, but Messianic Judaism - which is the reason for the consensus not to include it (again the onus is on you to get a consensus before you go against that, not vice-versa). Your weighting of the article was also undue. For some reason, you deleted all the official reactions (which are more notable for a wikipedia entry). Even as it is, the section is still undue since it's all about barely news-worthy incidents like spitting and graphitti, whereas no-one has made an effort to report many notable incidents like murders which are occurring.

I’m sure you agree that members of one faith minimizing the offence that has been caused to another is disrespectful at best. I'm a Catholic and I go to Israel often. Theologically there's nothing offensive about burning bibles, and if you know any Church history, you would know that the Church has done it thousands of times. Avaya1 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand from your comment that you don’t find it an expression of anti-Christian sentiment to burn New Testament bibles. However, Wikipedia is not interested in personal opinions but rather confines itself to reporting what has already been stated in other reliable sources. It is irrelevant what you or I think on the matter. It’s sufficient if the facts have been shown elsewhere which is the case. Media outlets around the world have reported on this incident. The following sources show this in the light of anti-Christian sentiment:

“Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.” - USA Today & Haaretz

"It also has concerned evangelical Christians in North America, Europe and Asia, who visit Israel by the hundreds of thousands." - CNN

"The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has in the past resisted criticism of Israel, has called the burning of the Christian Holy Book “unacceptable” and “offensive to most Christians.” - The Christian Post

Including information that comes from reliable sources is all that is required here. If you would like to add other cited perspectives, I would be happy for you to include them in the article. Or, if you would like to argue the sources themselves, please feel free to do so. Nevertheless, arguing what you yourself believe to be pertinent according to your opinion is of no consequence, nor is it grounds for omitting this information from the article. Your statement, “it's all about barely news-worthy incidents like spitting and graphitti (sic), whereas no-one has made an effort to report many notable incidents like murders which are occurring”, represents your point of view. Those being spat at for years would no doubt disagree with you as would those Christians who were submitted to graffiti which read , “Death to Christians” and “We’ll crucify you” on their churches. Once again I stress, neither your point of view nor mine has any place in this article. I would hope that after your numerous edits here at Wikipedia you would be aware of this. Certainly adding other sourced information regarding other incidents to the article would only improve it further but that is certainly no reason to seek to delete what has already been added and adequately cited.

Finally, concerning your comment about previous consensus. I do not see any consensus being achieved from the five editors who participated in the brief discussion. The penultimate comment by User:Biosketch in fact states, “editors can't come to any agreement as to where it should go.” Regardless, consensus can change overtime and I would be more than willing to open this up to a wider community through an RfC to get a better consensus concerning whether the incident is deemed anti-Christian sentiment and if it is warranted to be included in this article. I certainly believe it is. I have been bold and reinserted it. The latest edit combines those elements, from my understanding, that you wish to keep along with those that I believe equally must be included. Call it a compromise that satisfies neither one of us 100%; it is better than nothing. Should you delete it, I will take that as a sign that an RfC would be beneficial thus putting an end to what is turning into an edit war. Veritycheck (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

i like what you have done on the re write.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. Here are two permanent links to the version prior and the newer edit I introduced as outlined above.

1. The sentiment behind the bible incident is not clear, as is expressed by the sources. The burning of bibles has been conducted by the Church thousands of times over history for many different reasons (The US army even recently burnt some http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/) - categorising it as anti-Christian sentiment is WP:OR until you find sources for its motives. The destruction of bibles is not inherently anti-Christian sentiment, there's actually a long history behind it in Catholicism for example. It was Catholic policy for many centuries. Your news stories on how it is perceived by other groups doesn't give us information on what the sentiment behind it was. 2. The incident involves Messianic Judaism, not Christianity (Messianic Jews self-identify as Jews, not Christians - that is possibly one of the motives for the incident, who knows).

Please answer these two points - for me the inclusion is clearly WP:OR. Avaya1 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Avaya1, I see your efforts to remove content from the article as harmful to the encyclopaedia. You have repeatedly deleted contributions provided by different editors with more than 5 deletes/reverts in the past two weeks claiming a consensus when you have had none. Furthermore, you have done so without addressing your motives or giving any reason whatsoever concerning vandalism and spitting. Your comment was limited to “it's all about barely news-worthy incidents like spitting and graphitti (sic)”. International media feels otherwise as you were shown by several citations (CNN, USA Today, Haaretz, The Christian Post) - included above. What is more, you have added your own WP:OR misrepresenting sources by changing the number of reported incidents from what was included in cited sources; namely substituting "many" and "has been going on for years" to your own WP:POV Pushing with "a few instances" and "some instances".

