Template talk:Religious persecution

message: Isn't this template inherently carrying bias. To place on a page, "this group has been persecuted by/persectued" seems awfully POV no matter how true (or not) it may be... (just my 2 cents) Makenji-san 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Question

message: We need a two-way grid really, "Persecution of atheists by Mormons", "Persecution of Zoroastrians by Christians", etc.  Admittedly, some would be a bit short. Poetlister 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, the longest article would probably be "Persecution of Christians by Christians".  We'd then need to split it into  "Persecution of Protestants by Catholics" and vice versa, etc.  RachelBrown 10:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Afraid I have to agree with you. Poetlister 10:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two way grid? 

message: where are the zoroastrians? Sohrab Irani 02:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: zoroastrians?

message: I don't see why there should be a separate entry for Germanic pagans, when there is already one for Pagans in general. DFH 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further duplication - Heathens and Pagans are the same.  One just redirects to the other. This is overkill! DFH 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody responded, I have just removed some of the duplication. DFH 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagans and Germanic pagans 

message: As some of these links are to subsections in the main article about that religion, rather than wait indefinitely for someone to write "persecution of the Cathars", and "persecution of the Zoraoastrians" articles, I've linked to the relevant subsections in the main articles. I'm wondering if we should do the same for the two hidden links, Sikhism and Spiritualism. Sikhs#Sikhism in the Western World has a section on recent persecution, which I guess I'll just add if no one objects.  However there is no section on persecution in the Spiritualism article.   ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks and hidden links 

message: Okay, if you're going to generalize people by religion, then do it equally, do it fairly. The first three are RELIGIONS. The last one is a COUNTRY. You should do one of two things:
1) Replace "Christians", "Jews", and "Muslims" under the "by persecuting group" column with the specific NATIONS that did the persecuting, or
2) Replace "Soviet Union" under said column with "Atheists".
It is not fair to say that when the Soviet Union persecuted people, it was the Soviet Union not Atheists that did the persecuting, but when anyone else persecuted people, it was (religion) and not the respective nation or country. You are either being unfair towards religion, or letting atheists off the hook. Take your pick, and fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.227.63 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christians, Jews, Muslims" then "Soviet Union"...WTF??? 

message: We don't seem to be able to describe the persecuted in a NPOV was so as per some of the suggestions in  we should remove the persecuting group. They do seem very contrived given they do not point to articles but sections inside articles. This does seem like a pic-n-mix approach. Ttiotsw 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the persecuting group altogether as POV ? 

message: By Persecuting group lists Buddhists and yet the Wikilink to that article is unclear why Buddhists are listed. The only reference to the word "Persecut*" is with "Buddhists were briefly persecuted under the Zoroastrian priest-king Kirder.". Huh ? They were persecuted not the "...persecuting group:"  surely shome mistake ? I vote they are removed along with all the other atheists ! Ttiotsw 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still seems like a good delete so I was bold and did it. Ttiotsw 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhists listed as a Persecuting group yet....? 

