Talk:Christianity and violence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Inquisition

This section is tagged as needing additional citations for verification. The section has 8 citations for two paragraphs of text. What precisely needs additional citations? Could we just tag the sentence that needs a citation instead of putting this vague tag on the whole section? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the text in this section is not related to violence. The sources cited do not mention violence. The insertion of the material into this article is OR because it implies an association (with violence) that is not made by the sources cited, but rather is made by the editor. It is POV because the piling on of irrelevant negative material could be construed by readers as an attempt to portray the religion in a negative light. Question for Richard: can you supply a source for each sentence in this section, wherein the source is discussing violence? If not, that means you are the one making the association with violence, so it doesn't belong. --Noleander (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me comment that almost all of this text existed in the article before I began my radical restructuring of the article. This is what the article text looked like back on October 27:

Christian leaders and Christian doctrines have been accused of justifying and perpetrating violence during the Inquisition.[29] A legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad exstirpanda of 1252, which authorized and regulated the use of torture in investigating heresy. The inquisition expanded in size and scope following the twelfth century in response to the Church's fears that heretics were exerting improper and harmful influence on members of the church. The inquisition was initially used by the church to help it identify persons that were heretics. Later, the Church expanded the inquisition to include torture as a way to determine the guilt of suspected heretics.[30]

The Spanish Inquisition was a tribunal established in 1478. The Spanish Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave. Although the Inquisition was technically forbidden from permanently harming or drawing blood, this still allowed for methods of torture.[31]

The only change since October 27th has been the addition of this sentence:

John Teehan characterizes the Spanish Inquisition as "one of the most virulent examples of religious violence in history"

The Inquisition is generally considered to have been one of the most salient examples of violent suppression of heresy (or enforcement of orthodoxy, if you prefer). Now, apologists for the Catholic Church will argue that the Catholic Inquisition was rarely violent and that punishment of heretics was generally carried out by secular authority not ecclesiastical authority. Is this the argument that you are making?

Are you criticizing the text itself which does mention torture a number of times or are you arguing that the sources don't support the text? Are you arguing that torture doesn't qualify as violence or that the Inquisition's reputation for torture is greater in the public mind than it really was (another argument of Catholic apologists).

Do you reject the proposition that the very existence of the Inquistion is a threat of implied violence?

In any event, I didn't write the text (in this case, I didn't even copy it) so the challenge to the text and its sources falls to someone else to defend against.

--Pseudo-Richard 16:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see all the causes, there were many getting rich off the Inquisition, politics, money, and power, will be found in almost every case of the religious upheavals during the period. One can make a very strong argument that the 30 years war was Christian Violence and Heretical suppression and again the Spanish Armada. The English Revolution is just one of many and let us not forget Cromwell's Irish invasion. We have Charlemagne's rampage on the Saxons as yet another example. In each of these you have a King/Emperor/Warlord with a lot to gain as an outcome to warring for Christ. Now the fact that the biblical Jesus would not lift a hand in his own defense aside, they had much to gain in warring. The Papacy got to gain control of the Holy Lands, the Nobles got to be Kings of new lands, this is an area to me that would seem need some exploration also.Tirronan (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Witch hunts

This section is tagged as potentially containing original research and needing additional citations for verification. There are 21 citations for three paragraphs of text. What exactly is being considered original research here? Can we tag the specific assertions that are deemed to be in need of support rather than tagging the entire section? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the text in this section is not related to violence. The sources cited do not mention violence. The insertion of the material into this article is OR because it implies an association (with violence) that is not made by the sources cited, but rather is made by the editor. It is POV because the piling on of irrelevant negative material could be construed by readers as an attempt to portray the religion in a negative light. Question for Richard: can you supply a source for each sentence in this section, wherein the source is discussing violence? If not, that means you are the one making the association with violence, so it doesn't belong. --Noleander (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me comment that I am unsure how much of this text can be attributed to me. User:Yt95 and User:Taiwan boi have made recent edits and I haven't bothered to go figure out who did what. So I am going to take the approach that this text was written by someone else and critique it without any sense of personal ownership of the text.

I didn't personally read any of the sources cited in the text but, as I said, I'm not sure exactly who wrote what so it's not really my responsibility to have read every source. If you doubt the sources, you can either verify them yourself or ask the person who inserted the source to provide a quote per WP:BURDEN.

Most of what follows is responding to Noleander's comment that "the majority of the text in this section is not related to violence". I agree that the text focuses not so much on detailing incidents of physical violence but instead focuses on the relation between theological doctrine and witch-hunts which I argue are, by definition, violent.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the current text:

"A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. TheWitch trials in the Early Modern period were a period of witch hunts that occurred between the 15th and 18th centuries,[117] when across Early Modern Europe, and to some extent in the European colonies in North America, there was a widespread hysteria that malevolent Satanic witches were operating as an organized threat to Christendom. Over the entire duration of the phenomenon of some four centuries, an estimated total of 40,000 to 60,000 people were executed. "

This paragraph is clearly about violence. In general, witch-hunts were generally violent either through actual physical violence or implied threats of violence. Being tried for witchcraft implies a pretty strong threat of serious violence.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Three developments in Christian doctrine have been identified as factors contributing significantly to the witch hunts: 1) a shift from the rejection of belief in witches to an acceptance of their existence and powers, 2) developments in the doctrine of Satan which incorporated witchcraft as part of Satanic influence, 3) the identification of witchcraft as heresy."

This sentence links Christianity to witch-hunts and, as such, is appropriate to the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Belief in witches and supernatural evil were widespread in medieval Europe,[118] and the secular legal codes of European countries had identified witchcraft as a crime before being reached by Christian missionaries.[119] Scholars have noted that the early influence of the Church in the medieval era resulted in the revocation of these laws in many places,[120][121] bringing an end to traditional pagan witch hunts.[122]Throughout the medieval era mainstream Christian teaching denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition.[123] Notable instances include an Irish synod in 800,[124] Agobard of Lyons,[125] Pope Gregory VII,[126] and Serapion of Vladimire.[127] The traditional accusations and punishments were likewise condemned.[128][129] Historian Brian Hutton therefore exculpates the early Church from responsibility for the witch hunts, arguing that this was the result of doctrinal change in the later Church.[130]"

This section attempts to exculpate the church from early witch-hunts. It is about the relationship of Christianity to witch-hunts and, as such, is appropriate to the article.