The only issue you have addressed is the burning of New Testament bibles handed out by Christians. First, you claimed that it had nothing to do with Christians and belonged in another article altogether. When shown reliable sources that did indeed show Christians had been affected, you claimed that burning bibles is not an expression of Anti-Christian sentiment. When provided with further sources stating Christian reaction to the incident describing it as, “unacceptable” and “offensive to most Christians”, you deleted yet again. Lastly, you have decried such inclusion as WP:OR, even though you have been provided with reliable citations showing otherwise. Nevertheless, in my most recent contribution, I have tried to accommodate your own edits and have been inclusive rather than supplanting one edit with another; all to no avail.

We have failed to reach a consensus on this. The time has come for others to participate and for us to step back in making the decision. The only feedback we have had to date concerning these edits is from one other editor User:Dalai lama ding dong who supports my last edit. As this is the case, I will revert your revert and open an WP:RfC. I will respect the outcome whatever the case be. In keeping with WP:GoodFaith, I expect you will do the same. Veritycheck (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is a good idea. However, I don't understand the rest of your reply, apart from the fact that it is quite uncivil. I agree that the incidents were over qualified, which is why I removed the qualifiers. I also tried to include another incident and give some detail from the sources, but you objected, so I deleted that as a second compromise.

As for whether the bible incident is 'anti-Christian sentiment':

1. The sources explicitly say the reason behind it is not clear. To include it here is WP:OR, since for us to call it an incident of anti-Christian sentiment, we have to have some information on whether anti-Christian sentiments were the reason behind it. Many incidents of bible burning are not actually anti-Christian - for example, when done by the Catholic Church, or the US Army. How it is perceived is a separate matter. For example, a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie, but that doesn't mean we can categorise The Satanic Verses as anti-Muslim sentiment on wikipedia, without more information on his motives.

2. The incident concerned Messianic Judaism, which is Judaism, not Christianity, according to wikipedia guidelines for self-identification of religious categories.Avaya1 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning another of your reverts and the accusation you leveled against another editor in your comment found next to the revert in an attempt to justify it:

“(Dalai lama ding dong, no offense to him, has been blocked multiple times for POV on wikipedia)”

It should be noted that you recanted it here. I have supplied a link because it may have left editors seeing the page-history with a false impression. There is no reason to discredit his support for my edit as your apology makes clear.Veritycheck (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC: the inclusion/exclusion of various incidents of discrimination and intolerance against Christians in Israel

Primary issue: Does the incident of publicly burning more than two hundred New Testament bibles at the hands of a group of Judaism students have a place in this article?

Secondary issue: To what extent should the incidents of spitting and threatening-violence via Graffiti be detailed? Please see the above thread for background. It includes links to previous edits and cited sources. Thanks for participating. Veritycheck (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to primary issue It is WP:OR to categorise this story as 'anti-Christian sentiment' because

1. The sources explicitly say the reason and motives behind it are not clear. To include it here is WP:OR, since for us to call it an incident of anti-Christian sentiment, we have to have some information on whether anti-Christian sentiments were involved. Many incidents of bible burning are not actually anti-Christian - for example, when done by the Catholic Church, or the US Army. How it is perceived is a separate matter. For example, a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie, but that doesn't mean we can categorise The Satanic Verses as anti-Muslim sentiment on wikipedia, without more information on his motives.

2. The incident concerned Messianic Judaism, which is Judaism, not Christianity, according to wikipedia guidelines for self-identification of religious categories. The incident clearly has some relationship to the tensions about evangelism by the Messianic community in Israel, and it certainly belongs on the Messianic Judaism page. Avaya1 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to secondary issue The incidents should be included. However, the official reaction to those incidents should also be included, as they currently are. Veritycheck removed the official reaction, and listed them without context. Avaya1 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You have mentioned the "sources" several times now, but have never specifically named them.

Here again are three that I have provided:

“Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in 'the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries' in the Holy Land.” - USA Today & Haaretz

"'It also has concerned evangelical Christians in North America, Europe and Asia', who visit Israel by the hundreds of thousands." - CNN

"The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has in the past resisted criticism of Israel, 'has called the burning of the Christian Holy Book “unacceptable” and “offensive to most Christians'.” - The Christian Post

There is nothing vague in their nature. Please identify and cite your "sources" to backup your statement, “sources explicitly say the reason and motives behind it are not clear.”