message: These are the "notable events" in the infobox...
*Dechristianisation in French Revolution 
*Uprising in 1920's Mexico 
*Spanish Civil War of the 1930s 
You gotta be kidding me...  Where's the Inquisition?  Persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans? Persecution of the Huguenots? Persecution of Catholics and others in England? And on and on...
I cannot believe that these three are the three most notable events in the history of religious persecution.  I'm going to be bold and remove them from the infobox.  If anyone disagrees, revert me but also explain why you think these events deserve to be highlighted.
--Richard 05:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See your comment now.  Can we add those?  Seems like they'd all be useful, unless it became a big gang-up on somebody, or some other problem.Mackan79 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of events would I guess be special events that didn't exactly fit into a category, or maybe the very largest types of upheavals.  The Inquisition would seem like it would have to fit; as to persecution of Christians by Jews or by Romans, that's in the main article, I believe, no? Mackan79 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The strange change of categorization within the template from organization by presecuting group to "notable events" was a plain act of POV pushing to remove atheists as a persecuting group.  Significantly, that change still listed religions as persecutors.  That change to the template is blatant POV and is unacceptable.  There was nothing wrong with the organization of the template as it was.  It made more sense, it was neutral and it was consistent. Mamalujo 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's problematic to focus the template on who has committed persecution, particularly when the articles don't match up such that you have five on one group and one on others.  If there's material on persecution by atheists, that could certainly be made into an article.  In any case, I'd think a more helpful template would focus on things that don't look like accusations, which would probably mean moving the "by group" material somewhere lower. Mackan79 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be fine with me. Mackan79 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply rearranging the order of a POV laden edit (whether the POV was intentional or not) does not cure the problem.  The previous organization of the template made the most sense.  Removing areligious groups as persecutors while retaining religions as persecutors is POV and greatly misleading.  The greatest persecution of religion in the 20th century was not by other religions but by those opposed to religion.  Mamalujo 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mamalujuo, I don't believe I removed them; the problem is that those aren't actually articles on persecution by atheists, but a group of articles on events which have been named that for purposes of the template. Surely you see the problem with this. I'm suggesting if we move all of that to the bottom, then it's less of an issue, while the events involving atheists are still included under their actual names. Also religious persecution here is being defined by those against whom it's being done (the article is on persecution of religions, not by them), which suggests to me that the victims should go on the top. Mackan79 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they ARE articles about persecution by atheists and anti-clericals, whether or not they bear that moniker.  I do see what you're saying is the problem, but I don't think it is a real issue.  Moreover, the countervailing problem is greater.  By far, the greatest persecution of religion in the 20th century was not by other religions but was by those opposed to religion, namely atheists and anticlerical in latin countries and atheist states in the communist world.  The revised template is thus less factually acurate and it moved away from the simple and workable organization which it had.Mamalujo 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Mackan79 on how they have re-arrange this. It is more logical view. Whereas Mamalujo is clearly inventing new titles for articles by plucking words he wants out of articles (in some cases inventing new words not even present in the linked articles). The articles ARE also about *men* being the oppressers (from a feminist POV) or *meat-eaters* (from a  Vegetarian POV) or heterosexuals (from a homosexual POV)...there are many other possible attributes plucked to push a point. You are plucking out "atheists" to reword article titles and present a particular spin to the template and this is against the broader consensus of editors.  If you want articles with "atheist" this or that in the title then start them and then they may fit here.Ttiotsw 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Category has all of this. The Template is a navigator to help logically group articles. You seem to be suggesting we group by body-count. Ttiotsw 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm not suggesting we order it by body count.  I'm suggesting we keep the simple and sensible organization which it had: by persecuting group and by persecuted group.  You prefer the current haphazard and obfuscated organization because you refuse to believe that atheists have ever persecuted people based on their faith.Mamalujo 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're kind of in agreement except I think the victimized (i.e. persecuted) people are more important than the persecutors and so should figure up on the top of the list. The strategy used is important as it is victim-focused and then the persecutors and then some significantly related events. This does seem to be the consensus view whereas there is no consensus for your views (especially your inventing new and imaginative titles for article wikilinks) and I don't know exactly where I figure personally in this. Ttiotsw 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable events 

message: Some of my edits made on this date will without doubt be controversial. With that in mind, I ask the following. I made three edits, one of which only contained formatting changes. When reverting, please adhere to the new formatting as it is used throughout Wikipedia, from  to . --User:Krator (t c) 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy. The template was bloating out a bit and messing up articles. Ttiotsw 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on 25 July 

