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


 * 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 No consensus. I can't see any consensus to go either way. Both sides make good, policy-based arguments, and cannot seem to come to an agreement. Thus, there is no consensus to change the status quo. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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)
 * Note A similar discussion is going on in Articles for deletion/Islam and anti-Christian persecution.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep Well documented and very interesting. Could stand some expansion in spots but a useful contribution.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Comment *See Historical_persecution_by_Christians. And see Persecution_of_Hindus.


 * See Historical_persecution_by_Christians and see Anti-Protestantism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You may wish to familiarise yourself with those respective AfD's: Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination), 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * Book entitled Christendom and Its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000-1500
 * Book entitled History of Christianity in the World: From Persecution to Uncertainty
 * Book entitled Living Together, Living Apart: Rethinking Jewish-Christian Relations in the Middle Ages
 * Journal article entitled Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century
 * These show that there are independent, usable sources to link persecution-events by Christianity. --Oldak Quill 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

==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)
 * I am renomnating this article since there are diverse opinion.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- Delete all "Persecution by" articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete per User:Itaqallah.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Several of the people who vote delete here are being rather ignorant. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy . 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)
 * See the AfD of "Persecution by XY" articles; also Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Keep. Nice try, though - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? DG, read the damn comments first before being snide, OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm satisfied with the new title, if a similar article exists for Islam as well.  Yahel  Guhan  02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Itaqallah; this article is impossible to write without violating WP:SYN (content) and WP:POV (title). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   — Yahel   Guhan  00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Itaqallah. It's a POV fork. Similar articles have been deleted. The article itself is a trainwreck and of low quality. Majoreditor (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Of course I can do it. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Please see Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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". -- M P er el  16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete. "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance" is just plain ridiculous, especially considering that few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance. "Historical persecution by Christians" is a laundry list of events, factoids, and trivia that belong elsewhere. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if your 'argument' really deserves a elaborate reply, but since I just have the book at hand, I can give you a long quote from Coffey (2000). After this author has summarized the debate among historians about persecution and toleration in 17th century England, he writes: "Indeed, it is all too easy to miss the striking similarities between early modern Europe and the contemporary world. Seventeenth-century England is by no means as alien as historians sometimes suggest, and the story of persecution and toleration in the period is far from irrelevant to contemporary concerns. It is no doubt true that the study of the period introduces us to a world very different from, one as fascinating and unfamiliar as the worlds explored by anthropologists. Yet it would be a mistake to draw too bold a contrast between a devout past and an irrelegious modernity (...)." After some further elaborations he comes to the point: "The religious militancy and violence that charaterized early modern Europe have returned to haunt the modern world. (...) Indeed, in many countries in the world today, religious persecution is a major human rights problem, with Christian minorities being particulary vulnerable." (p.8) So much for the argument that "few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance". With all those people here at Wikipedia writing articles about their religion being persecuted - it appears as if there are quite a few people out there who would share the mediaval advocation of religious persecution. Now, in a western context, this has all been debated throughoutly already. And I would consider it quite important to have an article on this debate here at Wikipedia. Some people might actually learn something from that.
