Talk:Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era

message: : Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to discuss your recent removals of several entries. Then I noticed that you also have been reverted earlier after removing some of the same entries. That borders on WP:EDITWAR.
Regarding the sections for Bolivia and Cuba, you use the dead links as a reason for removal. WP:DEADREF says  It took me just a couple of minutes to find other, non-dead sources.
Regarding the section for Zanzibar, you claim that the source is not reliable. That may or may not be true. It took me seconds to find other sources covering the same content. Before you dismiss a source, you should at least mark it with the template :Template:Better source instead of removing.
Regarding the section for North Korea, you remove the section with the reason "no text". That section contains a link to the article Human rights in North Korea as a main article. In that article it says  with a lot of sourced examples. Removal of the section (including removal of that "main article" link) is directly disruptive. If you cannot bother to expand the section yourself, the least you could do is mark it with the template :Template:Empty section.
Removal instead of trying to fix things seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please create consensus before removing them again. --T*U (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Please follow guidelines before reverting. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting R3N13R (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: There  were too many things wrong with it to explain in an edit summery. It violated WP:SYNTH (and thus possibly wp:blp), may violate NPOV, uses a questionable source (and puts their claims in our voice). Is poorly worded, and thus may give a false impression of what the situation is. Possibly violates out mos on the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: You still have not gained consensus for your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: In fact if anything you have made it worse, as now you are claiming a source says something different for what it says. As I said there are were many things wrong and you needed to discuss it before adding it back, all you have now done is just exacerbated this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: The article can be reached from .here. I am not very certain if an article of an Israeli embassador blaming the usual enemies of Israel is RS, but at least there is attribution. I feel it is an opinion article though and numbers have not been reviewed. Anyway, lets start from CLOP issues. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does 2nd paragraph of Middle East section violate [[WP:CLOP]]? 

message: This is unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that white majority rules was accompanied by persecution of Christians, especially given the importance within the Afrikaner movement of the dutch reformed Church.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By citing “the importance within the (white nationalist) Afrikaner movement of the Dutch Reformed Church you have inadvertently reinforced the point of the bit you deleted! The Dutch Reformed Church supported and provided a spiritual justification for apartheid and in 1982 the DRC was expelled from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which declared apartheid to be a sin/heresy.
46.193.76.98 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not persecution of Christians, that is racism.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

text:  It is more than simply racism. If you read the sources provided you will see that the white Christians persecuted black Christians, who they referred to as being descendants of Cain. Besides for providing a theological justification for apartheid generally, the white Christians persecuted black Christians within their own church! They forced them to worship separately. Finally, Christians who pointed out that this was heretical were persecuted for standing up for their faith, and persecuted by these heretical white Christians. 213.205.198.84 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But not because they were Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I was less charitable and deleted it - it shouldn't stand without some citation -----Snowded TALK 09:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have done, but am not gona take the risk of an edit war given the recent history of this page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Well if someone edit wars over an uncited addition they are heading straight for a block. But I understand :-)  -----Snowded TALK 10:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear what I was concerned about would be the appearance of taking advantage of as block, not that the block was that user.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

text: How about "The social segregation of Black, Coloured and White people was reflected in the establishment of churches of these three groups.", race not religion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Err I have not made that claim, I am saying that if there was any persecution it was because they were black, not because they were christian.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: If you go back through the archives you can see the long discussion we had about the cut off date. Its wholly arbitrary. As to squatters, its a reference to the thread at the top of this page about how just squatting in a church is not persecution of Christians. The fact that not everything ever done to a Christian maybe an example of persecution. That the be counted as persecution an RS has to call it that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: It depends on why, and no just having meetings illegal is not automatically a form of persecution. If the Church of St Lemmy of the emaculate wart was to set up next door to a hospital and play "Bomber" at 15,000 decibels at two O'clock in the morning closing it down would not be persecuting them, they are breaking a reasonable law. Again, we need RS saying it was persecution, not OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

text: No because I have already pointed out how I have used the self same argument to object to other content. Go back over the talk page archives and you will see me making this self same point for whole sections. Oh and given that sound equipment was ceased, no it is not far fetched to assume that in all cases those churches were in violation of noise abatement orders or local government ordinances. That is why we do not allow OR, I can think of reasonable reasons why this was done, your reasonable reasons do not trump mine. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: I would like to remove the tag from the top of the article.  I believe the lead's problems have been fixed.  If there is no disagreement ov er the next week, I will do so.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr are you not following the thread above this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that referencing WP guidelines would be sufficient to have ended that discussion. It should be.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When we disagree on what policy means it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's straightforward imo, but we'll see what other input has to say on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should probably go ahead and remove that tag as a leftover without current value, as  has described, so that no one else like me comes along and thinks it needs fixing. I like your little list!  Good luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it may still need expanding, just not in the way you did it. But I will anyway as nothing has been done about it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like to see done? I would like to assist. Surely we can do this together. I think we just handled this disagreement quite well.  It resolved very quickly without animosity--do you not agree?  I'm flexible and cooperative, and you have some definate ideas for this article, so I don't see any reason why we can't do what needs doing.  Tell me what you want.  I'll do the research and come back with something.  You can eviscerate at will. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, it may be a minor thing but the dates don't match now--one says 1993, the other says 1989. That should probably be fixed which I will leave to you as I assume you have a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one of the old conflicted the tag may have referred to, what the hell the article is about.Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I like that you were Bold and jumped out there and picked a date, however, the mealy-mouthed addition of 'perceived' and the rest seems out of character with an article that is, so far, allowing no discussion of whether or not it is occurring or is just perception.  If you put that in the lead, it should be somewhere in the body, and so far, you have indicated you don't want it and have been supported in that.  If you want to change the article to include a discussion of "perception" and accuracy of the claim, I will be glad to return and help with that.  Otherwise, your change does not reflect content.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Tag from top of article