Talk:Christianity/Archive 11

Persecutions list
I'm not a big fan of the list of "people persecuted by Christians," or whatever it may be, but I can live with it (if it is correct). However, I would mention something about it being the medieval Roman Catholic church that did so (or specific others, where appropriate), instead of the simplistic designation "Christian." - ElAmericano | talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My reason for deleting the list was simply that it was a lot of accusations with no citation whatsoever...just an unsubstantiated list. KHM03 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The list was flawed, as some groups were not persecuted by Christians at all, some to no large extent and some were pseudo-groups. And not of those that were persecuted by Christians were persecuted by the Catholic Church or specifically by the Catholic Church. Str1977 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why'd you restore it? KHM03 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KHM03, if got three words for you: Soft! Ware! Bug! I am sorry about that and have repaired the bug. Str1977 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just restored the persecutions list. I think it is interesting and believe many others will too. Is anyone denying any of the categories mentioned? If so, no doubt citations can easily be provided. Just list the ones doubted - persanally I can't even guess which ones might be in doubt

Incidentally, many of these persecutions were detailed in an external web-link on human rights. There is something more than suspicious in removing a link that makes a case, then reverting material consistent with that case on the grounds that it is not supported!

I too seem to detect a concerted effort here by the faithful to minimise any observations, however facual, that show the Church in a less than glorious light, and I also agree with the observation that the there is a heavy bias in the demands for citations by those editors who are very obviously influenced by their own Christian beliefs. As someone has noted earlier not a single citation has been offered for pro-Christian statements or for the removal of statements that are less than lauditary to the record of Christianity.

Let's up the standards of academic scholarship, and stop trying to impose personal beliefs. Whgat good can anyone imagine it does?

194.165.180.131 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian


 * If you wish to include the list, can you give a specific academic citation to support it? Newspaper article, book, etc.; please let us know.  Thanks...KHM03 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this way since I assume you can't possibly doubt all of the list. You let me know just one that can't easily be justified by a good academic reference, and I'll remove the whole list myself!

194.165.180.131 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian
 * I think that's what KHM03 is saying... provide a "good academic reference" for the list... then it might be okay. Also, see WP:CITE. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Frankly, I don't care for the approach it takes. Yes, I believe that Christians have persecuted people.  But an unsubstantiated list which contains so many groups...doesn't seem quite fair.  I'd like to see either academic support for any list of that type, or just leave it, and keep up the link to the appropriate articles.  I don't see a list, after all, which states that "Christians have been persecuted by Muslims, atheists..." etc.  KHM03 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we also agree that the link labelled "The record of the Christian Churches in the development of Human Rights" has no place in a neutral article. DJ Clayworth 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. KHM03 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Suppression of sourced criticism does not make for neutrality. That is absurd. Why are inclusion of facts relevant to the topic not allowed? The only "POV here is the truth--the historical record. Now if you claim that the record itself is bias thats another matter, however it seems you are saying that merely mentioning this record is itself, which puts the church in a non-favorable light is what you object to as "NPOV." That is POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a POV, unbalanced, inaccurate link. You're acting as if it's unbiased historic fact. There are many valid critiques of Christianity; this link isn't worthwhile.  KHM03 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a POV, unbalanced, inaccurate link. You're acting as if it's unbiased historic fact. There are many valid critiques of Christianity; this link isn't worthwhile.  KHM03 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that is your POV/Claim. If you say that its inaccurate, not worthwhile, etc, then please make your case. This countries that engage in human rights violations calling Amnesty International POV. Human rights have objective universal standards and the record of Christianity is very poor by ANY standard of human rights. This information is being suppressed as POV only, which is an abuse of the notion of neutrality. To suppress sourced criticism is not NPOV. Please make your case if think link is not factually accurate. 64.121.40.153 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Any academic citations? Or just a flawed website?  Please cite your claims, and then we can proceed with the discussion...thanks...KHM03 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re KHM03 comments above. I can see from your profile that as a Church Elder you are obviously best placed to judge neutrality. Also I hadn't realised that external links were supposed to be neutral and free of Povs. Thanks for the info. I'm just about to delete links which are obviously biased and devotional, and will continue to do so for as long as you insist on deleting links you do not happen to like. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.145.131.156 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:59,16 January 2006.


 * Yes, the double-standard is glaring. Pro-religious links are allowed to stand, which are clearly POV, yet nothing that could pur the church in a negative light. 64.121.40.153 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to resort to a POV complaint to remove the heretication link. Check out Verifiability, especially Dubious sources.  To quote:
 * Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Reliable sources for more information.
 * Jpers36 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users 64.121.40.153 and 194.145.131.156 (unless you're one and the same)...regarding my status as ordained clergy, please review WP:AGF. Also, I'm not sure you're doing a whole lot here to work with the community. You've been asked to cite sources. Please do so, and cease the pointless reverts until we all as a community can reach a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, 64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy.  Thanks...KHM03 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add that 194.145.131.156's deletion of other links, as protest against deletion of the heretication link seems to be a violation of WP:Point. 64.121.40.153's most recent edit summary ("rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page") is quite misleading, as the edit before did not at all fit the definition of vandalism, and the changes were not agreed on the talk page. (This was written before edit conflict with KHM03.) Also, 194.145.131.156, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~. It makes it easier for people coming later to read the discussion. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again...there were no "agreed changes". Please be more careful...thanks. KHM03 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecutions list & External web links
The reason for removing the Human rights weblink was given by KHM03 as its alleged bias & PoV. Now either external sites are expected to be neutral or they're not. If they're not then this link should be reinstated. If they are, then all of the blatently pro-Christian links will have to go. I don't care which it is, but let's be clear either way.