Concerning your statement "Veritycheck removed the official reaction, and listed them without context." The edit you have been continually reverting does indeed contain these reactions. I included them and notified you of the fact. I certainly hope you have actually read the edit before incessantly deleting it. I included a link to it in my statements preceding this RfC. Here is the edit once again for you, if you haven't read it. Proposed edit. Veritycheck (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The sources specifically say that the incident relates to Messianic Jews not Christians. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7413134.stm http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/385992.aspx http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/bible.burning/index.html http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/June/Bible-Burning-Targeted-at-Messianic-Jews-/

2. The motive is not clear according to the sources. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews by Messianic Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian). To Jerusalem Post, Aharon also said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.” http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759 Avaya1 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya1 asked me to review this and comment. First, according to our article, both Jews and Christians consider Messianic Jews to be Christians. Consistent with that, it seems a book-burning directed at Messianics was an incident of anti-Christian animus. Finding a source that actually said so would be better than having to argue about it.

The language proposed by Veritycheck has serious problems, including WP:COPYVIO—sentences that have been copied and pasted from the sources—and statements not supported by the sources.

In general, I think the old language ("There have been instances") was too shallow, but the new language ("for years") is too broad. Summarize what the sources say. Write about the specific incidents described by the sources, not about broad trends not addressed by the source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Malik's proposal sounds alright, possibly with one exception. Is it true that Jews don't consider messianic Jews part of the Jewish people? There's no definitive answer to that question and it's what generated controversy here the last time around, with some arguing that the incidents might actually qualify as antisemitism; hence my suggestion that they qualify as neither anti-Christian, since underlyingly the targets are Jews, nor as antisemitic, since they're not being attacked for any reasons having to do with their Judaism.—Biosketch (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the content of my edit should be paraphrased. I do admit I cut & paste sentences from various reliable sources. I limited myself to only including exact elements of those originals into the parts of the edit that made up my specific contributions. I did not add any of my own work or ideas. Hence, there was absolutely no WP:OR on my part, nor was a word added that wasn’t included or supported by the original sources.

Consequently, I would assume that those “statements not supported by the sources” that Malik Shabazz mentions came from the parts of Avaya1’s edit that I incorporated into the combined edit that has most recently been reverted. These elements still remain in the current article. I strongly agree that they must be checked and changed. I had originally removed them myself. After Avaya1’s expressed desire to have them remain in the article, I added her/his contributions back. Perhaps this time Avaya1 can go through them herself/himself and clean them up. If not I would ask others to do so.

For your reference to compare and contrast. It's quite revealing.

The article before Avaya1's initial changes here

Avaya's original edit here (After reading this edit, I began to contribute.)

My original edit here

The combined and most recently edit-warred edit here

The words "many" and "has been going on for years" concerning the ongoing spitting incidents are also directly taken from the sources I listed and linked above. They accurately describe behaviour which has been documented to have taken place regularly for many years. Numerous news sites have reported this. I suggest these original words remain unless you find the sources unreliable in themselves or replace them with accurate synonyms. “Instances” which is now used in the current article is completely unacceptable and a disingenuous substitute to say the least. If you do take issue with the quantifiers from the cited sources being used, please say so and detail your objections including the source you believe shouldn’t be cited and explain your reasoning.

Whether Messianic Jews are considered to be Christians, I believe is irrelevant as they were not the only group of Christians involved or affected by this incident. The citations I have provided above illustrate this clearly. Regardless, the Wikipedia article says that Messianic Jews are considered Christians and includes it’s own citations that can be checked by those editors who are interested. You may find the following sentence helpful which can be found in the article here at Wikipedia:

“Jewish organizations, and the Supreme Court of Israel (regarding the Law of Return), have rejected this claim, and instead consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[22][30]”

