Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yahel Guhan (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 11 March 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical persecution by Christians

AfDs for this article:
Historical persecution by Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration

Delete A POV fork of the "Persecution of X-religion" articles. The info presented here, i.e. persecution of other religions are present in the respective articles, or if not, should be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note A similar discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and anti-Christian persecution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's happened, it's documented; the alleged propensity of this particular religious group to persecute parts of itself and other groups is well covered by multiple works dealing with the subject; the article could and should be much improved, but that's an editing question. I'd suggest reworking it in a more general way, and perhaps dividing it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You missed my logic. No one saying it did not happen, it happened, it true fact. But this article is POV fork. The information of persecution of the other religions are documented in "Persecution of X-religion" articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this way numerous such articles can be created Persecution by X-religion. This Persecution by X-religion articles are clear content forking. The information should be in Persecution of X-religion articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we have articles about persecution of members of organisations, why can't we have articles about persecution by an organisation or group? Why the bias toward the persecuted? If we are going to have articles based on "persecution", the most NPOV approach seems to me to be equal treatment of the persecutor and the persecuted. --Oldak Quill 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your logic that if persecution of articles are present, then why not persecution by. But the article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not content forking if information is being aggregated from several articles into a more-specifically focussed summary article. At first, particular sections might be similar to, or the same as, sections in other articles, but they will diverge as the article grows into itself. --Oldak Quill 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article couldn't be NPOV if it were written about current/modern persecution, since there is no cohesive group called "Christians". An article Historical persecution by Roman Catholicism would be valid, for example, since Roman Catholicism is a cohesive and centralised organisation. Since this article only deals with pre-modern persecutions during times when Christianity was integrated into the state and was cohesive within populations. The article deals with problems about the cohesiveness of the term "Christian". It focuses on pre-12th century history (i.e. mostly before the Great Schism) when Christianity was a cohesive organisation/movement. Persecution during the Christianisation of Rome, the Christianisation of post-Roman European states, and the Crusades can be said to be "persecution by Christian[ity]". The article describes the fractionation of Christianity into denominations and persecution that resulted from this. --Oldak Quill 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "persecution by" is not the same as "persecution of". Different groups will have persecuted a particular people. Information on persecution by a particular group will be dispersed through a number of "persecution of" articles. Any population which has no significant history of persecution with one exception is less likely to have a "persecution of" article. If the persecutor has a history of persecution, this event will be detailed along with others in "persecution by". Since there is a different emphasis, these articles will contain different contents. EDIT: To clarify with an example: persecution by the Nazis may be covered in Persecution of Jewish people, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. Persecution of homosexuals, Persecution of Romani people, &c. This is all-very-well-and-good for those looking for information about persecution of each of those groups, but what about those trying to find out about Persecution by Nazism? Do you expect them to find and look at each of the "persecution of" articles? --Oldak Quill 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right that persecution by is not the same as persecution of. But take the logic here. For example, the persecution of X have been carried out by Y and Z. Similarly persecution of Y have been carried out by X and Z. And persecution of Z have been carried out by X and Y. Now when you create an article titled Persecution of X, it includes information on persecution by Y and Z. The same is applied to Persecution of Y and Persecution of Z. So when you create articles titled Persecution by X, Persecution by Y and Persecution by Z, then these articles become creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject which is called POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented and very interesting. Could stand some expansion in spots but a useful contribution.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are not reason for keeping an article. You missed the logic why this article need to deleted. This article is WP:CFORK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are of the opinion that is article is content forking of certain "persecution of" articles, please give a link to the article and a short description of the issue. I don't think that it is an acceptable argument for deletion that an article could be content forking. But to deal with this topic in articles with names "persecution of XY" / "persecution by XY" is not a good idea anyway. Nevertheless, since people are interested in the topic (and its definitely relevant) there need to be articles on it. If this article in its current state would be deleted, this would probably be easier. I could just recreate an article Christian debate on persecution and toleration and I would not have to clean up the reaming issues with this one. However, since I have already cleaned up several of the issued with this article, giving me, among other, a pointless controversy at the article Separation of Church and State in the United States, I would have wasted a lot of time if the article is deleted. In general, I don't consider full deletions a way to solve NPOV-issues. If you disagree with an article you will have to go through it sentence by sentence most of the time. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Execution_of_Hindus_in_India. And see Persecution_of_Hindus#During_European_rule_of_the_Indian_subcontinent.
  • See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Drowning_of_Protestants_in_Ireland and see Anti-Protestantism#Anti-Protestantism_in_Ireland. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in the same way we deleted articles 'Historical persecution by Jews/Muslims' on the basis of original research. If we want to discuss time-specific incidences of persecution (i.e. by the Roman Empire for example), then we can do it in the specific article. Presenting the issue as a "timeline of persecution" as if the separate incidences throughout the ages are actually linked is inherently original research. Unless of course this interlinking has specifically been verified by multple reliable sources, which I doubt. The link between the persecution under Theodosius (379), the events of the Spanish Inquisition (~1500), and the sectarian history in Ireland (~1600-) is far too weak to be presenting them all as related in one article. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that original research? When you compile a year article, you compile information from different sources to create a single-subject article (as with all history articles). If there is a scholarly consensus that X was a persecution by Christians, then that event should be included. If there is enough information to warrant articles, Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Muslims should be recreated. Also, if Persecution by Christians constitutes original research, so does Persecution of Christians. --Oldak Quill 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to familiarise yourself with those respective AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination); which were rightly deleted on the basis of unsalvageable original research. It's original research because no academic sources actually link these unrelated events - thus it's an inappropriate synthesis of material, implying sequence or links where there simply are none. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFDs on similar topics are not binding for related topics. If there is an academic consensus that event X was a persecution carried out by Christians and separately that event Y was a persecution carried out by Christians, they are connected as being defined as persecutions carried out by Christians. It doesn't really matter that they haven't been listed together or collated and it is not original research to collate them. --Oldak Quill 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You see, it's you who is asserting the link, not the source. This is where the original research comes in, and implies they are linked despite no source verifying it. Surely you can appreciate the misleading impression given when you implicitly link together unrelated events - it gives an impression of sequential, continuous, inter-related, successive events - even though no source at all has verified this. That's what makes it original research. From WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

The topic of the article is "Historical persecution by Christians", yet none of the sources to my knowledge are discussing in this precise context. They are talking within their own time-specific contexts such as the Reconquista or sectarian Irish tensions. None of the sources are talking about historical persecution by Christians in which they review Christians persecuting throughout history. Hence, to present unrelated incidences from different sources as somehow related is original research, as no such verification or assertion of a link exists in the sources cited. If sources exist which discuss in this specific context, then it's a different matter altogether. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All article-writing involves some level of creativity that can't be considered "original research". In year articles, when unrelated events in a year are listed, the article asserts the link, without a source necessarily listing those events together. They are all linked by the fact that they occurred in a particular year. This is the same as describing a series of events in an article which are linked by the fact that there is academic consensus defining these events as persecution carried out by Christians. That kind of collative creation isn't original research and is necessary to compiling articles from multiple sources (deciding what is important and how to present the information). Furthermore, an article about "persecution by Christians" isn't connecting a series of unrelated events to further an opinion. The article details events that are acknowledged as being persecution carried out by Christians. To state that Christianity has persecuted (with appropriate examples, sourcing and attribution) is just stating that fact, not pushing a POV. It makes no assertion about Christianity being persecutive and it isn't claiming consistent and systematic persecution.
When this discussion began, I took the claim that there were no independent sources describing these events together at face value. There are many sources which detail persecution by Christians:
These show that there are independent, usable sources to link persecution-events by Christianity. --Oldak Quill 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not inclined to repeat my argument about original research again as it's all available above. The basic rule is: don't assert links not asserted by the sources themselves; represent sources in their exact context. If you want to write an article about "Historical persecution by Christians" - find some publications doing just that and relay what they say. What shouldn't be done is collating unrelated time-specific incidents from separate sources and then weaving it into one narrative. Wikipedia isn't about creative writing or original articles, it's about dry, clinical presentation of material already related by reliable sources - in it's original context.
Thanks for the links, Oldak. Upon first glance I would opine that these books seem to cover time/geographically restricted incidences, so I would still say there is little basis for providing a "timeline of persecution" committed by Christians. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Withdrawing nomination== Since most of the people are opposing deletion and believe this article interesting, I am withdrawing my nomination. The reason behind my nomination was this article if POV fork. But to maintain neutrality, persecution by other religion articles also need to be created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am renomnating this article since there are diverse opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Delete all "Persecution by" articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the accepted organisation is: incidentX of persecution of Y by Z in region A is placed as X, in "by Z" subsection of geographical section A of the "persecution of Y" article. Mixing that up creates duplicate articles and POV-forks. Relata refero (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are "Persecution by" articles any more POV than "Persecution of"? Also, unless population X has only persecuted population Y and population Y has never been persecuted by anyone else, the "Persecution of" article would be a duplicate of "Persecution by". In that case, there should only be one article. How common do you think this setup is? Most populations that have been persecuted have been persecuted by more than one group, and those who have persecuted have done so to more than one group. The two types of article have different emphasis and would have different contents. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read what I say again. Its about the duplicated statement of each incident of persecution in two different articles. That's the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Itaqallah has it exactly right. This article links unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN. This is different from e.g. "Persecution by the Nazis", as they were a cohesive, centralized group with a systematic policy of persecution. But again, it would be wrong to list every act of violence by an individual Nazi under such an article, unless it was part of the general persecution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are usable, independent sources which describe "persecution by Christianity" and link disparate events (see up for list). To have an article about Historical persecution by Christians isn't original research, other sources link these events. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you refer to the 4 linked items above, not, they don not link "these events". One is limited to the high and late middle ages, and I bet concentrates on Western Europe, with a single powerful church. One is a generic history of Christianity. The third again is limited in scope, and I don't see how the 1954 article on Turkey is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They each describe persection by Christianity. It is not original research to collate information from multiple sources in this way, and it is not creating a false timeline when there isn't one. It asserts no direct relationship between these events, simply that there have been events acknowledged as persecution carried out by Christians. It seems highly inconsistent to me to say that "Persecution by" articles are original research, and "Persecution of" articles aren't (which is the implication of allowing "Persecution of" articles and deleting "Persecution by" articles). --Oldak Quill 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several of the people who vote delete here are being rather ignorant. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy ([1]). You have to give more specific arguments that just "Delete all 'Persecution by' articles" - and this one point could be taken into account by renaming the article.
Secondly: An article "Persecution by XY" does not any more link "unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN." than an article "Persecution of XY". If you claim that the article violates wp:NPOV 'and that the problem is so severe that it can't be fixed, you have to be a lot more specific.
Thirdly: Even if an article is a POV-Fork, the solution is merging, not deleting. This also goes for Islam and anti-Christian persecution.
There might be more points to mention here, but that is enough for now. Zara1709 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the AfD of "Persecution by XY" articles; also Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is scholarly work that discusses how a specific group has been persecuted (e.g. antisemitism). There is no definitive scholarly work that says "This is the way Christians persecute other groups." The subject is fundamentally in violation of wikipedia's OR policies. It simply leads into a laundry list of various unrelated events that are treated as one topic, even though the article is really one massive synthesized topic. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep It's preposterous to say we cannot have an article on this, even though it's a near certainty that such an article is going to be a POV battlefield and therefore always be junk. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? DG, read the damn comments first before being snide, OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Persecution by..." articles are by definition POV. It's inherently a point making exercise. Not what an encyclopedia is for. The word "persecution" alone is asking for trouble in an encyclopedia. --Merbabu (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What exactly is it supposed to be a "POV fork" of? The "persection of X" articles were accompanied by "Persecution by X" articles. Neither of thse concepts is any more "POV" than the other. How can it be POV to describe "persecution by" but not to describe "persecution of"? The argument that it is original research is nonsensical. Some editors here really so need to read the policy page rather than just repeat catchphrases. Persecution by Christians has occurred. There is no disputing that fact. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul, if not 'inherently POV, it is nevertheless a fork of content. Unless there are works that anyone brings to the table indicating that persecution in general by Christians is a well-defined and studied concept - as opposed to specific incidents of persecutions by Christians or individual Christian movements or people that have been studied as persecutors. Otherwise, as I say above, particular incidents will necessarily be duplicated, which is the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content forking is a normal process, as policy clearly states. It arises when information cannot usefully be contained in a single article. There is always some degree of repetition in related articles, but it makes no sense to say that the same information will be contained in both in this case. Persecution by Christians may refer to persecution of groups who are not represented in by articles and creates a meaningful marrative that would otherwise be scattered and fragmented. Paul B (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and encylopaedic (ugh, I despise that latter term but I'll use it anyway.) Wait a minute, both of those rationales are on WP:ATA. I guess I better come up with some semblance of a real argument. Anyway, I just think that it's helpful to have both the persecution OF and persecution BY series of articles. You're only doubling the total number of articles, and it makes information a lot easier to find, if you happen to be looking for excuses to bash on the one hand, or pity on the other, a particular religion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is a POV fork. The Persecution by muslims article was deleted. At a bare minimum, remove the word "Historical" from the title. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the new title, if a similar article exists for Islam as well. Yahel Guhan 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You can not do that User:Zara1709. You should instead vote for "Move to X" and let the closing admin decide. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I supposed that everyone who has written something on this talk page has taken a close look at the article and its discussion page. Since many people here have not written anything on the discussion page of the article ever and nobody put forward any objections to the move, there was no reason why I shouldn't move the article. Zara1709 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can not do that. You can vote for "Move To Christian debate on persecution and toleration" --Be happy!! (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can do it. Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself." Zara1709 (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know that your name change is not controversial. Usually people propose name changes on the talk page and let editors talk. I for one disagree with the name change if it is sufficient to make it non-uncontroversial because "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is appropriate for an article that talks about philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you realise that the name change alters the entire scope of the article, which is now "Christian debate" (i.e. theoretical or theological views) about the issue of persecution/tolerance and, presumably, how these have changed. 2/3 of the article which covers the sequence of unrelated historical incidences is now pretty much redundant on top of being original research. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving an article during an AFD debate is bad form. The usual practice is to suggest a new name on the AFD page for the closing admin to deal with. For my vote see below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is obviously not going to be a popular article and it clearly needs some work but that is no reason not to keep it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it. Not only do I disagree but I think Zara's name change has snuffed his point. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name change has been completely unilateral which I do not agree with. "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is a good topic for philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, come on...this is a huge part of history. I protest the name change to Christian debate on persecution and toleration, this article is not about a "Christian debate". --MPerel 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with original title - this is a legitimate subject. Until I (just now) added a reference to the Oxford Martyrs, it showed a Roman Catholic POV, perhpas it still does. The present article probably uses too few sources, but that is a case for improving it, not deleting it. The present title only covers the early sections, on the theoretical basis. You may not like the fact that Christians killed each other (and those of other faiths), but unfortunately it happened. 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_Christians_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=197389428"