message: I had added State religion as it clearly is a means of religious discrimination (and historically a form of persecution) as much as say "State atheism" has ever been but it has been reverted. In the UK the Acts of Settlement (and other laws) are clearly intended to discriminate against Catholics or to provide the one State religion with an advantage of all others (for example the Blasphemy laws in the UK only apply/applied to the Church of England). In the many countries that have State religions today though the persecution is not as cruel as in the past, the discrimination still remains. The template is clearly titled "Religious discrimination and persecution" and whilst State religion discriminates and we have reliable sources that can show examples of State religions that are discriminatory then it should be listed in this template. Ttiotsw 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that in many countries that have state religions like afghanistan, iran and egypt, persecution is as cruel as in the past. In fact I think citing the UK as your example is a mistake, since muslim countries that execute apostates from the state religion are much less ambiguous examples. These countries don't care about jewish converts to christianity for instance, only converts from islam, and indeed it sometimes occurs that conversions are forced, by a muslim simply claiming someone converted, then forcing them to affirm the conversion or be killed as an apostate. Oh and as a final rhetorical question to those objecting to the inclusion, if state religion wasn't a means of religious persecution, why then do the US and Australian constitutions specifically forbid the establishment of state religions? ornis (t) 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it probably belongs in this template, I removed it because the article State religion does not state any kind of connection to persecution. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and currently there is no verifiable connection between state religion and religious persecution. User:Krator (t c) 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out both as an attempted compromise. It seems to me both can involve persecution, while neither does necessarily. Of course, this is similar to some of the others such as anti-clericalism, but it seems to me a fairly clear NPOV problem with representing either state religion or state atheism as inherently a "strategy" or "method" of religious persecution. Mackan79 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By Form does sound more neutral. The consensus seems to be flowing back to adding State atheism so my original argument still applies for State religion. Please note that the template includes "Religious discrimination and persecution" (my bold). Inclusion can thus be either from discrimination  or persecution. The Religious discrimination (thanks to the US State Department and their "International Religious freedom (excluding the US)" reports has plenty of material to make it stick (well and also thanks to Islamic countries !. Ttiotsw 10:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State religion is clearly religious discrimination. 

message: I am adding state atheism back into the template.  Quite frankly, it indisputably belongs and never should have been removed.  An argument that it does not belong can only be cobbled together by very strained sophisty.  And no, the fact that it belongs in the template does not mean that state religion also belongs.  The latter commonly exists without persecution; the former does not.  Mamalujo 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is for both discrimination too. It is good that the State atheism is added back in as to balance that we need the State religion. Others had removed them. Ttiotsw 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Atheism 

message: Looking through various articles, it appears to me that this template is being overused.  In particular, it's now been added largely by one editor to most of the events listed on the bottom portion of the template, which doesn't seem helpful to me.  One can go through the articles and look, but putting large templates on articles like Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution, Red Terror - Spain, Cristero War, etc. characterizing these as articles about "Religious discrimination and persecution" seems rather soap boxy; surely the articles are about a number of things including these issues, but primarily about the events themselves.  My suggestion would be to generally put the template on articles about discrimination, but not about specific events.  Other thoughts?  Mackan79 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overuse

message: Greetings. Over at WikiProject Discrimination we are looking to split our currently-overgrown Template:Discrimination sidebar into finer scopes such as racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, etc., including religious discrimination. Not wanting to accidentally create a fork here, how do the contributors here feel that Template:Religious persecution would fit in this plan, and/or related to WP Discrimination? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Discrimination 

message: Can Anti-clericalism be classified as "persecution"? It appears that the anti-clericalists simply want to strip power and prestige from the clergy, not arrest or rob  or even kill them.Bless sins (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my concern, too. As far as I can see, the article  Anti-clericalism doesn't distinguish between religious persecution and persecution for political reasons; now, one could argue that this is both religious persecution if it goes against a religion, (see the case of Jesuit priests in Great Britain in the 17th century), but this needs to be debated in the article or in the article religious persecution; if people whould actually do that we could decide whether 'Anti-clericalism' should be linked in the template. On the other hand: if violence against Christians for political reasons is to be considered religious persecution, than violence by Christians for political reasons also need to be considered religious persecution. So we whould need to specify the clerical element within the White Terror and link that, too. I guess until someone does some work on the Anti-clericalism article the link to it can be removed from the template. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-clericalism indisputably has often entailed persecution.  Not always, but neither does state religion always entails persecution (England, Malta, Denmark, and Argentina all have state religion). Anti-clericalism in France, Mexico and Spain, to name a few, has involved serious persecution including killings of innocent faithful and clergy.  I think it's clear the article should remain on the template.  Mamalujo (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate it if you could actually respond to my concerns here; in what sense has "Anti-clericalism indisputably (...) often entailed persecution", answered the question whether clerics had become the victims of persecution because of their religioun or purely because or because of their (presumded) political activities? In the latter case, what is about the victims of crimes that were committed by clerics during the civil wars of the 20th century? Should they also be considered victims of religious persecution?   I' d really wish that people could try to distinuish here (after all, this is an encyclopedia)  and that they wouldn't display an  attidute that would be more appropriate in other contexts.  Yes, the killing "of innocent faithful and clergy" is wrong and despicable, but in the last century millions of innocent died. In the articles about these topcis, we are not helped by a template "Religious persecution" that lists cases of political violence as religious persecution. Zara1709 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Red Terror (Spain) article, for example, you will see that almost 7,000 religious (priests, nuns, monks) were killed.  As a rule they had no involvement in politics.  In fact, I believe close to 1,000 have been beatified or canonized now (with about another 1,000 causes having been opened), and one of the requirements is that they were not killed because of their politics or as combatants (otherwise they would not be martyrs).  The same is the case with regard to the persecution by anti-clericals in Mexico.  Thousands of priests were also killed during the Reign of Terror.   In Mexico, the president Plutarco Elias Calles was an atheist who had absolute contempt for religion.  His closing of churches and killing of priests was not with regard to their politics; he simply sought to crush the church.  The same was true of Tabasco's governor Tomas Garrido Canabal.  As to whether it was persecution, the English writer Graham Greene, who lived in Mexico during the persecution of the church, called it the "fiercest persecution of religion anywhere since the reign of Elizabeth." Mamalujo (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-clericalism 