 * Furthermore, that important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution is fact, and it is not content forking from any other article, especially not from Persecution of Christians. To pretend that this would be original research, as it has been done by Itaqallah is totally ignorant. I mean, you don't even need secondary literature for that, you'd only have to read Augustine's "Epistle against the Donatists" or Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. These books are rarely read nowadays, but if you are in a western country you should be able to obtain them. Zara1709 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So a lengthy quotation about 17th-century England is supposed to refute my "argument"? I think you missed the point, which goes something like this: does the Latin tolerantia mean the same thing in the 5th century as English "tolerance" means today? Is there a Latin word that does mean what "tolerance" means? What do Augustine's and Luther's books have to do with anything? Books don't persecute, at least as I understand the term. And I never called this OR. I just believe this is the type of "article" Wikipedia doesn't need. We ought to keep the facts and remove the article. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zara, you have totally changed the topic of the article - without consensus, midway through a deletion discussion of a different topic - yet still act as if my objection on the grounds of original research applies to this new title. I'm sure there has been debate about persecution and tolerance in Christian thought, and that this can be verified by secondary sources as is necessary. The fact remains that any collection of incidences independent of eachother, spanning tens or even hundreds of years, is inevitably going to constitute original research when joined together into one narrative - unless we have reliable sources which do see sufficient links to be able to present it as some sort of timeline of persecution which this article attempts.  ITAQALLAH   17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Articles "persecution of X" and articles about "persecution by x" ae completely unrelated, there's no reason to assume that both group of articles could end up retaining the same information. The topic of religious persecution is in itself interesting, and it is helpful to have cumarized articles about the acts by or against every particular group. If i'm interested specifically about the things X group has done against other groups, it would be unreasonable to have to look up the information on articles about the other groups. Apart form the practical inconveniences this presents, it resents a logical obstacle, as it makes the a priori knowledge of said agressions a necessity for the access to the information. This is contrary to the referencial purpose of an encyclopedia, and it culd even be considered POV puchisng, as it aims to make the simpathetic information about a given group hard to find, but the controversial facts scattered and difficult to correlte, when they are in fact related, and this relation could very well be a legitimate point of interest for a number of readers. I object to any change of name, this article should document and reference the persecutions made by christians, and only reference the debate and meaning of the concepts of tolerance et al (wich could merit its own article) if it's needed to make a point in the historical account of facts. Obviously, accounts of persecutions by other groups merit their own articles, per the above rationale. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming your premise that "persecution by" and "persecution of" articles will not contain the same information is correct, can you explain the above links given by Otolemur crassicaudatus which show how the material in this article is already covered elsewhere?
 * I take issue with your second point - the purpose of Wikipedia is to relay verifiable information in the specific context it has been relayed. We don't invent article titles or topics so as to make our own synthesis, thereby essentially forming a hodgepodge of unconnected events and sources. The critical absentee in all of this is the fundamental theme the article tries to assert through these examples, itself finding no verification in the sources which instead discuss these things in their own specific contexts. To suggest there is any relation between persecution under the Roman Empire and the events in Ireland beyond the superficial observation that Christians are involved is an absurdity. So the rationale that articles are warranted just because they are 'interesting' or 'convenient' cannot alone justify their presence.  ITAQALLAH   17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I retract my vote, after reviewing the current state of the article. But i want to defend my arguments, as they are general. sorry :)
 * Of course: examples only serve to disprove absolute assertions of the like "there's no information common to both types of articles". ths is not what i said, the assertion presented by me was "this two sets of articles do not necesarilly contain the same information" wich is not an absolute judgement, but merely a negation of the identity of both sets.
 * Second, interest and convenience are the sole purposes of an encyclopedia. Half the value of information is its organization, as opposed to its content. A list of all acts of persecution carried out by a group has the exact and same value as a list of all the acts of persecution carried out against a group. even if they end up cotaining the same facts. WP:SYN should be cited only when the synthesis proposed amounts to POV pushing, and the criteria for the collection of information is arbitrary (or POV wich is the same in this context). In the context of this discussion, there's a clear criteria for the collection of this information (if this were what the article actually did), and presenting different sources for the members of a list is not a violation of WP:SYN. Or you would consider a list like the one in Vampire films a violation of WP:SYN only because there's no reputable source that puts this particular movies together?