The HR site in question gives a pretty well reasoned case, and I think clearly shifts the onus of proof. A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that you (KHM03) think is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that you fail to identify even one. Are you denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Give it a try - just for once. We can can all see how dedicated you are to academic rigor.

168.224.1.14 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mr Objective


 * Problem, Mr Objective, is that the "Christian sites", as you call them, identify as such, while the "Human rights site" hides behind pretenses of objectivity, declaring alleged facts (and indeed they are mostly quite the opposite of facts) without sources or argument, and basically is nothing more than a statement of bigotry that doesn't even realise that any criticism they might make is only possible because of the influence of Christianity in the first place. Str1977 11:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Str1977 -- well stated.
 * 168.224.1.14 aka "Mr Objective" -- As I stated previously, I have no doubt that there has been persecution by Christians of other groups. What I asked for was, rather than an unsupported list, that we come up with sources (see WP:CITE) to support those claims.  None were offered, which means that inclusion of the list could be original research, which is obviously frowned upon at Wikipedia.  But if you (or any editor) can provide citations for each of the groups on the lengthy list, then I'd support its inclusion. Thanks...KHM03 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary Str1977 the site in question looks to me to be well researched and to contain many good objective references, including many to the bible and other religious sources. I don't know if it purports to be objective, but I'm not sure that's relevent. As I said before, if we remove all external links that anyone finds biased, then we'll not have many external links left.

I think the site clearly shifts the onus of proof. I'm not sure what the point about original research is. Simply compiling a list is hardly original research. As long as each item on the list can be confirmed by authoritative sources, where's the problem? A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that KHM03 thinks is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that he failed to identify even one. It is not clear whether you are denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Go on - apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone you don't agree with.

168.224.1.14 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

The heretication site isn't even close to objective, or even factually correct. Given the thousands of sites about Christianity there are out there we can do much better. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, another pro-Christian advocate who has missed the point entirely about objectivity and who fails to cite a single concrete example to support accusations of innacuracy. This is really not good enough.

168.224.1.14 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

Insults won't get you anywhere. Maybe you should explain why you think this attack site is actually objective. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I still oppose the inclusion of the entire list, but let us for the moment adhere to the link provided as a source. It gives the following list:


 * Jews; Moslems; Pagans; Cathars; so called "Heretics"; Schismatics; Apostates; Humanists, Pantheists, Deists, Atheists and others; so called "Witches"

That is not congruent with what various editors have inserted, based on the link. The link is missing out:


 * Animists (unless subsumed under "pagans"), Zoroastrians; worshippers of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse and Celtic gods (unless subsumed under pagans); Manichaeans, Gnostics and other Dualists (unless subsumed under "so-called "Heretics""); proto-scientists.

Some notes about the groups mentioned. We don't need to argue about Jews, pagans, heretics (including all subsections), witches as they are already included in the text.


 * Zoroastrians have absolutely no place in here, as there has been no persecution (even if for lack of oppurtunity) of Zoroastrians by Christians.
 * "proto-scientists" are no group and the alleged cases are mostly spurious or better subsumed under either heretic or witch. It boils down to one case: Gallilei, who was neither proto or warrants a note all by himself.
 * When was there any large scale persecution of Atheists or Deists by Christian? Granted, an Atheist would have been persecuted in the 13th century, if taken seriously, but there were no atheists around. To have persecution we need a potential persecutor and and a potential persecutee at the same place at the same time.
 * When was there any large scale persecution of Muslims by Christians (apart from the expulsion of the Moors from Spain)?

The last two items are worded as questions because they are genuine questions. If you can provide such instances, then bring it on.

Str1977 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone asked for specific objections to the list of persecutions; here are some. The Spanish Inquisition was mainly under the control of the Spanish monarchy, not the Church. Prosecutions were generally carried out by secular authorities. Regarding the Cathars, my limited reading has yet to find anything to suggest that the goal was to "exterminate" them; the goal was conversion. There is also the question of religious versus secular motivations there as well, as it resulted in quite a bit of land changing hands. The heretication site purports to be well researched, but contains a number of inaccuracies; many of its "good" facts seem to be presented so as to deliberately mislead the reader. Wesley 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Objective seems to have stopped posting here when I asked for his evidence. However, since he asked, let's examine the reasons why the heretication site is actually far from objective.


 * 1) It is attempting something entirely unreasonable - namely it is taking a late twentieth century definition of 'human rights' and applying it to an organisation's record over 2000 years. Not only is that unreasonable, but frankly no organisation or group would stand up to such scrutiny. Atheists, Americans, Italians, Asians or People with Blue Eyes; none would look good if what they did 1000 years ago was judged by the standards of today. Likewise a Wikipedia from 1000 years ago would undoubtedly condemn 21st century Western society for what they perceived as horrendous crimes.
 * 2) It is obvious that the only agenda of this site is to attack Christians - not to present a fair or accurate assessment. In each section something is written only if they can find something bad to say about Christians. If there is a section where they can find nothing bad about Christians, then they just write "N/A". That's not presenting an objective picture.
 * 3) Some of their historical statements are just laughably vague or inaccurate. To take merely one example, there is a whole section on the 'historical Christian support of slavery'. Saying that simply ignores historical facts. Christians were in fact at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, both in the US and Europe. Many of the leading abolitionists were not only practicing Christians, but in most cases cited their faith as a reason for opposing slavery. True there were Christians arguing for the continuance of slavery also, but to claim that Christianity as a whole was on the side of slavery is just plain wrong.