I will wait for further feedback from other editors and/or other contributions to the article before seeking to change it. I am looking for consensus here and do not wish to waste my energy being reverted without just cause. When the consensus is clear, I expect the material in the article will have less support in being deleted and that further attempts to play down the significance of Anti-Christian sentiment in Israel through attempts to cover it up or minimize it in this article will cease and the excuse to edit-war with it. A look back at the article’s history will show that these negative changes/substitutions are recent. Noting this backwards step in the article’s quality was the catalyst that motivated me to research sources and attempt to get the article back to encyclopaedic standards. My passion and precision inhibit me from being less wordy ;-) Veritycheck (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I second (or third) Malik Shabazz's comments. Avaya1, even if I were to concede that WP:CAT/R applies outside of the question of how to categorize articles (I do not), I would say it is a moot point, because "X identifies as a Messianic Jew" and "X identifies as a Christian" are not mutually exclusive claims. That said, I think the article prior to your edits gave far too much weight to incidents in Israel. There are sections on church burnings and physical violence against Christians that did not go into so much detail. In the absence of several significant new developments (and let's hope there are none) I recommend that the section not be expanded more than a sentence or two beyond its current size. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Whether or not Messianic Judaism is Christianity or Judaism is a disputed issue, and probably not something we should be arbitrating on. The position of mainstream Judaism is that anyone who believes that Jesus is a Messiah is no longer practising Judaism (although they may nonetheless remain Jews according to Halakhah). On the other hand, according to self-identification of religious categories, they generally identify their beliefs as Judaism, and they identify themselves as Jews - and that's the case in the context of this particular story: ("He characterized antagonism toward Messianic Jews as a "family feud." http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr )

That doesn't mean that this story definitely doesn't concern Christianity, but the Messianic Judaism page would surely be a much more suitable place for it. I don't edit that page, but we could include a section about the community's reception in Israel. There's currently a lot about their theological reception, but nothing about the community's existence in Israel. I asked Malik to have a look because he edits that page, and he also edits the Black Hebrew Israelite pages which have a very careful and balanced discussion about their situation in Israel.

2. The story has to have some context. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian - ). Later, to the Jerusalem Post, Aharon said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.” http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759

In itself, anti-evangelising activity is not necessarily anti-Christian. The Ottoman Empire often pursued anti-evangelising policies, but at the same time was very tolerant towards established Christian communities. Similarly, burning bibles is not inherently anti-Christian (and there are no theological objections to it). The Catholic Church burned a lot of b ibles in the Early Modern period.

3. Veritycheck is definitely right that I added (two) qualifiers that weren't supported by the sources. When I re-read it, I removed them. They shouldn't be there. On the other hand, Veritycheck removed the official reactions to the incidents, which certainly should be there.

4. There's an issue of balance and space here (which comes under WP:DUE), when covering spitting by Haredi in the Old City and graffiti (there's also an over-emphasis on black metal in Norway). Of course these should be included, but taking up 30% of the article detailing it is undue (as it formerly did [5]). Even in the Old City, more violent incidents tend to occur between the Greeks and Armenians. In Israel, in general, Arab Christians face far more notable discrimination (covered by the Racism in Israel article). Of course, the article is a work in process, and as it is enlarged it should hopefully become more balanced in terms of the space used up by each country. Avaya1 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya1, in keeping with the spirit of responding to an RfC, I would ask you to constrain yourself to only commenting here on the two specific issues found at the intro of the RfC. Your additions concerning Greeks and Armenians, Arab Christians, black metal in Norway, amongst others, cloud and obfuscate the focus of this RfC . They are entirely out of its scope. Furthermore, such additions here make the work of building consensus all the more needlessly complicated. In short, they are unhelpful in resolving the two specific points that concern the RfC. Certainly, you have the right to bring up your issues, but this RfC is not the place to do so. I would ask you to take your concerns regarding other elements of this article to another section outside of this RfC.

Additionally, the Supreme Court of Israel “consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity”. Again they are not the only body who recognizes Messianic ethnic Jews as Christians, nor is this article confined to them in the first place as you have been shown on numerous occasions now. You’ve been presented with solid sources showing this. Accordingly, it’s time you drop this old argument, accept that sufficient reliable sources have detailed the Christian involvement in this incident and move on. Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

You have admitted that it was incorrect on your part to substitute the quantifiers concerning the behaviour of spitting at Christians in Israel. However, the current edit still has your diluted words of “instances” in lieu of the "many" and "has been going on for years" found in the sources. Do you believe that these substitutions are valid synonyms and adequate? If not, when are you planning on taking the initiative to correct your mistake and have the article reflect accurately what is stated in the sources? Your action here would be appreciated and go a long way in showing that you are not trying to minimize Israeli incidents of Anti-Christian sentiment. Admitting the mistake was only the first step. Yes it was appreciated, but not without the situation being rectified; otherwise, your words ring hollow and seem insincere. I urge you to get to this immediately.