 * finally, this article does not conform to the purpose i'm arguing for, so i retreat my vote quitely, but not because my arguments are erred, but because i was mistaken as to their pertinance for this case (ie this is not a factual revision of "acts of persecution by X" but a wider recount of a debate and historical facts). Gorgonzola (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be inclined to agree with you, but interest alone cannot be the deciding factor in whether an article is legitimate (see WP:INTERESTING). WP:V states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - and that's all I'm requesting: sources which discuss persecution by Christians throughout history. A few sources have been presented but they're severely limited in their scope. The reason I think there are too few sources about the precise topic is because it completely ignores the complexity of these incidences, and glosses over the fact that motivations equally as important as religious may have played a role. But that's my own speculation. At the end of the day it's the sources which verify this interlinking that are required.  ITAQALLAH   22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing with your argument, is that in particular, it is applicable to all list of "persecution of", just as easily. And in general, it applies to ALL lists. Even accpeting that not violation of WP:SYN is a prerequisite for the confrormation of lists (which i don't, WP:IAR, etc), i think that asking for references that put all facts in the same category is absurd. What you really need is to determine ONE objective criteria, and then find sources that say that a fact X conforms to said criteria. This is the normal standard for lists like Vampire films, and the correct policy here would be notability of the criteria chosen for the composition of the list. In this case, i think that the criteria that puts together all acts of persecution carried out by a given religious group are pertinent, and wildly interesting. But this is talk page stuff, no reasson for an AfD, as it usualy is the case with lists of all kind.
 * However, this article is not that. That's why i can't comfortably vote keep, although i believe that both topics are valid and could make good articles. I could vote Delete and Recreate? Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment here, there is no reason for you to take a step back. On the discussion page of the article I have written a comment where I actually hinted that I woulnd't have a problem with moving this article back to "Historical cases of persecution by Christians." With such a name and some general cleanup that should only take a few hours, legitimate concerns about wp:SYN would be taken into account, and we could have rather easily achieved a consensus on this on the discussion pages if this was actually about concerns of wp:SYN. But alternatives to deletion were not AT ALL considered here. Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN. The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians. This is not the article Islam and anti-Christian persecution, and I am not claiming that I know enough about Islam to write and article on the corrosponding debate in Islam (which I suppose to exist). But, fo the sake of argument, let's just say that I am Christian. To get this down to a Bible qoute: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7) The fact that important Chistian theologians advocated religious persecution can be considered more then just a "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Chrstianity, even more than just the cases of religious persecution by Christians alone (they wouldn't be that bad if they had been against the doctrines of their respective churches at the time at which they occured.) So I will not judge the Muslims for their cases of religious persecution, but - as Christian - I demand that I'll be allowed to deal with the "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Christianity. Zara1709 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN." - Okay, this line of argument is becoming a bit disingenuous now, especially in the light of my comments above which directly contradict your claim. This AfD was about WP:OR/WP:SYN until you decided to change the article topic altogether which IMHO was poor etiquette and obstructs any sort of consensus from developing on the issue initially raised here. In any case, a laundry list of every historical event of persecution by Christians is not warranted unless this interweaving is done by the sources themselves. And a laundry list is even less warranted in an article whose central focus is now "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance." and not any persecution itself.
 * "The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians." - Look, you are missing the whole point of this discussion. That is: verification, the fundamental prerequisite when trying to establish any "link." Let the sources assert the links. If they aren't there, don't assert your own, and don't use published sources to imply unverified links. If you can find sources weaving together every single event of "historical persecution by Christians" as if it's all one sequential story, great. If not, there's nothing further to discuss here: it stands in clear violation of content policies. The latter is what your comments must strive to address, which they consistently fail to do.  ITAQALLAH   22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not change the scope of the article. That Augustine etc. advocated religious persecution had previously been mentioned in the article, the only thing I did with changing the name was pointing this out clearly. Probably this was bad form, but considering that the purpose of this afd appears to be making a wp:point against the article, without this point having been addressed on the article talk page, my "form" isn't as bad. Some days ago I cleaned up a real POV-Fork, the old Nordic race article. Essentially, one editor wanted to have an article on Nordic race that didn't debate the Nazis Walther Darré, Hans F.K. Günther who wrote books on the topic. No one called for an afd in that debate, the obvious and only considered solution was merging. So, if we have here a situation in which one article mentions that Christians have persecuted and have advocated persecution, and another one Persecution of Christians which doesn't mention this, someone could argue that we have a POV-Fork here and that we should merge those two articles. Aside from the point that the POV-Fork is supposed to be the other way round, no one brought this up on the talk page. The Deletion policy has a whole section on alternatives to deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. " ... "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name." ... "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page."
 * I could continue about this afd being against wp:point, but let's turn to the issue that User:Itaqallah has raised.  He is bringing in Verifiability, but is it being applied correctly? After all, it shouldn't been to hard to verify that Luther wrote a book On the Jews and their Lies. For the qustion whether there was continued debate on persecution and toleration within Christianty, here is a quote: "Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. (...) The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denomintions lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incromprehension." (John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 206) This should be sufficient. If you have any more concerns, we can adress them on the article talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if the article had remain in the same form as the title of the AfD, then i would comfortably vote a strong keep, but since this article is not the same than before (title changes focus, focus determines criteria for inclusion), i would have to start all over again. I too think that it is very improper to move an article during an AfD, even if you think that said move does not change focus. And i believe that both topics could make very good artciles, but this trasvestism between the two of them is just POV pushing, and confusing. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no point in arguming here whether the name change actually changed the scope. If this clears this afd, let's move the article back to Historical persecution by Christians or to Historical cases of persecution by Christians. I should have displayed more self-control and not moved the article, but I got pretty annoyed about this afd. I would suppose that - after two afds already and strong discussion on that talk page of the article, during which a difficult case of actual original research and original synthesis was resolved, people whould take the issue to the article talk page and not start another afd. Aside from that, concerns about the article being properly synchoronisted with other articles on the topic are legimate, but can be cleaned up with comperatively litte effort, and there was really no need for an afd. I personally have objections against an article named "Persecution by Christians", the same way I have objections against an article named "Persecution of Christians". But - cleary - there are a lot of relevant cases that fall under this, and this needs to be included in Wikipedia. Dealing with this topic in an article with a neutral title would be preferable, but the next time I won't move an article during an afd. Zara1709 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree on several levels. An AfD is not a discussion on how to improve the article (this is talk page stuff), is a discussion on the pertinence and encyclopediability of a topic. In other words, what the article actually says is somewhat irrelevant over what the article should say, wich is what is really being debated. The title "Acts of persecution by christians" refers to an article that should say and collect information of a very different kind than that collected in the article "Christian debate on tolerance and whatnot", and it's impossible to decide an AfD over one if one of the things we are discussing in the same AfD is an option between this two totally different articles. It is like asking "should we demolish the brookyln bridge?" and replying "let's build a dam over the hudson river". The pertinence of the dam over the hudson river has nothing to do with the answer to the question to the original question. Based on this, i would close this AfD as null, settle on one title and then review the case, because i think that in an AfD the burden of proof is on the deletion (although this is contested).
 * I think that each article should be evaluated in its own merit, sync with other articles is nonsense. this is not a paper medium, there's no constraint or editorial presure but searchability.
 * I think that articles should refer to entities that are objectively distinct, and judged according to the notoriety of the labels we use to catalog information about them. this means that i think that a compilation of events that share an objective factual relation are proper, but references to a meta-category for description of a theoretical ("christianity" hasn't debated anything formally, as a whole, since the first schism some 1500 years ago) debate is not.
 * "persecution by/of" is a factual statement. it is teh neutral. Calling the article where we should be discussing this factual acts of religious hatred "Debate on tolerance" is somewhat euphimistic, or plain wrong: are we talking about the events where thousend of Cathari were brutally massacred by catholic crusaders here or about what were Saint Augustine's opinions about the correct treatment of heretics and pagans? 'cause they seem to be different beasts to me, and the criteria to judge AfD on these two animals are completely, and utterly different and independent.
 * Due to all of the above, i think that this article should be not-deleted. I don't say keep, because i think that closing this AfD still leaves a world-war of debate to be waiged, and the last thing i would consider is leaving this article in its current form, but that war should not be fought in this courthou... ehem, in this AfD. :)
 * Gorgonzola (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Historical persecution by Christians. // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your merge proposition, Historical persecution by Christians already redirects to this debate thingy... Gorgonzola (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, then it should be move to Historical persecution by Christians (or perhaps even better to Persecution by Christians to also cover recent events) and keep as it's a notable subject backed up with strong sources. // Liftarn (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (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.