Talk:Open Doors

POV
The article reads like a press release for the organisation in question. POV is that Christianity is true and Christian missionary work is good. This is not the only POV on this topic: some organisations oppose religious persecution without asserting the truth or merit of the beliefs of those being persecuted. There is no analysis of how such organisations and Open Door view each other, or of whether the allegations it makes of persecution are always well-founded. jnestorius(talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. --positron (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples of what you disagree with on this page? --worldruler20

Since no one is responding, and it's been several months, I'm going to assume there's no more dispute and remove the tag.Worldruler20 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 20 August, 2008

The reference to "... officially discouraged or oppressed ..." may be in correct as related to the 45 countries that the organization tracks. This article's reference may be mistaken in reference to Eritrea being one of these such countries. Eritrea does not officially oppress or classify as illegal, Christianity. Claims have been made against it, however, the body of law in Eritrea does not support this assertion. I thought I would point this out before making the change myself. Merhawie (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say I agree with the original poster. I came here hoping to find objective information about this organization, but the information here is identical to information that can be found on their website. The sites linked to on this article, as well, are all from friendly organizations who link back to Open Doors. If someone with more experience on Wikipedia sees this, please flag it as having a strong POV. Aripappas (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move
This page should not have been moved.

1. There was no discussion or consensus.

2. It's charitable, not charitible(!).

3. There was nothing wrong with the previous title.

4. It's not entirely clear that Open Doors even is a charitable foundation.

Please can the editor responsible revert this change and any other changes they've made to hyperlinks. Obscurasky (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My reason for the move is that so many hatnotes are needed. and because "open doors" is a common phrasing  for Doors Open Days  and is used by some cities; c.f Open Doors Pittsburgh, Open House New YOrk.  A gNEws search on "open doors" brings up may more "open doors" days, architectural tours, and "open doors" days held by many kinds of institutions.  This article, quite frankly, is very scantily sourced, and it is not at all clear to me that it is  the PRIMARY use of the term.  I suggest that we create a page for "open doors"  with links to this charity, and to all of the others in the hatnote. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see points 1 to 4. Obscurasky (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just taken a brief look at their website. It seems they are registered as a charity. It also seems that Open Doors is only a working name; Their full name, as registered with the Charity Commission, is 'Open Doors With Brother Andrew'. At the very least this should be mentioned on the page, although I would argue that this should be the page title with a link from Open Doors. Are you aware that, now you've changed the page title, there's nothing to stop someone changing that link so that it redirects to a different "open doors" page#. Obscurasky (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to reverting to simple title. My opinion is that a title with an identifier is user-friendly in a name used in so many other ways. I agree that moving it to 'Open Doors With Brother Andrew' makes a lot of sense.  Official name and right away makes it clear that this is a Christian initiative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Article needs a more balanced approach
This article basically reads like a copy and pasted version fo their site and has no other points of view whether it be positive or negative. The article seems to have been written by a member even. I just wanted to bring this issue up but that's not what I initially came here for. I'm planning to perhaps add a "Criticism" section to the article in the near future to add at least one other significant viewpoint.--SlackingViceroy (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

UN Charter
It seems clear to me that persecution of christians, or of any religious group whatsoever, is a blatant violation of the UN Charter, from 1945. Given that all 50 states on the 2023 World Watch list are UN member states, is it not possible to charge and sue them in some kind of UN tribunal or at the International Court of Justice? You cannot get away with this in the present world if the international rule of law has any meaning left. The Netherlands, the country where I live, even has the upholding and strengthening of the international rule of law included in its constitution! Hansung (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)