message: Please consider the removal of this Template from the article on War in the Vendée. I agree that there were episodes of religious prosecution in the conflict, but the template of religious prosecution in the article is excessive, bungles up the article, and serves no real purpose. Templates should be used where the issue or topic represented by it is directly related to the article, and closely connected with it. Following the logic of putting this template up over every single article having to do with events, conflict and war with religion as backdrop would make this template appear in practically all articles on historical conflicts. I don't see it -and quite correctly- in the Albigensian Crusade article, or in any of the Crusade articles, for instance... I don't really see what it's doing in the War in the Vendée. Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly not religious persecution in the narrow sense. There were atrocities committed, but no one was put on trial as heretic (as in Inquisition), there were no laws that prohibited certain forms of worship etc. I'll remove the template for now.Zara1709 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks muchly :) (Dr Benway (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: From reading the article it is plainly an instance of egregious religious persecution: clergy imprisoned, women beaten on the way to Mass, monastics suppressed, property confiscated, virtually all churches ordered closed.  Moreover, sources typically say "religious persecution" was a cause of the uprising. Mamalujo (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditto Overuse 

message: Yorkshirian recently made and edit reducting the template to a bar and then, on each of the articles, moving the bar to then end of the article.  I am opposed to each of these edits, done without discussion, becuase they minimize the related articles which give perspective to various incidents of religious persecution.  Mamalujo (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the articles which you are putting it in, its squashing all of the pictures and all of the "edit" functions into a royal mess, making the articles unreadable. The template in a bar contains the exact same information, in the exact same articles, only it doesn't screw up the articles but pushing all the images down to the bottom and messing up the format. I've reverted. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been a longstanding format. It should be discussed before such a major format change is made.  I think there will be a consensus to keep it as is.  What articles have been "messed up"? Mamalujo (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think reducing this template to a bar is a great idea. There is no reason for it to be brought at the top of an article - it is rather unlikely that someone who is reading the article Persecution of Christians would be interested in the article Discrimination against atheists, for example. Zara1709 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: This template must be a navbar, not a free-floating box. The box is very large and disrupts the design and narrative flow of all the articles to which it is attached. (I noticed this disruption in many articles on the French Revolution, and it seems to have universal effect throughout WP.) The links it contains are on an order lesser than "See Also" links, so it should always be placed at the bottom, in the template area, unless individual placements can be supported by persuasive reasoning (on article Talk pages). SteveStrummer (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of Template to Bar and movement of bars to bottom of article 

message: Perhaps this has been discussed already, but it seems to me that the events subsection of the template makes no sense, because there is simply no way to include every instance of religious persecution in there. Either it should be deleted (and if there are no responses to this in a few days, I'll do so) or we need to develop a set of inclusion criteria that are both meaningful and would limit the links to a reasonable number. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events subsection 

message: While this template is too long already and the extent of the Roman persecutions are subject to scholarly discussion, I think it was common enough and well know enough to gain a spot. The dates are from the page itself, starting with the first persecution and ending with Constantine's conversion. Suomi13 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman persecution of Christians 

message: I'm dumping the following which (skimming their pages) had nothing to do with religion:
-Rwandan genocide
-Hutu Ten Commandments
-Anfal
-Rwandan Revolution Suomi13 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting