Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (second 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 keep There appear to be OR issues in some sections (such as the section on the contemporary United States). However, most of the article appears to be well-sourced. Some sections may have POV issues and that should be resolved on the talk page, not at AfD. The argument that this article should be deleted because similar articles about other religions were deleted is not persuasive. JoshuaZ 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously kept at AfD, in a closure by a non-admin who had already commented in the discussion. DRV overturned the result. This is a new debate on the same question. Delete, given inherent NPOV violation. Xoloz 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per consensus of deletion of Historical perecution by X, POV. Given the title, I am confused why there is a "contemporary" section. - Dean Wormer 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article attempts to suggest a stronger connection than actually exists between a series of historical events, as though to suggest that the religious persecution is somehow systemic, or somehow just as notable as the individual incidents. Take note that an overview of all religious persecution carried out by a specific group is not inherently of historical interest, unless these incidents are connected, although while the article does much to suggest a connection, it does little to actually establish one. Calgary 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - why is persecution of Christians NPOV, but Historical persecution by Christians not? This isn't a rhetorical question btw, and I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it does seem rather odd -85.210.30.61 03:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Several of those for deletion in this AFD have named problems that should be addressed by cleanup, not simple deletion. The fundamental questions are: A. Is this topic notable through significant coverage in reliable, published sources? The answer is yes. B. Is this article's subject framed in a way that allows a neutral point of view? The answer is again yes. Acknowledging that many reliable sources are of the opinion the Christianity was the stated impetus for acts of violence and repression is not the same as violating NPOV. With the proper attribution, an article on this topic need not ever patently confirm that these acts were religiously motivated. But the many sources, ancient and contemporary, that cover this exclusively bely the idea that this is a fringe or original research topic. What's next? An AFD for the Spanish Inquisition and The Crusades? As to the relisting, there was a clear majority consensus for keep, especially considering that the first nominator gave no reason in his listing.  VanTucky  (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This, just like the others, looks to me as violation of WP:SYNTH in taking persecutions that occurred over time by unrelated parties and grouping them all in this big net Corpx 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per VanTucky .  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ridiculous. Should not have been relisted in the first place, and that drv is hardly showing a consensus itself is it? Valid topic, relisting an article for AfD (thats a clear keep anyway) just because another article has been deleted is an absurd practice. &mdash;Xezbeth 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus to relist arose because the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin with a stated bias. If you read the AfD nomination here, you'd see that yourself.  Xoloz 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was closed because it was a blatant keep that shouldn't have been relisted. What if I had closed it, would that have been alright? &mdash;Xezbeth 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would up to consensus to determine that, if it were brought to DRV. You're an admin, so you'd have a better standing, but you had also commented in the debate, so who knows? Your less-than-well-thought-out comment above (apparently, you didn't bother to read my nomination before you commented the first time!) certainly suggests you're too involved to be closing an XfD on this matter. Xoloz 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I state bias? Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious to you, you commented "Keep" well before you closed the thing. No one should close a debate he has commented it. Xoloz 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear Delete per Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination). Also may be a violation of WP:SYTH and WP:OR, a random collection of facts grouped together under one title in near violation of WP:NPOV. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Other Historical persecution articles don't set a precedent in this case, as deletion arguments for those included (1) inadequately sourced and (2) not enough information for an entire article.  Neither of these criticisms apply to this article, which is well sourced and quite detailed.  I'm not sure how this constitutes WP:SYNTH, as the only position it appears to advance (i.e., that historically, Christians have been involved in persecution on religious grounds) is well documented by the sources used.  This seems to me to negate the point of the entire "synthesis" argument.  As to the contemporary section, I have become convinced since the last AFD that it is appropriate (providing an overview as it does of modern issues that may be considered historical).  Since the last AFD, I have removed some original research from this section, thus addressing concerns that were raised during that AFD. JulesH 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As regards NPOV concerns, I can't see why this is an issue.  WP:NPOV requires us to "[represent] fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."  If a significant view that has been published by a reliable source on this subject is not covered, there is no reason it cannot be added.  This becomes an article cleanup issue, not a deletion one. JulesH 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep editconflicted, anyway, per vanTucky and JulesH. DenizTC 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not relist this AFD, it causes commotion. DenizTC 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Deacon of Pndapetzim --Vonones 10:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In all fairness, you should re-list "Historical persecution by Jews" and "Historical persecution by Moslems", which were up for debate on a different day and which were deleted. I think that's one of the problems for why the decision was overturned on review, but nominator is simply repeating the same mistake.  I can understand why the original nominator of those three articles didn't lump them together... but I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the same nominator wouldn't put them all up in the same day's debate, because it got the inconsistent results that you're seeing right here.  My vote on this, and everyone else's for that matter, is meaningless since you're getting one result for mean Christians, a different one for mean fellows from other religious groups.  I guess we can all make our comments, but for the reasons listed, this is a silly debate that is just as silly on the second go-round.  I know you administrators work hard at sorting through the debates, but I'm afraid that in this case, you folks are missing the point.  List all three, or don't list any of them.  Mandsford 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of the topics you state are clearly notable, but that doesn't mean that the pages in question are worth keeping. It may be better sometimes to start over from scratch. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; More than sufficiently notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2007 (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) 03:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is a worthless POV laundry list which is essentially OR.  Individual articles about specific incidents serve the purpose that this article supposedly does, without the OR and POV connection of the incidents as some sort of releated thread throughout history.  The article was a synthesis of the editors. Not a single source cited in the article deals with the overarching theme.  In otherwords the cohesive theme of the article was synthesized by the editors, not by any source.  The article is irredeemable OR, a hodgepodge synthesis of historical events concocted by editors.  One incurable defect is that the article is a POV magnet, resulting in a fatally flawed article with trash for substance and trash for sources.  Mamalujo 08:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see several books there that seem to be dealing with the subject. Check Historical_persecution_by_Christians. Also if it is a POV magnet, just try and 'demagnetize' it. We have WP:DISPUTE for a reason. We don't just go around and delete the 'sensitive' articles. DenizTC 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I am quite unhappy that Persecution by Muslims got deleted, it's no reason to delete this one too. This article is also much better sourced and referenced than the Muslim one. Deleting it just because another article has been deleted is an absurd practice. It's also absurd to claim that "historical persecution by Christians" must be/is "OR" or doesn't exist, like some seem to do.  --Voidocore 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no reason the others could not be improved and re-submitted. Consensus can change. Sometimes discussing other articles of a type clarifies the issues.DGG (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If persecution of muslims doesn't exist, neither should this article.-- Sef rin gle Talk 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   — Sef rin gle Talk 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - article inherently implies a stronger connection between unrelated instances of persecution than is likely to exist (and the article topic doesn't appear to be a feature of academic discourse - correct me if i'm wrong here). whatever useful information exists in the article can easily be relocated to articles sorting persecution by victimised group.  ITAQALLAH   17:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are going to be accusations of bias whatever is decided so better be accused of bias for keeping than deletion. However I have problems with this article as, in that events of the French Wars of Religion are refered to but there is no mention of the conflict, that there is no mention of the Thirty Years' War, no mention of Bloody Mary's persecution of the Protestants, nor of her sister's counter persecution of the Catholics. The article as it stands reads like an attempt by stealth to write an "Atrocities and massacres committed by Christians" article, and this tendancy needs to be resisted.KTo288 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 06:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Article is merely a well-constructed list of several unrelated events. 87.127.44.154 06:52, 24 August 2007 (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.