I can go on, but I think that will do for now. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Galileo was not the only academic called to account for his work. For example Champillon, whilst excavating in Egypt, had to supress clear archaeological evidence that contradicted Biblical chronology under RC church instructions. Less than 200 years ago, in the church controlled west, no academic could publish evidence that proved the Biblical timeline wrong, without fear of loss of funding or institutional support.


 * The problem with finding cases of organised persecution by Christians of Athiests is always difficult as they are, by definition, not a single group. If persecution did occur, there is no central office to record it (and keep those records safe) or group of faithful followers to take up the cause. Athiesm is a very old idea but as stated above there were none in the 13th century as they would not have survived. Bearing in mind the diversity of today's belief systems this in itself is telling. SOPHIA 10:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, we are talking about persecution here. I myself wouldn't call Gallileo's case persecution, but of course others might disagree. But what you state about Champillion, if accurate, is far from being persecution. Or are we to include somewhere that scientists persecuted scientists, because the colleagues of Copernicus almost bullied him into not publishing his book (and would have succeeded would it not have been for his confessor) and Gallileo was opposed by his colleagues (while supported by the Church). I don't think that is persecution, but you seem to disagree.

As for the atheists - if there is no evidence then it's not our business to make such claims anyway. Yes, Atheism is an old hat, but it had been out of use of a couple of (saner) centuries. Not because it was violently surpressed but because of its own deficencies. Str1977 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Atheists
I think it might be fun to add a section to Atheism listing all the people who have been persecuted by atheists. I think it would be pretty long. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stalin would be the outstanding example. Up to 100 million Russians died either directly or indirectly due to his actions or policies. Many of these were Christians. rossnixon 10:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the big difference here is that Stalin didn't target people on the basis of their religion or lack thereof. He targeted people on the basis of their politics. Corax 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Stalin did target people for various reasons and you cannot always so easily separate the various reasons - politics, econimics, ideology, religion, mere rivalry. Stalin did institute a anti-Jewish campaign late in his life. But if you don't "like" Stalin than take Lenin, who originated a vicious persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church. Compared with him, the later Stalin relented a bit (though of course Stalin had been Lenin's hench man). Str1977 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Denominations of Christianity
I believe it is inaccurate to lump together Anglicanism and Lutheranism simply under the heading "Protestants," along with the numerous other denominations that were either offshoots of these two reform movements within the Church catholic, or were started by particular leaders. There is a distinction between the Continental Reform tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, the anabaptists, et al, and the specifically anti-Roman reforms of the Catholic Church whcih were undertaken in England and in the Nordic countries which followed Luther. I have tried now a few times to createa separate category for Anglicans and Lutherans (as have others before me) after the so-called "Catholic," category, but some partisan with, likely, either an Evangelical or a Traditionalist Roman Catholic POV repeatedly removes my/our contributions. Please stop doing this.

Nrgdocadams 04:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams


 * Actually, as a Lutheran I object to what you're trying to do (though I wasn't involved in reverting it here.) Lutherans are certainly Protestants. The differences between the Lutheran and Anglican churches and the other Protestant churches could perhaps be dealt with some other way, but don't try to tell us we aren't Protestant. We were the first Protestants. Look up Protestant in the OED if you don't believe me. It is not productive to try to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, and I can't see how an attempt to implicitly redefine a word like this can ever be NPOV.--Srleffler 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Anglicans agree, since the full name of their church in the United States appears to be the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America*. --Srleffler 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is both smug and lacking in comprehension of the name. But because of the smugness of people like you, the American Anglicans made "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America" an official alternative name some decades ago, and now use that name in all official documents.  The reason, historically, that the Episcopal Church in the USA was styled "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" was because, at the Revolution, there was no Established Church (as there was in England) and the Roman Catholic Church would also be "competing" on American soil.  The name was chosen to distinguish the episcopal Church that was Roman from the episcopal Church that was Protestant-of-Rome.  In addition, although Luther's 95 Theses gave further and catalytic impetus to the Reform movements that were welling-up on the European Continent, Luther's movement was by no means first. The Moravians had beat him to the punch.  Moreover, unlike the Zwinglian, Calvinist, and other Reformers, Luther (with whose movement the Moravians eventually joined) steadfastly maintained that the churches that were joining with his movement were Catholic, but that they were strongly anti-papist and hence, Protestant of Rome.  This distinction is true of the Lutheran movement and of the Anglican movement.  Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant of Rome, but hold that they adhere to the (true) Catholic faith.  Presbyterians, Anabaptists, the Reformed Free Churches, etc. make no such claim.  This is why Lutherans and Anglicans belong in their own category
 * Nrgdocadams 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams


 * You admit that Lutherans and Anglicans are "Protestant of Rome", and yet you tried to move them out of the Protestant category? How does that make any sense? In any event, my copy of Concise Oxford defines Protestant as:
 * n. 1 a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. [...]
 * adj. 1 of or relating to any of the Protestant Churches or their members etc.
 * You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean. This word has a clear definition and is in common usage. Any attempt to implicitly change that invariably violates WP:NPOV. --Srleffler 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting Anglicans and Lutherans from the other Protestant churches as you have now done (and in fact I prefer it), as long as the meaning of the word "Protestant" is not obscured or redefined. BTW. I took out the "C.E." because the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes no suffix for dates in the current era.--Srleffler 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have POV "issues" about this and that your complaints have to do with your biases. I don't think you ought to be a Wikipedia editor.
 * Nrgdocadams 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Whether or not Anglicans or Lutherans are offended by the "Protestant" label is irrelevant on WP. They're Protestant. They arose during the Protestant Reformation. They formed, at least in part, out of a protest against Rome. If some Lutherans don't like the label (and mots that I know don't care one way or the other), that's not the issue...historians and scholars very much consider them Protestant. The same is true of Anglicans. So let's try and move on...but, by all means, on the articles for these groups, say something about some folks' objections to the Protestant label. Thanks...KHM03 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is that the current version is very POV.
 * Anglicanism and Lutheranism: This category includes those Communions which contend that they continue to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses." Hence, they consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups separated from the Roman Catholic Church under the 16th-century influences of the European Continental Reformation, the English Reformation, or both. Also included in this grouping are the Moravians and the Lusitanians.

Other groups believe themselves to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses" and consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups include Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal; Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anabaptists. And how on earth can we say that Lutheranism separated itself from the Lutheran Reformation? No, the whole thing is POV and inaccurate, and needs changed. KHM03 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with KHM, if we cannot call Lutherans Protestants, who is left as Protestant. The only people I know who may object to such a classification are extreme Protestants who think Lutherans too moderate. But that is their POV - the truth is that Lutherans started the Reformation (that is not to say that they were the first Reformers - we have Reformers on either side, before Luther, and also strictly Catholic Reformers)
 * As for Anglicans: they started (if we take Edward or Elizabeth) as a Protestant Church, but later though about a via media developed and in the 19th Century Anglo-CAtholicism emerged. You may include a note to Anglicanism that states that it is not solely Protestant, but that doesn't mean it should form a group of its own.
 * Str1977 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the section contains the phrase:
 * Since the Reformation, Christianity is usually represented as being divided into three main branches...

That's fair...and also accurate. This isn't to say there aren't other branches of the tree (such as Mormonism), but this is the way Christian denominational families are "usually represented". KHM03 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution the French Revolution and NPOV
I've twice removed references to persecution of Christians during the French Revolution and still think the sentence has no place in this section as it currently stands.

The reference is misleading as a glance at the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution link will show. This page is about Christanity not just the RC church. The RC church in France at that time, was corrupt and immoral. If it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate. It is only called Decristianisation because at that time, the RC church wealded enormous power was the biggest land owner. In actual fact it was anti all religions. For something to be NPOV the frame of reference must be taken into account. A popular name for an event is not necessarily a historically accurate and complete description of the occurances.

I am seriously concerned that the accuracy of statements in this page are only challenged when they are critical of Christianity. Editors fly out of the woodwork rightly demanding proof, details and specifics in the case of anti statements. Am I the only one who thinks that describing post French Revolution Europe as in the grip of a dechristianisation program is a generalisation and POV? The UK certainly never had such problems. The only references I can find to it relate specifically to France. France is NOT Europe and there is no evidence that it was part of a Europe wide resugence. The sentence as it currently stands implies a) that it was wide spread and b) that it was the restart of some previous Europe wide dechristanisation agenda. I would like to see specifics and references for both of these areas.

For this page to have any credibility the same standards must be applied to all. The discussions above show that such generalisations would not have survived the mainly RC editors of this page if the tables had been turned.SOPHIA 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sophia, but your points don't make sense.
 * Are Roman Catholics not Christians?
 * Does it matter whether the Church was "immoral" or "corrupt" - and I sincerly challenge that observation in this general version, especially in regard to "crimes") and especially not as the reason for the persecution - the Church was not persecuted because of any (alleged) immorality, but because it wasn't in line with the revolutionaries' ideologies - I wouldn't think of sifting through the groups persecuted by Christians and decided who deserved it and who didn't and hence who should be included or not in this article.
 * The sentence, at least according to my understanding or intention, does not say that there was a Europe wide persecution (though some measures were not restricted to France), but it says (or wants to say) that after centuries of Christian dominance, during which there was no persecution of Christians by non-Christians, this phenomenon resurfaced with the French Revolution. The "in Europe" means that it resurfaced in Europe (as opposed to the Islamic world, Japan, China) but it did not resurface everywhere in Europe.
 * As for your observation, before I overhauled the persecution section it basically said: "Christians were sometimes persecuted by the Romans, but only because they were stupid, or camp, or deserved, but maybe they weren't even persecuted. Christians however persecuted a lot, all the time, ending with a bogus list." - You didn't speak up then.

As for the language issue, I will ask someone to have a look into whether my sentence says what it wants to say.