Finally, to address your concern of Israel taking up 30% of the article. My original edit brought the total number of sentences concerning Israel down to 6. That is nowhere near 30% of the article. It was, indeed, shorter than your own current edit. This whole line of reasoning is inaccurate and moot. Furthermore, such an argument should not be cause to censor the Israeli section but rather perhaps put impetus on expanding other sections of the article if warranted. I wonder what your take would be on an editor who was criticized for expanding the Egyptian section of the article because it was too large and detailed too many incidents of Anti-Christian sentiment against Copts. Sections of this article must not be restricted, censored or portioned out equally but rather take up the space they need to describe significant incidents adequately. Veritycheck (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Veritycheck has invited me here to weigh in on this discussion. At the moment I do not have time to comment, but I would like to offer a couple of suggestions on how to make the conversation easier to follow for those of us just joining. First, when you want us to be able to compare different versions, please supply diffs. (This is a diff; this is not.) Second, if you are citing relevant Wikipedia policy, please provide a link. At this point I have probably read all of Wikipedia policy, but I have not retained it all. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you all to make Wikipedia better. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to take part in this discussion, and a few points come to mind. One, User:Jayjg is probably the person who knows best the opinion of Jews regarding Messianic Jews, and I would welcome his input as well, but I have myself only ever seen one Jew, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, who has indicated he thinks that MJs qualify as Jews. It is, maybe, possible that Israel might consider some MJs "ethnic Jews" based on some other matters, but that is a separate matter. And I cannot see anyone in Israel who would consider burning the New Testament to be anti-Semitic. There would be a lot of more obvious choices of things to use if that was the intention.

Secondly, I tend to agree with Malik's statements above. I note Aharon's statement indicates he objected to evangelization of Jews by MJs. The word "evangelize" is clearly based on the Greek word for "gospel", and is obviously best used in reference to Christianity. "Prosletyze" is widely enough known that it could have been used if what was being objected to was prosletyzation in general.

Having said that, I have some concerns about the amount of weight given Israel in the article, but don't know enough about the sentiment worldwide to be able to say whether it is excessive. Also, in reference to the MJs matter, it is not necessarily directly anti-Christian sentiment, but seems to be anti-Christian evangelization sentiment. There is a difference, although a small one, and, yes, living in the US, Christians of some sorts seem incapable of not prosletyzing, so I think it can, reasonably, be included as being "anti-Christian" in a broad sense. But for questions regarding MJs as Jewish, I would definitely welcome Jayjg's input. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Jayjg seems to be on holiday this month? There's surely no definitive answer on what Messianic Jews are, and religious identity is partly determined by one's self-identification. (We give weight to self-identification for describing individuals on here WP:CAT/R). The Rabbinate or the Israeli government surely isn't in a position to decide on what they are, anymore than the Pope is in a position to decide on what Mormons are. The sources identify them as Messianic Jews - and we have a specific page for Messianic Jews. This story (and others related to the Messianic Jewish community) surely belongs on that page? In my opinion putting it here would be violating WP:SYN, and it would better to deal with this story, and the overall situation of the community in Israel, by adding a section to the MJ page.

2. I definitely agree with you that there is a distinction between anti-Christian evangelization and anti-Christian sentiment, and the sources only support anti-Christian evangelization motives in this story (if it does indeed relate to Christians). To be opposed to certain evangelising activities is not the same thing as anti-Christian sentiment. Earlier this year, Benedict XVI specifically stated that Christians should not evangelise to the Jews, particularly in Israel (Jesus of Nazareth, Volume 2, 2012, page 44-45). So evangelising Jews is certainly not a necessary component of Christianity.

3 I agree with you that excessive weight and space given to specific countries could constitute POV, and when we go back to editing the page we should aim to balance the weight given to countries and the notability of the incidents.Avaya1 (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Veritycheck solicited this response from me, based on my edits to the Christianity article. Veritycheck wrote: "The act of the burning in itself is considered heinous to Christians and was in deed widely reported around the world and not limited in discussion to Messianic Jews. The information has a place in this article." - While I disagree that Christians regard the burning of Bibles to be terribly heinous, I agree that its generally a sign of disrespect, when done by non-Christians in order to stamp-out Christianity in some form.

