Talk:Christ of Europe

Expansion

 * Some more can probably be condensed from [this]


 * The role of the poets in exile in France after the rebellion needs expansion, e.g. all the things Adam Mickiewicz wrote, did.
 * The roots in the 15th century should also be added, but I forgot the name of the involved missionary.

--Stor stark7 Speak 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

POV
The article is strongly one-sided and POV. It is twisting the whole idea and showing only assumed negative implications. Moreover, the article should be named "Christ of Nations", a correct translation of the term. - Darwinek (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide some good arguments - and preferably examples - of what you feel is misinterpreted or left out or whatever, since right now the opinions on POV that you provide above to me have a hint of "I just don't like it" to them.


 * From NPOV dispute:
 * Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised by Stor stark7's request for arguments that the presentation is one-sided. This is in part because this one-sidedness is not remotely subtle in the relevant passage. But it is also because it is hard to provide an argument that something is presented tendentiously except by simply quoting it.


 * I'll mention a few points, though. As it stands---I will change it momentarily---the article actually begins by discussing contemporary indictments of the 'Christ of Nations' idea. It does this before even providing its history, so at that point in the article a reader hardly knows what is being criticized.


 * Moreover, the section containing these recent indictments and nothing else is labeled 'modern usage', as though the only reason anyone would mention the idea these days would be to characterize it as an excuse for anti-Semitism. This is both unlikely to be true and, even if it were, impossible to adequately substantiate because it's hard to prove a negative.


 * The offending section also seems fixated on one book by Jan T. Gross and its interpretation by one historian, Tina Rosenberg. This seems to suggest that their work has an earth-shattering importance that would be surprising---however valuable and important it might be, it can't be relied on exclusively, precisely because this demonstrates a point-of-view: namely, theirs. If their opinions were well-established and reflective of a consensus, it would be hardly necessary for them to have presented these arguments to begin with. So they are inherently not neutral.


 * The article also refers to the book as 'shattering' symbolism, which is clearly not a neutral formulation. It then says that the book 'challenged the Polish self-image as victims, martyrs, and heroes', which presupposes that this is in fact the Polish national self-image. Whether this is true or not, it is surely not a neutral characterization. I doubt any living Pole, for example, would be willing to claim that her national self-image requires that all Poles be victims, martyrs, or heroes, and never 'perpetrators' (to borrow the article's term). All the remaining discussion in this passage is devoted to anti-Semitism. Again, this is odd in itself at this point in the article. But the idea that the Polish national self-image inherently encourages anti-Semitism is not 'neutral'. It is arguably outright offensive, but certainly not reflective of a consensus. MJM74 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

 * Christ of Nations,
 * Christ of Europe

I've seen both titles, and it is possible that the "Christ of Nations" is predominant, but for now I would settle for just adding a redirect. --Stor stark7 Speak 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

???
pernicious struggle for independence?I am not sure what that was supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.77.220 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

????again
According to some Holocaust scholars, this view has led to a distorted approach to Polish history following World War II. It has made past Polish wrongdoings against other nationalities sometimes hard or impossible to acknowledge Can anyone please answer what is that supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.77.220 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong title
I think the more common title should be "Polish messianism".

See Google Books ngram for "Christ of Europe" vs "Polish messianism" and see the foreign wikipeda articles linked from the page such as Mesjanizm polski. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Republic Poland and Latvia
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was the catholic in 16-18th century.I do not understand: „The idea of the Christ of Europe, a messianic doctrine based in the New Testament, first became widespread among Poland and other various European nations through the activities of the Reformed Churches in the 16th to the 18th centuries”. In the cites text is not about Poland. The first paragraph is wrong. There is not true informations.In this article is more face-informations. All article to erase. KrzysG (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)