Str1977 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, SOPHIA, please read WP:AGF. Our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers - at least on this article - are fine editors who do good work.  So let's give them the benefit of the doubt here.
 * I personally don't know much about the persecution of Christians during the French Revolution, though I've always thought that was a very "secular" revolt, if not altogether atheist. I may be wrong of course, and plead ignorance.
 * My personal view is that the persecution section is so contentious here, and we have at least two other articles which deal with the subject, so if anything there is challenged, best to get rid of it, whether it's favorable or opposed to Christianity. KHM03 12:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * KHM03, thanks for the flowers.
 * You are right that the FR was a secular revolt. It also had a totalitaristic approach and wanted to remake France according its ideas (most visible in Saint-Just). Opposing views had no place in the new France. That is the philosophical basis for this persecution (and part of that was the first genocide of modernity, in the Vendee). In France this lingered on way into the 20th century, though never again in the form of long-term direct persecution (the Commune was too short for that and 1905 didn't venture to go that far).
 * But the objective of my edit was not to discuss this all in breadth but to state that persecution of Christians after a long hiatus reappeared in the French Revolution (and later persecutions by totalitarian states all follow this model).
 * Str1977 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:AGF. I said previously that the editors of this page rightly demand specifics and details. I also stand by the comment that a sentence of such general nature would not (rightly) have stood unchallenged by the most active editors on this page if it had been anti Christian. The term "resurfaced" implies that Europe was previously anti Christian. The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution states that it was anticlerical (ie anti RC) not anti Christian. SOPHIA 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you, Sophia: Are Catholics not Christians? If they are, what we have here is a state persecution of Christians (and these were Catholics, but there had been no other Christians in the land since Louis XIV). The term "resurfaced" does not imply, IMHO, what you think it does. Also, my edit was neither anti-Christian nor pro-Christian but just stating a simple fact, neither justifying nor dramatising or exaggerating or downplaying the persecution. Str1977 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, SOPHIA. I'm a bit puzzled by your objections to the inclusion of the French Revolution. You say that Catholics were persecuted because they were corrupt and immoral, and that "if it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate." What crimes did the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne commit? Eleven nuns, three lay sisters, and two servants were guillotined; they sang hymns at the scaffold. They don't sound very corrupt to me. There's even an article about them at French Wikipedia.

You also seem to object to the inclusion of the French Revolution persecution of Catholics because this page "is about Christanity not just the RC church". I hope you're not implying that Catholic are not Christians. If they are, and they were persecuted, then Christians were persecuted.

As for "resurfaced", well, there had been persecution of Christians in European countries prior to the French Revolution, hadn't there? Didn't many countries martyr the Christians before Christianity became established?

Anyway, I've looked at the language carefully, and I don't see any hidden POV. AnnH (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the Nuns were wonderful people but they were guilotined for being Nuns - not Christians, for being part of a hierarchy that left the general populace starving and disaffected. The churches were full of wealth while the people starved - that is why they were a target, not for their religious beliefs. The purpose of the Revolution was to overthrow the institutions that the people saw as oppressing them - that included the Monarchy, the nobles and the Church. We introduce new and worry definitions of persecution (as well as opening a can of worms) if we class anyone who reacts against an authority that leaves them powerless and starving a "persecutor". That is why I object to its inclusion. I have no axe to grind or Church history to defend. I am genuinely surprised that this is proving so controversial which is why I am concerned at the heavy number of RC editors on this page.
 * As for Christian martyrs. They were generally in the 1st wave of Christians to Europe, when Christianity would have been seen as new and a challenge to the established authorities. Once they had dominance the only widespread persecutions of Christians in Europe, for theological reasons, were by other Christians. SOPHIA 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sophia, even if your accusations were true in general, it still doesn't justify persecution and it doesn't justify leaving them out.
 * The Church was not attacked in the Revolution because of what you say but because of Enlightenment ideology and because the new rulers thought it proper to rob the Church of her property in order to solve the budget problems (while they at the same proclaimed the inviolability of their own property). The Church didn't cause any starving of the general populace. I agree that some of those involved thought as you think now and these saw King and Church as oppressive. It's not are business to worry about whether someone because of our definitions (and they are not new) may no longer rebel against authority. I am not picking sides right now regards the political event called French Revolution, but WP should neither adhere to the (sadly all too common) glorification of the revolution.
 * But be that as it may, it has no bearing on our actual conflict. Christians (and yes, nuns are Christians too (and they are not part of the hierarchy)) were persecuted, clergy, layman and religious people killed, their worship supressed, an entire province of France was depopulated. You say they deserved it - that is a monstrous view but you are free to adhere to it (and before my overhaul the Roman persecution section said the same: that Christians deserved it) - but your POV is no basis of excluding this act of persecution.
 * You are right about persecution of Christians by Christians, but that it why I wrote resurfaced: Christians were persecuted by the pagan state until 324. After that they were only "intra-Christian persecutions" (except in Persian or Islamic territory) until the French Revolution, which again had a non-Christian state persecuting Christians.
 * Facts are facts. You can chant "They deserved it, they deserved it!" all day long in front of your mirror, but that shouldn't govern our article. Str1977 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusation is a strong emotive word that really does not belong here. I, for my part, am trying to have an academic discussion about the definitions of persecution. I have not glorified the Revolution or said the Church deserved what happened to it. A revolution can only take place if you have a large body of people with nothing to lose, and ideologists who are smart enough to exploit them. The institutions with power in France at the time, the Monarchy, the Church and the nobles, caused the revolution - read the Wiki page. The Enlightenment came to the whole of Europe but only in France did it errupt into widespread bloody violence. No where did it lead to persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology (no other non Christian body had enough power to do this). To use this as a "resufacing of persecution" is misleading. Previous to this, as you agree, there were isolated (ultimately failed) attempts to see off the new challenge of Christianity. From around the 4th century to the end of the 18th century Christianity of one form or another completely dominated Europe, branding any other religion (especially the older indigenous ones) heretical. These religions were then persecuted to nonexistence. It's hard to represent this fairly and in the style of an encyclopedia which is why I have never added to the "persecuted by Christians" list and will not until I am sure I can present it in a balanced way that will survive the editorship of this page.


 * Challenges to your POV are not accusations and it is worrying that you see this debate in that light.SOPHIA 10:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sophia,
 * "accusations" was probably not the best way to put it. I certainly didn't think you accused me. I meant this bundle of "grievances" laid at the church's doorstep, provided here by you but certainly not originated by you. And the "glorification" referred to a common understanding that revolutions and uprisings are always and entirely good (unless of course when they aren't) and authority is always bad. I agree, I too can relate to such a romantic sympathy for the rebel and to the joy of seeing a tyrant fall (I especially like accounts of Robespierre's fall) (Question remaines what is a tyrant and what is merely a ruler - I don't think Louis XVI was a tyrant in any way). There are two sides to the story. I thought I detected this common understanding in some of your comments. If I am wrong I gladly take it back.
 * I don't need to read the Wiki page on the FR (except for editing purposes) as this historian knows the issues well enough.
 * The revolution was in fact a boundle of revolutions: a rebellion of starving masses in Paris, a crisis of the political system, and some ideologists making the best of it for their cause.
 * The Enlightenment was a movement in the whole of Europe and some traits are common to every country but only in France did it have such a distinct anti-Christian bent (Emperor Joseph II and the Bavarian minister Montgelas were giving the Church a hard time too, but it didn't result in outright persecution).
 * As I said before, my edits don't want to say that there was persecution all over Europe - and Ann, whom I asked to have a look, agreed with my wording.
 * Of course, the reasons for the persecution were not entirely religious, but a bundle of religious, policial, economic, social issues, but the same can be said for earlier persecutions.
 * As for resurfacing: the FR set the model for modern-day persecutions, either attempted (Commune) or implemented (Lenin). Ideas of religious tolerance, also furthered by the Enlightenment, mostly kept these urges in check, but it did set a model.
 * In the final part of your post you are mixing up two things: heresies and pagan religions. Heresies, as false doctrines within Christianity, were persecuted, but they were mostly not "older indigenous" religions (exceptions surfacing in the few witch trials of the Middle Ages). These were not so much persecuted into extinction (though there have been some instances, e.g. Charlemagne's Saxon War or the "Wendish crusade", both controversial at their time) but rather were superceded by Christianity. Some have complaint about to many "pagan remnants" lingering on in popular religion. I don't think the complaint is very fitting but it can only be made because these "older indigenous" religions were not just stamped out.
 * I agree with you presenting information in a balanced way and I certainly could imagine including the FR passage in a ranting/POV way. But this is unacceptable here on WP or elsewhere and I don't think that I have done this. Str1977 10:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, you seem to admit that the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne were good, innocent people who did not deserve the death penalty, and that they were executed for being nuns, but you don't accept that as religious persecution. Surely the execution of nuns is a form of religious persecution? At the time when Catholics were persecuted in England (see here for a few examples) most of those executed were priests. But it was still a persecution of Catholics. And it's true that in a very few cases there were real examples of treason, and that some of the Catholics who were persecuted would not have been persecuted (or at least not to that extent) had it not been for the crimes of their fellow Catholics. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Catholics were persecuted in England at that time; we don't say that they deserved it because of Anthony Babington and Guy Fawkes. Let's put it this way &mdash; if a few members of a minority group committed a crime &mdash; let's say a group of black youths gang raped a white woman in a country where most people were white &mdash; and in the five years following that, hundreds of black people had their land and goods seized by the government, dozens were thrown into prison without trial, a few were executed on false charges, would you agree that black people were being persecuted? Do you dismiss the Salem Witch Trials on the grounds that some people really did attempt to conjure up the devil with the motive of harming their enemies? If groups of innocent people have their property confiscated and are imprisoned or executed, then that is persecution regardless of whether or not other people in the same category have committed crimes.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your claim that it was not "persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology". I have objected in the past to a redefinition of "persecution" to include things like uncharitable remarks made against a group, or job discrimination. But once groups of innocent people are thrown into prison and exectuted, not for crimes, but for belonging to a particular group, then it is persecution, regardless of whether or not they have intellectual discussions with their executioners about the two natures of Christ.

And if we agree that there were Christian martyrs in Europe prior to the French revolution, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "resurfaced". AnnH (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I take it that you are advocating the repression of medieval Catholics in England should be added to the list of persecutions against Christianity even though it was committed by other Christians?


 * Your example above (the rape) is invalid to this dicussion as we are not talking about a few isolated incidents by individuals but of a national institute, with international backing that possessed great wealth and power and was overthrown. Real crimes were committed against real people but was it because of their Christianity or their association with a wealthy Church that stood by whilst people starved?


 * My point is that their Christianity was incidental to their persecution, they were persecuted for belonging to a powerful institution. I would not (and have never attempted to) argue with their place on the RC wiki page but that it is unrepresentative to put this on the all encompassing Christianity page.


 * Allowing loose and questionable definitions of persecution to stand will benefit nobody as everyone with a horror story will feel thay can add to the list. This is obviously an emotive subject so NPOV is all the more needed.SOPHIA 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sophia,
 * I don't think that Christianity was incidental as the campaign was directed against Christianity (in the only version existing in France, the RCC). People were persecuted because of their adherence to the Church and Christianity. If the persecutors considered the Church a criminal organisation worthy of persecuting because of real or alleged crimes that doesn't change the fact that they persecuted those standing by their convictions. The Roman Emperors (Nero, and most since Traian) considered the Church a criminal organisation and "being a Christian" a crime. Did the revolutionaries ask the Carmelites whether they committed any crimes? No, they told them give up their way of life (which is one of many ways of serving God, but it was the one these women had chosen).
 * No doubt the revolutionaries were exploiting the dire need of the populace but what did persecution and genocide help in that respect (yes, those killed no longer starve, but ...), especially since the starving and the persecuted might be the same people.
 * And no, we don't include Catholics persecuted under Elizabeth etc. here, as they were persecuted by other Christians. Yes, I consider them martyrs of the faith (but that's my Catholic POV), but they can and are included in the "persecution by Christians" section (under "dissenting Christian denominations and denominational strife"). The current distinction between the two section is a bit questionable in that regard, but I guess it's the best way to put it.
 * And finally, I don't think it is a loose definition of persecution. Mutatis mutandis, there was persecution of Christians by the state in 303 and in 1793. Str1977 11:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that perhaps Sophia may be trying to make distinction between someone being persecuted for their individually held, personal religious beliefs and expressions, and being persecuted for being a member of the Church, the outwardly visible, formal organization of Christians, which she describes as a corrupt institution at least in 18th century France. For many Protestants today that's an important distinction, but most Catholic and Orthodox Christians would say it's either a misleading or entirely false distinction. If a government were to announce, "You can be a Christian as long as you're not affiliated with this specifically named church," Protestants would for the most part easily switch denominations and be fine if theirs were targeted, but Catholics and Orthodox would be for the most part stuck, as were the nuns in France. Sophia, please correct me if I've misstated your position in any way. Wesley 13:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact that's somethin a left-wing politician in the 1905 separation hearings argued: "In France we guarantee freedom of conscience, but not freedom of religion. Someone may believe what he likes, but he is not guaranteed adherence to a certain corporation." (Paraphrased from memory) That's preposterous, of course.
 * As for the Catholic/Orthodox-Prostestant divide on this. Freedom of religion in my book means that the believer is free to pratice his religion as he understands it and hence this definition can be as broad or narrow as he thinks fit (including or not including Church structure). Hence, surpression of the Church is persecution. The French measures also didn't target only the institution - yes, you were not harmed if you kept your mouth shut, but if a believer protested he was targetted as well. Str1977 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of Nero persecuting the Christians is interesting as Nero had power and an army at his disposal and the Christians had neither wealth nor power. Their religious beliefs were a direct challenge to his status as a god like emperor and historical records show they were persecuted by him.
 * Nero persecuted Christians in Rome as a scapegoat to remove any rumours that he had set Rome on fire, and not because they denied him worship. Of course, that didn't increase his sympathy for them.
 * Pre revolutionary France was a different matter see Status of religious freedom in France. For the Catholics quite the reverse, in fact the wiki page on the French Revolution lists religious intolerance as one of the main causes of the Revolution. This was due to persecution of other faiths and other Christian denominations by the French RC Church (see Jansenism and Huguenots for example). The post Revolution 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guaranteed religious freedom for all for the first time, where that freedom did not impact on others. For example Jews were only granted French citizenship after the Revolution - hardly the work of an "anti religion" regime.
 * The Church was defenseless against the French state as well, as the king was held captive. Intolerance, though part of the reason why Enlightenment writers had a dislike for the Church, are not directly a reason for the revolution. Persecutory measures by the Church were seldom in the 18th century (and when they did occur they attracted even more condemnation, e.g. by Voltaire). The Revolution proclaime freedom of conscience and religion, but it took some time for them to realise that this included Catholics as well (in fact, most didn't realise at all, it was Napoleon's realpolitik that opened the way to the concordat). Jews, as individuals, were granted individual civic rights (first the Sephardi, then the Ashkenazi), but under the famous motto: "To them as individuals everything, to them as a people nothing". This has nothing to do with sympathy for the Jews and religion in general and anyway was an early measure when the anti-Christian mood wasn't as strong as later. (And note, anti-Christian is not anti-religion - Robespierre tried to introduce a "Cult of the Supreme Being", others dedicated temples to "Reason". It is persecution of Christians we are talking about, not of all religions.
 * Thanks to Wesley for helping me clarify my point. Yes you are right, my point is that they were targeted for belonging to an institution that had enormous wealth and power - the French RC Church. If they had been non wealthy and non powerful they would have been left alone - I am unaware and can find no records of the organised persecution of Protestants (or any other Christian denominations) during the Revolution - can anyone give examples? For that matter any other religions?
 * That is all beside the point. There was a persecution of Christians (namely RCs, Protestants were not avaiable "thanks" to Louis XIV), even under an explicite anti-Christian banner. Other religions don't matter either. Or are you saying that Nero did not persecute Christians because he did not persecute the Jews either.
 * For this to stand on the Christianity page rather than the Roman Catholicism page it must be shown that they were persecuted for being Christians rather than the unfortunate victims of a backlash against an institution the taught poverty and humility yet wealded enormous wealth and power. An institution that had not granted religious freedom to others.
 * Sorry, but your bias shows through your comments. All these things are beside the point. After centuries we had a non-Christian state persecuting Christians under the banner of "dechristianisation". Period.
 * I voice my original concerns that the lack of perspective shown in this discussion is due to the religious loyalties of the editors which is POV.SOPHIA 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you can't the facts as they stand. I suspect it has do with bias of another kind. Str1977 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution, measures taken against Christians including abolishing the word dimanche (Sunday), abolishing the Sabbath, and forbidding any public display of the Christian Cross, and the proposal of two alternate religions. This doesn't sound like a victory of Huguenots over Roman Catholics, but more like a victory of atheists over Christians. Like the Julian the Apostate, they were apparently content to promote any religion or no religion at the expense of Christianity, so it's not surprising that Jews enjoyed greater freedom at this time. Wesley 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another interesting thought, taken from Edmund Burke. The revolutionaries accused Catholics of intolerance. Burke said that the grand-children of those who had murdered the Hugenots in 1572 (the mob of Paris, directed by the government) now took revenge on behalf of these Hugenots and massacred others who can hardly be blamed for crimes committed 200 years before the were born. Str1977 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I mention POV only in relation to perspectives on this article about all denominations of Christianity. Yes I have a POV but that does not include allegiance to any particular version of history. I will not take part in a discussion that begins to get very personal - of the "why can't you just face facts" type. When reasoned arguments break down there is nothing to be gained by anyone.


 * Sophia, I am sorry if you feel attacked, but I must remind you that you suggested that opposition to your view was based on "religious loyalties of the editors which is POV". Let me assure you that nothing was intended personally.

I have made the best non personal, academic case that I can for the position that Christians were not persecuted during the French Revolution. The French Roman Catholic Church suffered a violent and bloody backlash after centuries of persecution of other faiths - you admit there were no Protestants left but you blame Louis XIV - did the RC Church stand up for their fellow Christians?


 * I never said that the RCC in France (or anywhere) was spotless (though it was Louis XIV who kicked out the Hugenots, rightly considering such a move to be popular (so no protests) but also increasingly interfered into Church matters (Jesuits, Jansenists etc).
 * But all true or untrue accusations cannot remove the fact that there were persecutions.
 * Even a backlash persecution is persecution. Should we say there was no persecution of pagan cults after the 4th century because it was a backlash.

I do not dispute that unjust murders were carried out by the Revolutionaries.

I do not claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians (I do not have a POV on this) but some other groups that would describe themselves as Christian would dispute this. Since this is a page about Christianity as a whole this should be born in mind.


 * They might, but that is their (extreme) POV.

The position of the editors of this page seems to be that any Christian denomination with wealth and power can persecute others (including other Christians) to nonexistence (without mention in the article), and yet when the evitable backlash occurs they become "persecuted Christians" (which can be mentioned in the article).


 * Where did you get the idea from that we don't mention this in the article. Have you read the second part of the persecution section.

Banning PUBLIC displays of the cross and the word "Sunday" over a period of 6 years is the best example of exclusively Christian discrimination that has come forward so far.


 * No, no. We had destruction of monasteries, confiscation and desecration of basilicas, killings of clerics, religious, laypeople, ... and the genocide in the Vendee.

No examples of the murder of any one of a religious group other than Roman Catholic have been given (so far).


 * That argument only works if a) Catholics are not Christians (which you didn't subscribe to) or b) one set of Christians persecuted another set of Christians and hence the issue was not Christianity. Neither is the case here.

I will bow out of this discussion at this point as I have nothing to new add and as I said previously I do not like the emotive, personal and totally inappropriate language that is starting to be used.SOPHIA 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am saddened that it ends this way but I can't help it. Believe me some of the things you said were not very gentle either, be it to other editors or to Christians in general. Str1977 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's the true religion."
Whoever keeps on adding it please stop. There is no "one true religion" and that statement introduces POV. Please stop now. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That user has just been blocked. AnnH (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I warned first. Their response strikes me as a little odd.  Jkelly 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two socks already blocked, expect more to show up. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should I semi-protect the page? I'm going to bed in the next few minutes, and I don't want to lock out good-faith contributors? AnnH (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Following the appearance of more sockpuppets, I have semi-protected the page, which means that IPs and newly-registered users can't edit. As I said, I don't want to lock out genuine contributors. I'll be going to bed in about twenty minutes from now. Should I unprotect then? Zach, will you still be around? AnnH (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He has moved over to Evangelicalism now. AnnH (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be here, but I am also watching Hero of Ukraine (my baby is on the front page). Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just unprotected, and am going to bed now! AnnH (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected again
I just semi-protected again. If those people who are watching this article would please keep an eye on Evangelicalism, that would be great. Thanks. Jkelly 03:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed it again. Jkelly 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd check on that, someone resemi'd it 209.103.214.50 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Have I protected or semiprotected?
I've semiprotected again (sigh). But, unlike the other times, when I went to edit the page to add the semiprotected template, I got a message saying that it had been protected so that only admins could edit it. I checked to see if I had accidentally selected full protection, but I hadn't. Can a fully-registered non-admin (sorry to be so patronizing!) let me know if you still see "edit this page"? There might be some kind of software bug. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are right, it is a software bug. It is in the process of being fixed. I'll see if I can find the bugzilla query. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, LV. Should I unprotect in the meantime? I don't want to lock out genuine contributors? And I note that he/she has moved (again) to Evangelicalism. I've done a lot of indefinite blocks recently! AnnH (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you semi-protected it perfectly, and since they are still around, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to leave it with SEMI for now. You can see some discussion of the "Protected message" here (near bottom) or here. Hope this helps. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)