Now Avaya's essential argument has two points. He has a technical idea that the book burning is a kind of Jew on Jew action, rather than Jew on Christian action: "It doesn't involve a Christian group (Messianic Jews identify themselves as a Jewish group..." "The bibles belonged to Messianic Jews (not Christians)" - I disagree with Avaya here for a couple reasons. For one, in most contexts, Messianic Jews seem to be regarded as Christians, particularly by Jews. Avaya seems to be skirting around this issue by referencing Wikipedia's policy of self-reference, but his argument essentially rests on giving undue WEIGHT to the idea that Messianic Jews are simply Jews, when in fact they are both Jew-ish, and Christ-ian.

Avaya's second main point is that the government's action was not anti-Christian in nature, but anti-"evangelisation": "As for the bible burning, the sources explicitly say that the intention is unclear.." "the government was rounding the bibles up as part of the official policy against evangelisation, and the destruction of them would likely have had more to do with anti-evangelisation than anti-Christian sentiment." - Avaya again offers a pseudo-technical argument to support his idea that the Bible burning was not actually anti-Christian, but anti-evangelism. I also disagree with this notion - and his distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism doesn't hold water. There is no distinction. Its clear that this kind of thing is actually anti-Christian in nature. We don't need to worry about finding one way or another on the matter of 'intent' - that is an unnecessary paradigm Avaya is promoting. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to argue that it's "Jew on Jew action, rather than Jew on Christian action." That's taking up an overly strong position. The issue for me is that the story is specifically described as "Jew on Messianic Jew action", and the most accurate place for the story is on the Messianic Judaism page. It's simply a better editing decision since it means we don't have to arbitrate about what exactly they are (which includes not going against their self-identification). Avaya1 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism, which has been made by the Pope specifically in this context. I don't want to push the argument too hard however. It's not a reason for definitely not including the story on this page. But it's context (described in detail in the Jerusalem Post article) that would have to be described when we include the article (whether here, or on the Messianic Judaism page). Avaya1 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Steve here. We do give partial weight to self-identification, but this does not deal with self-identification of an individual, but of a group. The group, as can be found in such sources as Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, is described as Christian. The MJs are in fact included in the "Christian" section of that book. They also clearly use the New Testameent. I know of no adherents of Judaism who do. The essential point to me here is about the MJs not really being "Christian" in the eyes of Israeli practitioners of Judaism, but a group closely tied to Jews for Jesus in the popular mind, which is held in very low respect in Israel, and that is putting it kindly. Aharon's action thus could be seen as being a protest against MJs per se, given their apparent guilt by association with the J4J, not with anti "Christian" sentiment per se. While I can see it being included in this article, I also believe the text should indicate that it was specifically against the MJs, not Christians, and possibly that the MJs are held in particular disrespect by Israeli practitioners of Judaism. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the latter half of your post. But will just add that not all sources describe them as Christian - Kessler, the first source for the MJ article, describes them as "a new syncretisim" - that confuses both Christians and Jews. They are at any rate a specific community, who self-identify in a certain way, and are received differently to other Christian groups - both by Christians and Jews. I agree that it should include this context. Avaya1 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya1, I would ask you to refrain from fragmenting other editors' posts. It's getting more and more difficult to understand who wrote what. The correct place for your posts is to position them in their entirety under preceding posts and replies; not sandwiching them in between other single posts which results in splits and broken up edits without signatures and date-stamps. Doing so will keep this discussion better organized and also adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya, you should know this by now, but it is considered wrong to break up someones comment (like mine above) with your interjections. Please remove your comments and put them underneath where they belong. Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) PS: I've already done it. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Avaya wrote: "I don't think we have to argue that it's "Jew on Jew action, rather than Jew on Christian action." That's taking up an overly strong position. The issue for me is that the story is specifically described as "Jew on Messianic Jew action" - You are basing your exclusion of new material based on a distinction between Jew and Christian or Jew and Messianic Jew that is not supportable. Avaya wrote: "and the most accurate place for the story is on the Messianic Judaism page. - I disagree. If it is an anti-Christian action, it can be mentioned here. Avaya wrote: "It's simply a better editing decision since it means we don't have to arbitrate about what exactly they are (which includes not going against their self-identification)." - But again, not everything hinges on your conception of whether MJs are Jewish or Christian. There is a good case to be made that they are both, in a certain important sense. In any case its not for us to determine which is which, we simply report the facts. If MJs in any way qualify as Christian, even partially, then discrimination against them qualifies as anti-Christian activity of some sort. Avaya wrote" "There is a distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism, which has been made by the Pope specifically in this context. - Can you elaborate on this point? What is the distinction made? What did the Pope say? Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be nearing a consensus on the RfC’s primary issue of including Bible burning in this article. At this time, I would appreciate the secondary issue being additionally addressed; namely Spitting and Vandalism. Concerning Spitting:

Avaya1’s edit has reduced the language describing the number of incidents in her/his own words to, “there have been instances”.

The following sources use much stronger language giving an entirely different picture:

• “Ultra-Orthodox young men curse and spit at Christian clergymen in the streets of Jerusalem's Old City as a matter of routine.” - Haaretz
• “spat on by ultra-Orthodox men in the street for many years” - Haaretz
• “For years, there have been incidents of Haredi youths spitting at Christian clergymen in the Old City and near the Mea She'arim neighborhood, according to several Jewish and Christian residents of Jerusalem.” - Haaretz
• “according to Archbishop Aris Shirvanian, of Jerusalem's Armenian Patriarchate, who says that in the 12 years he has lived in Jerusalem has been spat on about 50 times. - Haaretz
• Christians, especially priests, who pass by the Jewish quarter of the city are spat on almost daily. The spitting has apparently become so prevalent that some priests have simply stopped going to certain parts of the Old City. - The Christian Post

Certainly there are many more reliable sources that state the same. I believe these are sufficient to show that "There have been instances", which is currently used in the article, is insufficient and disingenuous to describe the situation. It would be valuable to have the feedback of editors to determine a consensus concerning the language that should be used to describe the frequency of these incidents and the number of years it has been happening. Please state which of these words or any others you think should be included giving your reasoning where possible. I suggest getting to vandalism after this issue has been settled. Thanks for your continued efforts. Veritycheck (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that Mormons are the only people who think they are Christian. All other Christians disagree. In this case, Messianic Jews are the only ones who think they are Jewish. Christians considers them Christian! Oh, well. Student7 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Student7 wrote: It's ironic that Mormons are the only people who think they are Christian. - Mainline Christians think they are Christians too! But kidding aside, I understand what you were trying to say. In this case, Messianic Jews are the only ones who think they are Jewish. Christians considers them Christian! - It is my understanding that in most contexts, Jews consider MJs to be Christians, rather than Jews. I don't see why its so difficult to accept the idea of an ethnic Jew, theological Christian. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes.

It just struck me, that for this article level, we don't need to consider the victim, if any. If New Testaments are burned in a warehouse, that is "anit-Christian sentiment." The warehouse and books may have been owned by a Hindu. Therefore, for this level only, the beliefs of the "victim", if any, may not be that relevant. For "violence" articles, the beliefs of the victim, even if misidentified, may be relevant. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the language you think would be most accurate to describe the frequency of spitting incidents. It would be useful to achieve a consensus to avert further edit warring. Thanks again. Veritycheck (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the quotes, it has been more or less routine for Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi youth to spit at Christian clergymen for many years, with Shirvanian saying he personally has been spit at about 50 times in the past 12 years. Would that seem acceptable? John Carter (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to primary issue: yes, agree with Veritycheck, the incident has a place in the article.

Reply to secondary issue: detail of This "combined" version seems well sourced and not excessive. (from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot) --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ten days have now passed since I initiated this RfC. It would seem that those who wished to weigh in have done so. The following is a summary of the consensus based on the editors who participated.

Concerning the primary issue

Support to include the bible burning incident in the article: Malik Shabazz, Veritycheck, Marie Paradox, John Carter, Stevertigo, Student7, BoogaLouie

Opposed: Avaya1, Biosketch

Each editor has stated their reasons above. As a result, I will go ahead and add the cited incident to the article.

Concerning the secondary issue

Support to more accurately describe the number of incidents for spitting and vandalism:

In keeping with the feedback of Malik Shabazz, John Carter, and BoogaLouie, along with my own support, I have added John Carter’s proposed edit concerning spitting including Shirvanian's position. I have detailed the incidents of vandalism as was suggested by Malik Shabazz and supported by BoogaLouie.

Opposed: None

I expect the essential information of the edit to remain as the RfC has shown that there is a consensus. I would caution any who would revert it that he/she doesn’t have the support of the editors involved in this RfC at this time. It's been a lot of hard work to get this settled. The article has been expanded. I expect it will continue to evolve in the future with the help of other dedicated editors like those we've seen here already. Thanks again to all who participated. Veritycheck (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Verity, I'm concerned with your restoration of the controversial content to the article while discussion here is still ongoing and no one's closed the RfC. Please respect the RfC process and wait patiently for the uninvolved commenter to determine if consensus has been established. You left these edit summaries earlier in the month: "Let the RfC decide." and "Let the RfC resolve." It would be helpful if you followed your own advice.

Another problem is that it appears you've been busy canvassing support from various editors recently in relation to this RfC: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Conduct of that nature is not allowed. I don't know what exactly needs to be done at this point, but you certainly shouldn't be jumping the gun and restoring controversial content to the article prior to the RfC's resolution.—Biosketch (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your concern has been duly noted. Nonetheless, I am familiar both with the procedure for ending RfC’s and the difference between canvassing and appropriate notification. I have acted within the guidelines. The RfC was posted publicly on the noticeboard as was it on the Neutral Point of View noticeboard The discussion has been open for the entire Wikipedia community to participate. As you are obviously an avid supporter of Israel by looking at your edit history, I can understand why you feel otherwise. However, I would encourage you to call a spade a spade when the situation calls for it as it does in this case. Ultimately, Wikipedia needs to present all facts no matter how flattering or critical if it wants to maintain a neutral point of view and be seen as an educational resource that can be trusted. Your understanding of this would go far in showing that you believe all sides of a story must be told. Note that I had already asked editors participating in this RfC to leave their comments on the summary and most recent edit. Barring any other disagreement, I will close the RfC and remove the template Thanks for your input. Veritycheck (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Veritycheck, I have serious reservations about the approach you have taken to find consensus. For one thing your summary above does not take my dissent into consideration. I had said that the article prior to Avaya1's edits gave too much weight to incidents in Israel and that the article should not be expanded much beyond its then-current size. Looking at the diff, it seems that you have expanded the section beyond this.

Also, isn't there a more neutral way of characterizing your preferred edits than saying that they "more accurately describe the number of incidents for spitting and vandalism"?

--Marie Paradox (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marie. Please by all means give it a shot yourself and include the information you believe has consensus. I would welcome taking a back seat. Not a single editor has attempted to edit the article themselves since the beginning of this RfC. Many have said the information outlined should be included. Are you content with, "there have been instances" to describe spitting behaviour that has been going on for years? If you feel you can make the section more concise while maintaining all the pertinent incidents, please do so. Note, I gave only 1 sentence in describing the bible burning, 3 to describe the vandalism, and 2 for the spitting. The remaining 7 sentences and bulk of the section are from Avay1's edit. I want to see the article reflect reality and would very much appreciate the participation of other editors working on the section. Please accept my apologies if I was incorrect in reading your comments to support bible burning in this incident as Anti Christian sentiment. I've been wearing myself out on this article with little to no appreciation for setting the record straight. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this. It's time other editors took the initiative and edited the section or return it the way it was with its blatant distortions and omissions if that's what they see fit. I'll come back in a month and see how it reads. My participation here has finished. Veritycheck (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Competing Versions

Looking at the competing edits of Veritycheck and Avaya1, on suggestion I have is to add qualifiers to Veritycheck version, e.g. add According to haaretz.com..., to the sentence
It has been more or less routine for Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi youth to spit at Christian clergymen from senior cardinals to priesthood students. I think this would be preferable to replacing the sentence with
A number of Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi youth have reportedly spat at Christian clergymen. ... which smells like censorship to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Entering into this discussion late (perhaps after everything has already been decided?) and not knowing the correct way to barge in... I just want to note that a bit of context might be good to consider. It's a small group of extremist Haredim engaging in this awful behavior. The suggested edits I read above make it sound like this "regular" behavior is something engaged in by a large group of ultra Orthodox Jews. And, although it may not be relevant to the article we're discussing, these extremists don't solely target Christians with their spitting. They express their displeasure in this disgusting way to immodestly dressed women, secular Jews... in short anyone they deem to be insufficiently or incorrectly religious. So, it seems odd to single out the behavior as though it's specifically targeted toward Christians (or Messianic Jews).--Vistawhite (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is educational to put these incidents here to track how local authorities react to what was done, number of participants, etc. In truly democratic countries, this is discouraged. Authorities not only talk in a supportive manner, but they react by punishing perpetrators as befits their behavior. They don't "talk and ignore" like the Muslims do, for example. The reader can judge from the number of participants how popular these activities are among the population. Student7 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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