Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Tone 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Inherently involves synthesis, and 90% of the alleged "anti-Christian sentiment" is either a) not sourced directly to anti-Christian sentiment, or b) not even anti-Christian. This also has a inherent pro-Christian right-wing slant bye effectively defining anything that affects Christians negatively as anti-Christian. Of the numerous examples given, only eight of them are slightly objectively anti-Christian. This sort of article belongs on Conservapedia, not here. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an extra observation: you can bet your bottom dollar if the Commons tried to remove the bishops from the Lords, it'd be definitely listed. Sceptre (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete This is an essay. This kind of thing belongs in a publication or blog, not an encyclopedia. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is tendentious garbage, from which nothing of value can be salvaged.  It presents the subject as being an established fact, despite some Christians regarding the claims as being nonsense .  The year-by-year listing is a classic example of a synthesis, in which a cherry-picked combination of semi-relevant references has been used to support a predetermined conclusion.  It provides a collection of unconnected cases, and then presents them as evidence for this "anti-Christian sentiment". &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my opinion little has changed from the AfD of its predecessor articles.  Yes the references are in general, although not wholly, more reliable and the title is a little less POV-pusing.  However, this article still basically cherry picks a few anecdotes  to illustrate a conclusion that many of the examples cited do not even suggest.  Many of these are plainly not anti-Christian or only dubiously anti-Christian.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs a serious re-write, but -- in the absence of a showing that these haven't happened, or that the descriptions of the crime are greatly exaggerated-- that's a surprising number of incidents of priests and vicars being attacked. Indeed, if there are other persons who have said in the news that such claims are nonsense, that in itself is notable.  All I can say is that if there was pattern in the United States of attacks on priests, preachers, rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., it would be considered hate crime.  Apparently, this does make news in Great Britain, but it's not clear whether it's taken seriously there.  Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It really depends on the motive for the attacks.  For example, there are at least a couple of incidents in Northern Ireland highlighted.  I would have serious concerns that these are in some way related to the troubles (Protestant vs Catholic violence). Although, the official line is that they weren't sectarian, I guess that depends on what the security services term as sectarian.  The sectarian gangs (e.g the IRA et al) might be quiet but there is by all accounts still a great deal of suspicion (and even hatred) between the  protestant/unionist and catholic/nationalist communities. This is still stuff which, as far as I am aware, is  still being preached from the pulpits of some churches in Northern Ireland.
 * Equally, I'm unsure as to whether drunken youths beating up a priest is anti-Christian or just representative of a wider break-down in the values and respect for authority in British society. Such youths tend to congregate in dark unlit areas so cemeteries are an ideal "breeding ground".  I used to live near a park which suffered from badly drunken youths at night.  The police are next to powerless to do anything they just move them from place to place (their resources are already stretched enough without parenting gangs of drunken teenagers) and to be frank, most of the youths' parents couldn't give a s*** what their offspring are doing  Pit-yacker (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mandsford - this just isn't the point. This is original research. Read the section on synthesis. Do you have a reference to sociological research that explores this claim? The quote from the MP doesn't count. The validity of the article is _not_ the issue. This issue must be explored and peer-reviewed elsewhere. Until then, this simply this does not belong on this site. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the common margin makes this look like one long comment from the same person. I'm in the minority, but I'm of the opinion that the validity of a topic is always relevant, and that we must first consider whether an article can be improved.  Perhaps Erik H. is right, but I will be surprised if this hasn't been explored and peer-reviewed elsewhere, even if the opinion of the peers is that claims, of anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom, are unfounded.  I've done my part in preventing a snowball.  Seven days is better than a rush to judgment. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mansford, you can easily demonstrate the existence of such research by citing it. Until then, this article needs to go. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I need to go. Talk to you later. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Hyperdeath who is spot-on. ninety:one  23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article is little more than soapboxing from a conservative christian viewpoint. The various sources are used to represent a particular opinion that does not reflect the reality of those sources. Overall an un-encyclopedic essay. Crafty (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incubate if there are editors willing to devote the intensive efforts required to create a useful encyclopaedic article from this mess. The WP:Article Incubator allows collaborative work on articles outside mainspace, which are Noindexed while incubated. The current version of this article seems to be somewhere between an essay and a chronological list of otherwise unsorted references of varying relevance to the subject. The latter is a potentially valuable research resource for those who may wish to rewrite this or write a related article from scratch: as such, I would be very reluctant to discard it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree in principle, but what would this future useful article be? Some of the references might be useful, but the present conflation of random crimes and miscellaneous things that some Christians find offensive&trade; is useless and will always be useless.  Perhaps it would be better to first trim the article down to a list of violent incidents, by cutting out the Christians-get-offended items and removing the whining editorial at the beginning. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incubate I like the incubate option - there is a lot of work put into this, it would be a shame to lose it if there's any hope of rehabilitation. It does require a lot of work; I agree it suffers form synthesis, so someone need to find some peer-reviewed relevant studies to form a basis of support for a claim. If incuabtion is not an option, I'd reluctantly choose delete over keep.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incubate Of course, there could be an article on intergroup tensions, some of which are inter-religious and some sectarian and some merely selected anti-religious. In America, we're told, a hate crime occurs every 8 seconds.  Cultivating civility is a long struggle, but "the arc of history bends towards justice" (we might hope).MaynardClark (talk)
 * Incubate it needs work, but with a serious rewrite, I think it has a chance. The topic is definitely fine. Airplaneman  talk 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete It's not even really an essay, it's a list of perceived slights against Christians in the UK. There's no coherent point, so the entire article is simply original research synthesis and a WP:NPOV minefield. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's content is an amalgam of anything and everything, some even spilling into India (which I believe has achieved independence from the UK), others incidentally involving identifiable Christians (not unexpected, given that they are members of the community), and some relating to Christians accusing others (March 2009 Grantow(n-on-Spey) incident). The lack of a specific grounding for the article makes it unlikely that an "incubate" process could yield anything better that this shopping list of perceived slights. AllyD (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while an article about criticism of christian elements of english culture from within the nation,or documented "anti christian" movements (but wait, most of this isnt anti christian, just atheistic or other religions) could be a really interesting article, this isnt it. a list of crimes against clergy dating back only 20 years? each and every crime would have to be extensively explained as a conscious attack on a christian institution. thats just for starters. hopelessly unsalvageable in this form, and title doesnt match content. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.