"However, Christian influence on popular beliefs in witches and maleficium (harm committed by magic), failed to eradicate traditional beliefs,[131] and developments in the Church doctrine of Satan proved influential in reversing the previous dismissal of witches and witchcraft as superstition; instead these beliefs were incorporated into an increasingly comprehensive theology of Satan as the ultimate source of allmaleficium.[132][133] The work of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century was instrumental in developing the new theology which would give rise to the witch hunts,[134] but due to the fact that sorcery was judged by secular courts it was not until maleficium was identified with heresy that theological trials for witchcraft could commence.[135] Despite these changes the doctrinal shift was only completed in the 15th century,[136]when it first began to result in Church-inspired witch trials.[137] Promulgation of the new doctrine by Henricus Institoris met initial resistance in some areas,[138] and some areas of Europe only experienced the first wave of the new witch trials in the latter half of the 16th century.[139][140]"

This section explains how Christian doctrine evolved from denying belief in witches to providing theological support for witch hunts. As such, it seems appropriate for the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In summary, this section doesn't discuss the violence of witch-hunts very much. It establishes it the lead sentence and in the mention of 40,000-60,000 executions. IMO, that's enough to establish that there is real physical violence involved. Then, instead of discussing specific instances of witch-hunts, it focuses on the linkage between Christianity and witch-hunts. I don't see what the problem is here. If editors really feel it necessary to add more examples of actual physical violence, that can be done but I think the current article text does a reasonbly good job of presenting the more important issue of Christianity's complicity in witch-hunts. I will comment that the Salem witch trials were conducted by Protestants and I think there should be some mention of the fact that Protestants continued the practice of witch-hunts and so it's not just a Catholic thing. --17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation and Vericity

In the interests of getting this article back on the right track I including a slightly change item that I brought to another Editor's attention.

Please don't just copy and paste from another article Look what you copied might be platinum rated citations and be among the best in all of Wikipedia, or it might be the worst and we wouldn't know which... It isn't a secret that there are lots of bad articles that need attention and lots of bad citations and occasionally even outright deceit. I ran across that with an Editor flirting with a ban on the War of 1812. When we are reviewing and working on an article it makes it much worse. I work on Naval and War histories and I use one standard. If I can read it and understand that it is a good work by a reputable historian then I will use it for citation. I promise you there are lots of us that stick like iron to that standard. There are others that do not and you can't count that if you copy and paste like that you are doing anyone a favor. Now I admit that my personal library is huge and costs me dearly in expenditures so I can recommend the public library but lets not copy and paste unless you are doing the actual work you are copying.

Again please:

Reliable sources and notability Further information: Wikipedia:Notability If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Reliable sources and original research Further information: Wikipedia:No original research The No original research policy (NOR) has three requirements relevant to the Verifiability policy: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.[2] Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

Access to sources Policy shortcuts: WP:PAYWALL WP:SOURCEACCESS See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material.

The Editor providing the citation NEEDS to have ACTUALLY read the source, this isn't my policy it is a Wikipedia policy.Tirronan (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Where in the Wikipedia policies does it say that "the editor providing the citation needs to have actually read the source"? Verifiability says that "anyone should be able to check that that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source." The citation is verifiable; if you doubt it, you can verify it and if it fails verification, you can tag it as failing verification or just remove the citation and even the associated text. Look, if the text is good, you can help improve it by providing a good source (in exactly the same manner as if the text had been inserted without a source). If the text is bad, then just say so and we can discuss how to improve it or whether we should just delete it altogether. Let's not engage in Wikilawyering about whether the source was inserted by the current editor or by another Wikipedia editor of another article. Focus on whether the material is good or not. If you can't assume good faith, then get out your challenge gun and start challenging anything you don't like. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard it isn't a matter of assuming you have good faith, until proven otherwise I assume every Editor is speaking with good faith. It is obvious to me that you do care about the subject and I repeat I love seeing that. The problem here is you are counting on things you have no idea about the sources of whatsoever. If you tell me that Lewis Carroll is a great author and here is a citation that you provide I am going to believe you unless proven otherwise, but you are not providing the content or the citation and I can have no clue as to it being correct or not AND NEITHER CAN YOU. Look, contributing and citing in some of these articles can be tough, we ever meet a a Wiki convention I'll tell you how much research I had to do to actually add work to the Battle of Jutland (talk about a high bar sheesh) but it can take real work to do so. So to clarify, I've caught Editors using travel books, children's books, and overviews of 20 battles as sources to back up articles with really serious historic material by the ton. I am not saying that you have done this but you can't really know that what you are cutting and pasting hasn't. This isn't good editing by a long shot.Tirronan (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Say where you read it Shortcuts: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example; there are several ways this can be written): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2. For a source available in hardcopy, microform, and/or online, omit, in most cases, which one you read. While it is useful to cite author, title, edition (1st, 2d, etc.), and similar information, it generally is not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EbscoHost, or JStor (see the list of academic databases and search engines) or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL. However, you should provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you should provide the URL for that link. And if the source exists only online, give the link even if access is restricted.

I think that will settle that question, please go through the article where you have cut and pasted content and citation and either provide actual citation or remove it...Tirronan (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Underlying philosophy of the current article

I admit that there is a lot of work left to do but I still think the article is in far better shape now than it was on October 27 when I started. I think it may be useful to explain the philosophy behind my reorganization of the article.

This is what it looked like on October 27. The Oct 27th version of the article did provide some conceptual discussion of Christian opposition to violence and justification of violence but then simply provided a list of "Historical instances" without providing much conceptual framework to help the reader understand the major themes.

The current article organization tries to get away from the "list of instances approach". It breaks up the list into major categories such as: suppression of heresies, persecution of pagans, antisemitism, etc. For the most part, these are the categories that are used by the sources. In some cases, (e.g. witch-hunts), there was no obvious major category to fit it into so I left it as a category unto itself (sui generis).

The critical issue is that, for the most part, the article no longer focuses on specific incidents but instead discusses broad categories of violence and Christianity's alleged role in fomenting or supporting that violence. Instead of just cataloging the incidents, the article uses (or should use) the incidents to illustrate points about the categories of violence.

Thus, we can see that the Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre are all examples of the Catholic Church's suppression of heresies.

The Iron Guard is an example of antisemitism but it is ridiculous to mention the Iron Guard and not mention the much more controversial role of the Catholic and Protestant churches in supporting or at least failing to adequately oppose Nazism. A failure to mention the Reichskonkordat and Hitler's Pope is just laughable. The failure to mention the rethinking of Christian antisemitism in view of Nazism and the Holocaust is ludicrous.

Mentioning the plight of Native Americans is worthwhile but it ignores the larger question of the role of Christian missionaries during the era of European colonialism.

And, no, this is not all original research. Much of this is supported by citations to reliable sources. If there are sections where the writing is bloated and dwells too much on the background, I apologize for this. There was so much to write and it was easier to borrow text from other Wikipedia articles than write it all myself.

I'm sorry that Noleander thinks that I suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I made a very earnest effort in November to address Noleander's concerns. I did a lot of research and provided quotes and citations for much of what I added.

I remain open to having the article rewritten to improve the quality. I just wanted to explain what my thought process was in reorganizing the October 27th version of the article.

I understand Noleander's desire to limit the article to text that is specifically related to violence. I gather from his previous comments that, by this, he means "physical violence" and not the "institutionalized violence" such as slavery and antisemitism that some sources talk about. I think this kind of restriction would result in an inferior article that does not reflect the way that the sources that write about Christianity and violence talk about the subject. I can back this up with quotes although it will take some time to do this.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the right place to put this but I would like to ask of you all to think about a shift to a more multi-focus view, one of the things that really stuck out was on the Nazi section it speaks only of how Christians didn't oppose the Nazi's or cooperated, both happened, but in a picture caption it is noted that some 27,000 Catholic Priests were eliminated for opposition? Where is the counter story? There were Christian organizations moving Jews out of Europe as well. Some things here concern me, one of them is that the arcticles scope is so large that running through the mass if issues only allows for a brief "this is how Christianity was involved and was wrong/violent". I'm an American Southerner white/cherokee mix so for me there is a whole lot more to the story of American Slavery than this article implies both good and bad. Yes you had many a southern minister preaching the rightness and goodness of slavery, and you had the Abolishtionist movement that was Christian based and Christian driven that isn't mentioned. Perhaps it is just that the article is too large to do anything more but we provide only one tale here and that isn't very good.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism

This section is tagged as potentially containing original research. This section is fairly heavily supported with citations. Can we identify the specific issues that are of concern? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the text in this section is not related to violence. The sources cited do not mention violence. The insertion of the material into this article is OR because it implies an association (with violence) that is not made by the sources cited, but rather is made by the editor. It is POV because the piling on of irrelevant negative material could be construed by readers as an attempt to portray the religion in a negative light. Question for Richard: can you supply a source for each sentence in this section, wherein the source is discussing violence? If not, that means you are the one making the association with violence, so it doesn't belong. --Noleander (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok we need to review this section please hold off from making anymore copies from other articles as this needs a pretty through going over.

• Some charge that Christianity fomented and incited antisemitism which, in turn, was responsible for the Holocaust.

Some, is not acceptable in Wikipedia, instead we need to put who, this is a very serious charge for a nebulous somebody to make without attribution.

• Some religious scholars have found what they claim are antisemitic passages in the New Testament and the patristic writings, thus arguing that antisemitism has its roots in early Christianity. Some Christian apologists rebut this charge by drawing a distinction between "anti-Judaism" and "anti-semitism" claiming that Christianity has only been anti-Judaic and not anti-semitic. They define anti-Judaism as a disagreement of religiously sincere people with the tenets of Judaism, while regarding antisemitism as an emotional bias or hatred not specifically targeting the religion of Judaism.

Again with the some, this is explictly not to wiki standards we need multiple authorities cited here instead again serious charges made on the basis of some... not some WHO!Tirronan (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing that this didn't happen but we don't list who and cite and there are no examples again. This makes this article look like a rant instead of a history.Tirronan (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok here is another weasel wording example: Some scholars such as Richard Harries argue that, in Western Christianity, anti-Judaism effectively merged into antisemitism by the 12th century.[200]

Again if we have two or three authors with the same view point this would be scholar Richard Harries, Tomas Jones, and Zackery Taylor, support the view that... cite, cite, and cite. Also we get nebulous lack of focus again, how many were displace, what methods were uses, how many killed and wounded even if it is best estimates by scholars. In example there are lots of figures for actual kia/wia in Borodino, see how that was handles but it keeps the article focused on the issue with facts not some people, some scholars, some hold, that is weasel wording and it is not to Wiki standards.Tirronan (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I read some of the sources cited in the Martin Luther section, and found no mention of violence, so the section was removed. --Noleander (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sectarian violence among Christians

This section is tagged as potentially containing original research. This is a long section with a number of subsections. Can we just tag the specific assertions and/or sections that are of concern rather than tagging the entire section? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide

This section is tagged as potentially containing original research and synthesis. What specifically are the concerns? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources indicate that official church doctrines were not directly related to the violence, but instead it was ethnically based. There were some persons involved with violence who happened to be Christian, even pastors, but that is not sufficient for inclusion in this article. Query: should every violent crime committed by a rabbi be mentioned in Judaism and violence? No of course not: if the perpetrators just happen to be members of the faith, that is not notable enough for the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this it just should not be in the article at all. There is no support even in the section for it.Tirronan (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-abortion

This section is tagged as potentially containing original research. What specifically are the concerns? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the text in this section is not related to violence. The sources cited do not mention violence. The insertion of the material into this article is OR because it implies an association (with violence) that is not made by the sources cited, but rather is made by the editor. It is POV because the piling on of irrelevant negative material could be construed by readers as an attempt to portray the religion in a negative light. Question for Richard: can you supply a source for each sentence in this section, wherein the source is discussing violence? If not, that means you are the one making the association with violence, so it doesn't belong. --Noleander (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed that section as well, holding an entire religion for a few individuals is a reach and no support, lacks consensus.Tirronan (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Cite

Ok folks, from this point on anything brought to this article needs to be properly cited. I can't unwind massive copy over from other articles nor does the article even make a pretense of anything but one POV any others being steadfastly ignored. Then again WP:Cite and WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT were steadfastly ignored. Lets do this over correctly and fairly this time, with our own work.Tirronan (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the initiative to start this article fresh. I also agree with the requirement that everything must be sourced. I also agree that the editor MUST READ the sources ... it is not acceptable to just copy paragraphs from other articles, even if those paragraphs have citations. However, there are a couple of additional requirements you did not touch on: (1) the sources of the material must discuss violence in relation to Christianity (it is not sufficient for the editor to make that association, or for other sources to make that connection); and (2) the requirement that the violence must be associated with the doctrines, texts, or leaders of Christianity (that is, it is not sufficient that the perpetrators just happened to be Christian). To recap:

1. Citations are required for all material (WP:Verifiability)
2. Editors must read the sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)
3. The sources of the material must discuss violence in relation to Christianity (WP:No original research)
4. It is not sufficient that the perpetrators just happened to be Christian: they must be significant leaders (WP:OR and WP:Undue)

Following these guidelines will produce a good quality article. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch Richard!Tirronan (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Tirronan is referring to in his comment above but since it was made after I started restoring his massive deletion, I have to hope that it is endorsing the edits I have made this morning. I am willing to accept the rules provided above although I suspect that different editors might disagree as to what the definition of violence is (i.e. limited to physical violence or extended to include implied threats of violence and "institutional violence"). Similarly, I think different editors might disagree as to what it means for a "significant leader" to be involved in violence as opposed to perpetrators who "just happen to be Christian". I'll defer discussion of the specifics for now.

I think Tirronan's revert was too drastic as it undid a lot of sourced work done by many editors (yes, including myself). As a compromise, I have gone through a recent revision (before Noleander's recent tagging) and commented out any sections where I knew the text was copied and the copied citations did not provide quotes or links to online copies of the text.

I acknowledge that this might still leave some POV issues and I invite Noleander to identify those by retagging the sections as he sees fit.

I am prepared to remove some sections entirely (e.g. anti-abortion or domestic violence). However, I think we should have an explicit discussion about these sections rather than just chucking them out arbitrarily.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not going to entirely revert what Richard did—at least not today—I'm going to come down on the side of agreeing rather emphatically with Tirronan and Noleander. I think that the rollback made by Tirronan grew out of comments that I made at my user talk, and those comments are still there for anyone to see. Personally, I would like the opening sections of the page to go back to something pretty similar to what Tirronan restored, although I'm also receptive to including some—not all, just some—of the expansions that Richard and others subsequently added. I also feel strongly about having the teachings about nonviolence and about justified violence come directly after the lead, before the examples of specific incidents of violence that should then follow. Given that earlier revisions of the page are always accessible, I think it makes bad sense to have hidden sections of text preserved on the page. I honestly don't know yet which examples should stay and which could go (because I still need more time to read more, and hey folks, it's not like I'm getting paid to do this promptly), but I agree with the guidelines described just above by Noleander.

Richard, I totally believe that you are acting in good faith, and with a thoughtful regard for what you believe is best for the article, but I'm going to ask you to accept that (1) you have explained your views very thoroughly already, (2) the rest of us have truly listened to what you have said, and (3) consensus is against you.

When I get around to it (note again I'm not getting paid to do this on anyone else's time frame), I'm going to do a major rewrite of what's currently on the page. When I do, I'll briefly put an "in use" tag at the top of the page, to avoid edit conflicts, and I will expect that other editors will cooperate with that. Then, I'll be happy to engage in discussions about fixing whatever I will inevitably have done wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, OK which sections have proper citation? Given 5 days you did nothing after promising me that you would begin to attack the issue which you did for 1 day. Do I have to start guessing which is right and wrong? Nor did you do a thing, despite several attempts on my part, to widen this beyond what is just another listing of endless paragraphs with the singular "Christianity is violent" without so much as a single other factor involved, you just ignored it. Perhaps the thing that really got to me was you demanding proof that you had to see the citation that you quoted then telling me that you had seen it, then telling me because the rule is written in Wikipedia it was unreliable and you were not going to follow it... EXACTLY what game are we playing here? You have yourself a bad case of not wanting to listen to other editors and telling me you won't follow a rule because you don't like it... Now that in and of itself is enough to drag you to an WP:ANI and have you explain to the admins why you haven't earned a topic ban. I don't want to resort to that but I am going to ask you to stop, I have no idea whatsoever where you got your citations, and I am guessing you don't either. I want the section including the Eastern Church, where you went to totally guessing, removed right now. If you don't know if a section has a viable citation, IE you read it, it goes not tomorrow... now. You are asking every editor here to accept your mia clupa and engage in behavior that you understand isn't allowed. Richard, WP:cite isn't a rule you get to choose to follow or not, if you are not willing to follow the rules then you can't edit here. You are not going to ignore the other editors and continue with the same behavior. I will second what has been said by Typofish and Noleander. There has been a consensus against what you are inserting into this article. As an olive branch extended to you I won't revert the entire thing provided that you completely remove the sections that don't have quotations that you provided and provided that it is done quickly. If not I will revert the entire mass again and you may revert and see what happens next. I am tired of the dragging of feet, demands for cooperation, followed by your doing exactly what you desire, that isn't collegiality it is taking advantage of the rest of us. Tirronan (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tirronan, you asked "which sections have proper citation?" The answer is: "I think that all text that has not been commented out has proper citation". I base this on the fact that I commented out almost everything that did not have a direct quote or a link to an online copy of the text. Now, in a few cases, I left in a citation or two that lacked a quote or link because it was surrounded by text that did have such citations. Thus, rather than plucking out a single citation which lacked a quote or citation, I left it in if I knew that it was not my citation (i.e. not one that I had copied from another article). There should be no significant sourcing issues left in the article at this point. It's late here so I will respond to your other points in the morning. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with removal of all material that does not satisfy the four requirements listed above in this Talk page section, including the sections Tirronan is removing or thinning today (Abortion, etc). The removal is consistent with WP policy and improves the article. --Noleander (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdent Here are the problems:

• I started looking through the refs and low and behold, there are refs from Cannon, from the Bible, both primary sources, I've noted these and I am removing the sections, that is the classic definition of . In this case you went to primary sources and made the opinion, or you copied it over from someone that did. Problem here is both are huge violations of either WP:Cite or WP:OR.
• Sections included where even in the articles it is admitted that the Church or Christianity was barely involved, why have it in there at all? It weakens the argument and makes an overly long article longer. Rowanda is the worst example and I removed it, what were you thinking? Those particular tribes have been going at each other back beyond recorded history, there isn't a shred of evidence that the Church mandated this, in fact the Vatican was horrified that one Catholic did this to another. The Russian Progams are another, Europeans didn't like Jews back to the pagan days. In the Holocaust we go way out of our way to show how little Christians help then on a caption we have 28,000 priests being killed, I assume for their whole hearted support of the Nazis? Looks like a reach on that one, the Church didn't do enough to stop violence, that isn't Christian Violence, and lost 28,000 priests opposing it but we don't want to talk about that...? That section needs to go it is so blatant a bias it offends me.
• Paragraph after Paragraph of instances of violence, cited or not, is exactly why this article has been nominated for deletions, it is a list by another name, it teaches nothing discusses nothing presents nothing but one singular idea, Christianity is Violent. Gee that makes for a wonderful argument. There instead should be three to four themes, here with a few well cited examples of each, it makes for a far more compelling case, and make no bones about it there are thing that should be discussed and they are not.
• There is no sacred cow here, there is no need to preserve writing because it was written. If the commentary doesn't stand on its own remove it.
• Ownership, there is more than one view here, they are not being heard, stop insisting this version be preserved. You have at least 3 editors telling you what is here is not worth keeping. I would prefer going back to the other edit and adding what should be added one at a time and to a plan that we can all agree with.

I think that you are a good editor but you have to cooperate with the other editors, there is a reason everyone is raring back at you on this article and apparently in others, they and now I, feel like you are not listening or going to listen. I am asking you to listen and join us as a fellow editor not the editor.Tirronan (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

Having removed all that I am comfortable removing, we need to start on the rewrite.

One of the issues we have beat around but not moved much on is the focus of the article, reading this it runs from Violence by Christians, Violence against Christians, Non-violent Christians, so we seem to lack a focus and the article wanders around without much of a purpose to the point of wondering why it is here at all? This looks to be the result of "oh that would be nice" instead of planning through the article to a conclusion and thus having a strong well written article with a central theme and supporting themes.

Given the title I am assuming that we want the central theme to be about Christian sanctioned or supported violence, with the non-violence thesis as a counter point. There are plenty of examples of both, and it should contain about four thick paragraphs is support of that theme.

I propose a second theme, Christianity based violence to expand the religion or denomination of Christianity. The primary example the beginning of the 30 year war. It morphed into something very different but that just means it can be used again later. The Crusades provide an excellent example though land grabbing nobles were also part if it see below.

A possible third theme, Christianity invoked as a Causus Belli, for war mostly as a cover for expansion of territory by Kings, Emperors, Nations and Clergy. Here again this can include the 30 years war, Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons (his own clergy were disapproving of it). The Serbian wars of expansion a modern example.

A possible forth theme, Christianity invoked as a cause to confiscate and enrich certain classes and to enforce class/societal roles, hardly the only religion so invoked (IE modern Iran), but the Spanish inquisition certainly would fit here as well as the rest of Europe and the witch hunts.

I believe this would serve to organize the article around events and we can concentrate on a few examples and still have room for counter arguments leading to a more balance article.

Where is everyone else's ideas on the future of the article?Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer that question the same way that I did about a gazillion edits ago (and, by the way, I was toying with the idea of requesting full protection for the article a little while ago). Find secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones, that self-describe as being about Christianity and violence (the sources by Volf and Weaver are examples that come to mind), and cover what they say is within the scope of the subject. Speaking in general terms, I think that the themes you describe above are not unreasonable, but I would approach those decisions in the way that I just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means please expand on what you are saying so that I may complete my understanding of what you are proposing?Tirronan (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's proposal. I would word it as follows: We should not create an outline and then fill it in. Instead, we should (1) find sources that associate violence with Christianity (as Trypto says: "self-described" sources are best: that explicitly acknowledge that their own topic is that association); (2) read the sources; (3) distill the source material into an encyclopedic summary; (4) put that summary into the article; (5) organize the sections of the article into a hierarchy, based on evident and sensible groupings. In contrast, it is a speculative and probably wasteful for editors to try to establish an outline here in the Talk page before the sources have been analyzed, collated, and summarized. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Noleander explained that very well. The reason it's a little hard for me to expand much more is that I still need to do exactly that kind of reading. (Anyone who wants me to do it sooner, I accept personal checks! (joke)). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I had written a longer reply but it just got eaten by my browser and I don't feel like rewriting it. In brief, I agree with Noleander if the intent is to go after sources like the ones in the sections on "Definition of violence" and "Christianity as a violent religion". I wrote these two sections and they are (IMO) well-sourced and NPOV.

If you guys think it will improve the article to have a meaty stub consisting of "Definition of violence", "Christianity as a violent religion", "Christian teaching on violence" and "Christian non-violence", I am willing to go with that as an interim version until we have the summary that Noleander proposes. This means we would delete or comment out for now everything after the sections on "Christian teaching" and "non-violence". --Pseudo-Richard (talk)

(Edit conflict) I should comment that, if memory serves me, Volf and Weaver do not really look at the specific examples of violence much at all. They are more interested in providing a theological defense of Christianity than a historical analysis of the violent incidents. Those who do perform a historical analysis are much more likely to have what you guys would consider to be an anti-Christian POV. In general, those sources with an anti-Christian agenda are more likely to get into lists of specific examples where as Christian apologists are more likely to say "OK, the examples are well documented. We stipulate to those facts. Now, let's talk about whether Christianity is actually to blame for these evil actions." --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with deleting all but the 4 sections Richard lists, but I'd like to hear from other editors before we take that step. I think such a "fresh start" would be of benefit to the article. All the material is in the history, so we can always retrieve it. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it matters that much. Everything is in the edit history, so we can always get things back. Sometimes it's better to just let it sit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... I removed all but the sections that we agreed to keep. My major heartburn had been around Tirronan's deletion of the sections on "Definition of violence" and "Christianity as a violent religion". Even those are not that well-written although they are adequately sourced and NPOV. If someone wrote a more concise summary, I'd be happy to see that replace the current quotefarmy text. I'm not wedded to the specific text of those sections. I just think we need to establish that this topic is not just POV OR that someone thought up as anti-Christian polemic. There is real scholarly debte over whether Christianity is a violent religion. We should present that debate. I'm more than willing to discuss and negotiate the specific examples and how they are presented. Personally, I'm OK with Tirronan's categories but I'd like to see at least one source that uses that breakdown before we go forward with it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OR tag on "Blasphemy"

I did not intentionally delete the OR tag on the "Blasphemy" section. If I did, it was collateral damage from my reversion of the massive deletion and I apologize if some valid tags or edits got clobbered in the process. FWIW, this is the point that I was trying to make about Tirronan's massive deletion. I think that deletion clobbered a lot of good stuff along with the bad. Also, for what it's worth, there are many sections that were in the pre-deletion article that were not mine. Much of my work was re-organizing existing text in the article along major themes such as suppression of heresies, slavery and anti-semitism. The blasphemy and homosexuality sections were already in the article when I started working on it. (Or they were in the version that existed at the time of the 2nd AFD; I'm not 100% sure right now). If there is a consensus to remove those sections, I will not object. I was never too happy with them. I just didn't want to delete the work of other editors without prior discussion.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No worriesTirronan (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment for blasphemy

Why was the text on capital punishment for blasphemy and the mention of Thomas Aikenhead deleted? He was the last person in Britain to be executed by the Christian authorities for blasphemy. I would've thought that was worth a mention in an article on Christianity and Violence. Josh Keen (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See my response in the section #Response to Josh Keen below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Josh Keen

Hi Josh, While I could respond to your queries about why specific examples were deleted, it would be a moot discussion because, at the moment, there is an agreement among four editors (myself, Tirronan, Tryptofish and Noleander that it is better to not have any examples of violence by Christians until someone has time to look at reliable sources and develop a source-based exposition of examples of violence in the context of the scholarly treatment of the topic "Christianity and violence".

I thought I had crafted a good set of examples in this revision of the article. However, Noleander tagged the article as having POV problems and ultimately Tirronan and Tryptofish concurred. I continue to disagree with them but all efforts at compromise failed and I decided to accede to their wishes by removing the entire list of examples. Thus, for the time being, this article focuses on a more abstract discussion of Christian doctrine regarding peace and violence than on the specific examples. The discussion among the "Gang of Four" can be found in the Talk Page archives (Archive 2 and Archive 3).

Actually, while I think the article should provide a list of the more notable examples, I think previous versions of this article have focused excessively on the examples and not enough on the scholarly debate about the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion. Thus, IMO, the current focus on Church doctrine and the scholarly debate is preferable to an article that focuses on examples of violence which may or may not have any weight on the ultimate question of whether Christianity is a violent religion.

There seems to be general agreement among the "Gang of Four" that focusing on this question is more NPOV and encyclopedic than just providing a laundry list of examples of violence committed by Christians and Christian groups.

So... getting back to your queries about specific examples... even if we were to resume presenting specific examples of violence committed by Christians, I would oppose inclusion of those specific examples as being of relatively little importance to the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow from that, I'm sure Richard was being tongue-in-cheek about that "gang" business, but since the web is a medium where body language tends to get lost I want to make it absolutely clear to anyone unfamiliar with page history that there is absolutely no cabal here, and everyone, everyone, is free to edit this page on an equal basis.

And a few things from my personal opinion. Personally, I'm not convinced that everything that has been deleted should have been deleted, and, subject to WP:There is no deadline, I'm very friendly to Josh's concerns about bringing some deleted material back. I do agree with the three other editors mentioned that it is very important indeed to base inclusion upon what secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones, say about whether a particular topic does or does not belong in the subject area of a particular Wikipedia page. This requires some careful and thoughtful research, which I've previously promised to help do. I'm sorry that it's been taking me so long (yeah, I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record!), but so it goes. I'm still serious about doing it, for sure. Also, there have been a lot of other pages where similar issues have been arising with somewhat greater urgency, notably Christian terrorism, and I'm closely watching with some concern some editors who may be acting in what will turn out to have been disruptive editing, who want to remove content that they feel is unflattering to Christianity. But all of this will get sorted out in time, I'm confident. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Well, the use of the phrase "Gang of Four" was only partly "tongue-in-cheek". Note that I counted myself as one of the four. However, I believe that four editors don't necessarily represent a consensus and that the current consensus can change. I still think the article should eventually evolve back towards my preferred version but the amount of heat in the discussion had gotten so high that I decided I didn't have time or energy to go through the dispute resolution process with multiple RFCs (given that so few people had responded to the earlier ones anyway). As you say... there is no deadline and the current version of the article is at least acceptable to four of the five editors who seem to have an opinion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Iron Guard relation too marginal

The article Iron Guard says: The Iron Guard (Romanian: Garda de fier) is the name most commonly given to a far-right movement and political party in Romania in the period from 1927 into the early part of World War II. The Iron Guard was ultra-nationalist, anti-communist who promoted the Orthodox Christian faith. It is also considered an antisemitic organization, an ideologist of which even going as far as to demand an introduction of “state anti-semitism”[1]. and Historian Stanley G. Payne writes in his study of Fascism, "The Legion was arguably the most unusual mass movement of interwar Europe."[3] The Legion contrasted with most other European fascist movements of the period in its overt religiosity (in the form of an embrace of the Romanian Orthodox religion). According to Ioanid, the Legion "willingly inserted strong elements of Orthodox Christianity into its political doctrine to the point of becoming one of the rare modern European political movements with a religious ideological structure."

This describes a political movement that just happens to be Christian. That is, the movement "promoted" Christianity and "embraced" Christianity; but Christianity was not the source of the group; nor did Christianity's texts or doctrines play a role in the group's violence (the group was, indeed, violent). Did Christian leaders play a role in this political movement? No. Did Christian texts serve as a major focus of the political movement? No. Many, many wackos embrace religion: criminals, etc. We do not attribute such embrace to the religion itself. I suggest replacing the section with a "See also" link. --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is another way to consider the point I'm making: the sources must make a direct association with Christianity and violence:

Christianity <---> Violence

It is not sufficient that the sources make an indirect linkage that involves a double leap:

Christianity <----> Iron Guard <----> Violence

In the case of Iron Guard, we have a group that is associated with violence; and the group is also associated with Christianity. But the sources discussing the Iron Guard do not explicitly say things like "The Iron Guard used Christian doctrines to justify torturing their enemies". Therefore, including the Iron Guard in this article is OR and POV because it implies to the reader that there is a direct association, when there is not. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, there are way too many things being evaluated for me to keep up, but let me just note by way of a sort of placeholder, that I think I remember reading something that would support the identification of these groups as being actually Christian in motivation (although I could be misremembering). But let me caution against ruling out content on the basis that the parties were (in the opinions of editors) wackos, criminals, etc. The fact that the interpretation of Christianity as supporting violence may be "incorrect" in some cases does not make it out of scope for this page. Down that road lies the argument that "Christianity teaches nonviolence, so this page shouldn't exist, because any such violence wasn't really Christian". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if someone can provide a source saying "This group's motivation was Christian; and they were a violent group; and their Christian motivation contributed to their violent attitude because blah, blah, ..." then I would support inclusion of this material. But there were only 2 sources, and neither made a claim like that. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to go back and check the archives but I think I proposed deleting the Iron Guard section a few months ago and someone argued that it should be kept so I dropped the point because there were (IMO) bigger fish to fry. I still think it should be deleted but I'll let you guys hash it out. I would like to ask how this differs from the killing of abortion doctors. If those who kill abortion doctors are using their Christian beliefs as their motivation and justification, then wouldn't that also qualify that topic for inclusion in the article? (NB: I don't have a particularly strong desire to include anti-abortion in this article; I'm just suggesting that the "Christian motivation" criterion doesn't seem to be applied consistently here.) I thought the criterion was that Christian leaders had to be involved. I seem to remember that there was an archbishop who was quoted as approving and even inciting the violence of the Iron Guard. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

From previous text:

“ The Iron Guard, also known as the Legion of the Archangel Michael, was an Orthodox Christian anti-Semitic fascist movement in Romania. It splintered from the National-Christian Defense League, and was, unlike similar European fascist movements of the time, overtly religious. According to Ioanid, the Legion "willingly inserted strong elements of Orthodox Christianity into its political doctrine to the point of becoming one of the rare modern European political movements with a religious ideological structure." The Iron Guard justified their actions through claims that "Rabbinical aggression against the Christian world" was undermining society. According to Tinichigiu, the Iron Guard was a terror organization, which carried out terrorist activities and political murders. The Iron Guard were active participants in the Romanian Holocaust and carried out the Bucharest pogrom.

Nichifor Crainic, Professor at the Faculty of Theology, University of Bucharest, developed various theological justifications arguing "that the Old Testament was not Jewish, that Jesus had not been Jewish, and that the Talmud, which he saw as the incarnation of modern Jewry, was, first and foremost, a weapon to combat the Christian Gospel and to destroy Christians." Crainic played a critical role in the formation of the National Christian Party from the National-Christian Defense League, and became its general secretary. Between 1935 and 1937 the paramilitary division of the National Christian Party, the Lăncieri, were responsible for numerous acts of brutality against Jews.

The Romanian Orthodox Church had strong antisemitic leanings, both in its senior hierarchy and among local clergy. Conflict was encouraged by its leaders; Patriarch Miron Cristea said "One has to be sorry for the poor Romanian people, whose very marrow is sucked out by the Jews. Not to react against the Jews means that we go open-eyed to our destruction... To defend ourselves is a national and patriotic duty" and "The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them."

”

Legion of the Archangel Michael - an offshoot from the National-Christian Defense League - with a "religious ideological structure", that officially justified it's violence with claims that "Rabbinical aggression against the Christian world" was undermining society. Not religious?

Lăncieri - the paramilitary wing of the National Christian Party. Official documents proclaimed Christianity and encouraged violence against Jews based on their religion. Not religious?

I don't understand how it can be argued that a group is not religious in nature, when its very name (Army of a Christian Angel) is inherently religious. Josh Keen (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See my response in the section #Response to Josh Keen below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth considering that there is a big difference between Christians who commit violent acts and violent acts that are committed expressly in the name of Christianity. Unless this falls firmly into the latter camp it should really be removed or toned down in order to prevent it from muddying the waters. It is far better to err on the side of caution than include a non-factual or speculative example. We can always re-add it later if we can quantify it - nothing is truly lost or gone on wiki and we have no submission dates to keep.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins

Dawkins is quoted in the article. Dawkins is a great science writer/popularizer, though he really shouldn't be quoted even in science articles except for introductory material. He is a researcher, as we are, not a scientist per se. He hates religion. Doesn't really have any qualifications there at all particularly. Quoting him is like Quoting Osama bin Ladin on the Fed monetary policy or something. Or Rush Limbaugh, as an "expert", on Michele Obama's dietary habits. Bizarre IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I observe that those who accuse Dawkins of hating religion tend to hate Dawkins. All this hating is very un-Christian. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is about WP:RELY. What credentials does Dawkins have above all other commentators on religion except that he hates religion and writes about it? There are atheists out there who did not hate religion and who have actual credentials. Take Richard Feynman (a physicist and not a commentator on religion, I admit) for example. He was an atheist and commented on religion without hatred. It is possible to be npov and write on religion. Not possible for Dawkins in anything I've read. How is Dawkins npov? And what are his credentials on anything, including science. Great writer. Poor WP:RELY. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the debate regarding the relationship of Christianity to violence. There is a spectrum of viewpoints on this topic. At one end of the spectrum, you have Christian apologists who argue that Christianity is a peaceful religion and that acts of violence by Christians or even fomented by Christian religious leaders are incompatible and in conflict with the precepts of the religion. At the other end of the spectrum, you have critics of Christianity who postulate that Christianity is inherently a violent religion. Some argue that all religions are violent, others argue that monotheistic religions are more violent than pantheistic ones and some argue that Abrahamic religions, Christianity in particular, have violence in their philosophical DNA (i.e. violence is not an aberration, it's a natural result of the religion's worldview).

Dawkins is a leading proponent of atheism and a critic of religion, Abrahamic religions in particular. As such, his views are eligible to be presented in this article. Is he the best proponent for the "Christianity is a violent religion" POV? Perhaps not. We can debate the relative merits of Feynman (who is dead and not much in the public media) vs. Dawkins (who is alive and very much in the public media). However, "not hating religion" is not one of the criteria for inclusion in this article.

WP:NPOV does not say that all sources must have a "neutral point of view". It says that Wikipedia articles should take a "neutral point of view", presenting all significant points of view without giving any of them undue weight. NPOV means that the article must not take sides in the debate. We should not attempt to decide whether Christianity is or is not a violent religion. We should simply document the debate without attempting to resolve it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree about pov. Disagree about scholarly. One problem with any "compilist" is that Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. So is Dawkins. We need scholarly secondary sources. Usually opinion sources are not useful. And some, being opinionated, are even less useful. I think it degrades the scholarship and quality of the discussion. A Feynman uplifts it. And if being alive were the major criterion for referencing, we would be missing many useful contributions. When it comes to theology or beliefs on religion, hardly anything is being written today that is much different than a century ago. Books on theology or philosophy never become obsolete. It's not like computer technology. The latest is not necessarily the greatest. Student7 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There are more than two sides to this issue and so it is not necessarily a situation where we have to choose between Dawkins and Feynman. We could use them both. If there is a substantial public debate over the topic, it is not necessary that all our sources be "scholarly". Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Barack Obama are not "scholars" and yet they have something to say about peace and violence (I'm not suggesting that we quote them in this article; I'm just saying that you need not be a scholar to be a source.) I'm not fixated on using Dawkins; I just don't think "non-scholarly" is a sufficient argument against using him as a source. There might well be better sources to use. For example, Bertrand Russell is a notable anti-Christian; if he said anything pertaining to the topic of Christianity and violence, we might consider using that. Find a better source and then be WP:BOLD and insert it. If there are any issues with your insertion, we can always discuss it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if you believe that Dawkins is on the same plane as Socrates, Epicurus, and Bertrand Russell, feel free. Too bad there isn't some criterion delimiting derivative, tertiary "reporting" from scholarly fact-based observations using primary material. Does "An Ancestor's Tale" make him a botanist or a palaeontologist? Student7 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

While I don't like or hate the man (and am not trying to start or continue an argument on him), I have done quite a bit of research on bigotry and I do think that he meets most of the major criteria to be labelled as one. Essentially, religion is an exterior focus for him to blame problems on. He spends a lot of his time focused on the subject and likes to label it with derogatory terms ('violent', 'insane', 'stupid', 'child abuse', etc, etc). He attempts to blame major world problems on it and concludes that all or most of these would greatly diminish or vanish were the focus of his hate to be removed. Overall, his use of language is very, very, similar to that of people who we consider to be bigoted towards gays or other groups (I mention those particular labels specifically because they have been used against gays and others in the past).

@ Richard. While I do think Archbishop Desmond Tutu qualifies as an academic, since his job outside of human-rights campaigning was an academic one, I think that his life experiences, training, and work more than qualify him to talk about issues like this. I confess I do not know who Feynman is, but people like Dawkins, who have no experience or training in these particular issues and simply want to wade in because they have a very strong opinion on the subject, ought to be quoted very carefully and frugally, if they are quoted at all. The areas of study we should really be drawing our research from are things like (but by no means exclusively) psychology, social studies, history, news reports, and interviews with the perpetrators and victims. Not academic zoology.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ion Zone, I think the issue here is that Wikipedia does not require all sources to be academics or even experts. A famous and notable source can actually be preferable to an obscure and scholarly academic. If we were writing about anti-semitism, who would you pick to quote? Hitler and Goebbels, of course. We would also quote scholars who discuss anti-semitism objectively but it would be logical to quote Hitler and Goebbels as the leading proponents of anti-semitism.

Consider this article as being about "Anti-Christianity on the grounds of it being a violent religion". Viewed this way, it makes sense to quote the most vitriolic attackers of Christianity because those are the people who have made the greatest impression on the public at large with these arguments. In some ways, those arguments are easier to defend against because they are the popularized arguments. The real debate is not so much in the public forum but in the academic forum where scholars make charges and other scholars, taking those charges seriously, defend Christianity against them. We need to present both debates: the one taking place in public forums and the one taking place in academia.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case, but at the moment they are being quoted as if they were experts who were speaking factually and as if there was nobody who disagrees with them or knows better. I haven't read the Anti-Semitism article but I would bet money it doesn't let the opinions of people like Hitler take full precedence and go unchallenged.

The article as it is is heavily biased in favour of people who are rather ignorant about the subject and are simply wading in with a strong opinion and a lot of weasel words. Statements that are as weasely and un-evidenced as the Dawkins one need to either be removed or strongly contested. We wouldn't let Hitler dominate the Jewdaism section, so why do we let Dawkins dominate the Christianity section? The only thing Dawkins really knows about Christianity is that he doesn't like it. Surely the real experts should have the floor, not just popular non-experts?

Ion Zone (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we are forced to use unscholarly sources because we don't have anything else and we know "something" is going on. The situation in Northeast India, for example. We have to use biased tabloid accounts, cleaned up as best we can, because we don't have anything else to use.

But where we have a choice, I would hope we would take the best and not use tertiary "sensationalist" reports which tend to fall into "propaganda" areas, for this article. (There may be other articles where propaganda may be quoted as being "anti-something"). Student7 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case, but there are a wealth of scholarly and very expert opinions out there, and no shortage of facts. But yet it seems that the first people who are always called upon to level criticism in these articles are this same set of celebrities, none of whom have any actual experience on the matter. In my opinion, this is largely because the facts are rather stacked against anyone trying to prove that Christianity is a major source of world violence, which means people who believe this to be the case are forced to turn to spinners of popular (and somewhat dubious) rhetoric. While it is better to have something written on the subject than nothing, using the arguments of these popular, but unqualified, people as commentators makes things harder. Firstly because once they are added it is very hard to remove them without being reverted, but also because putting them on the page means that we are setting them up as an authority, when they are not. There are plenty of experts who are not Christians out there, we need to be adding them as alternate views.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is very POV (Merged with Christianity and Violence)

Ok, we need to even this article out. A lot. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. It is NOT the place for POV attacks. As such I have changed the 'Criticism of Christianity' sidebar to a pure Christianity one. The mere fact that I have to do this is highly indicative of the POV bias on this page. In addition, we also need to address the fact that this page is basically just a more POV version of the Religious Violence page, particularly the introduction. Ion Zone (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm receptive to doing this; in fact, I've been meaning to work on this page for a very long time, but I got sidetracked by all the other pages where editors are unhappy about religion and POV. However, it should be noted that encyclopedic coverage of violence that has occurred in the name of any religion, or in the name of anything else, is not, in and of itself, an attack. My view is that this page should start with what Christianity teaches about violence, and then cover Christianity's support of as well as opposition to violence. It is natural that support for violence, where it has been documented, will play a prominent role in this article, and that does not mean that Wikipedia is calling Christianity a violent religion. If you can point to specific content that should be improved, that would be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where to start, tbh. Essentially the page is a long list of quotes from people saying that Christianity is violent, etc, etc, with no real contrary view on the matter (or actual evidence either). Also, I take issue with the section title "Christianity as a violent religion". It needs to be changed, but I can do that now.

My vote would be to copy over the section Religion Secularity and Violence from the main page as it is really just an edited version of the "Christianity as a violent religion" section. This would have the rather happy side-effect of helping to cut down the level of Dawkins and Harris Polemic on the page - Imo the Weasel Words tag was invented for people like them. However, unless we distinguish these two pages somehow we might as well copy paste almost all of the main article into this page and wait for it to be nominated for deletion.

Actually, I might as well just copy that section over. It's not like it would be much different if we wrote a new one. I'll just leave a note in the history saying we can add more stuff if it isn't balanced enough. ;P

Ion Zone (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do better than either copy from another page or plan on yet another AfD discussion that will end in "keep". Looking back to the talk here from about a year ago (Archive 2), I was in the process of adding secondary sources, largely by academic theologians, that discuss the topic of Christianity and violence, and using their definitions of the subject and its scope. (Here, in no particular order, are several that I find bookmarked on my computer from when I was starting to work on this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm not saying that they are all appropriate.) If a particular incident of violence is treated by those sources as being a significant example of Christian violence, then it belong in this article, and if it isn't treated that way by them, then it doesn't belong here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to adding the Christianity sidebar, but I think the previous sidebar was also useful. It's not an either/or thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I think criticism sidebars encourage a lot of POV. I have replaced the section, in most part because it is nearly identical to the one on the main page, not because I think they should be identical (I was being a little sarcastic, sorry). In reality this page shouldn't repeat anything already there but rather just make a note of it and expand that section. However it really is just a repeat, only with a lot more POV.

I'm afraid that I don't have that much time to go through all those sources and add them in at the moment as I am mainly focused on removing POV and weasel wording in a lot of very simalar articles at the moment.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK... I get that a bunch of editors think this article is biased against Christianity. On this issue, I agree at least in part with Tryptofish when he says "encyclopedic coverage of violence that has occurred in the name of any religion, or in the name of anything else, is not, in and of itself, an attack. My view is that this page should start with what Christianity teaches about violence, and then cover Christianity's support of as well as opposition to violence. It is natural that support for violence, where it has been documented, will play a prominent role in this article, and that does not mean that Wikipedia is calling Christianity a violent religion." although I disagree that the page should "start with what Christianity teaches about violence" since that more properly belongs in a subsidiary article entitled "Christian teaching about violence and non-violence".

My view is that Wikipedia should have no opinion on whether Christianity is or is not a violent religion. That is not our job and the efforts of pro-Christian POV pushers to defend Christianity against the charge is just as POV as those who would brand Christianity as a violent religion. Wikipedia's job is to recognize and document the debate over whether or not Christianity is a violent religion. We should present the charges against Christianity and the defenses against those charges. In the section "Christianity as a violent religion", I attempted to do just that.

The charges against Christianity start with arguments that all religions are violent then proceed to arguing that monotheistic religions (especially Abrahamic religions) are violent and finally that Christianity has within itself characteristics that are particularly prone to being used to support violence. I cited scholars who made these arguments and then presented scholars who refuted those arguments.

I'm not saying that the section is perfect nor am I saying it should be kept untouched. However, Ion Zone's replacement of the section with the "Religion, secularity and violence" from Religion and violence does violence (excuse the intended pun) to the approach that I have crafted. The argument that violence can be secular is not a solid argument that religion is not violent. It is, admittedly, one argument against the claim that religion is violent but it is not the entire defense nor does it apply well to this article because that argument is about secularism vs. religion and this article should focus on the specific charge that Christianity is a violent religion (meaning that, perhaps Christianity is violent whereas others might not be).

In order not to duplicate the "Religion and violence" article, we need to limit ourselves to summarizing arguments that apply to all religions in general and focus on arguments (for and against) that address Christianity in particular. I'm Ok with expanding the current "Christianity as a violent religion" section to include more arguments about the secular nature of violence but I think the article was significantly degraded by the replacement of the previous text with the "Religion, secularity and violence" section of Religion and violence. Moreover, a quick scan of the titles of the sources cited in that section (few quotes or links to online text are provided) suggest that there are issues with the sources provided and the nature of the arguments presented. Let's keep the quality of the writing and the sources up to Wikipedia standards.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone and merged this section with the one where we were already discussing this as I have pretty bad dyslexia and jumbling up the talk page with similar tracts makes it very hard for me to keep up (two is more than enough!). That aside, this is not at all about wiping out criticism of Christianity. It is, in fact, about two things:

• Ensuring that expert opinion and facts take the forefront over popular ignorance.
• Ensuring the article is balanced and not POV or weasel.

It really isn't much to ask. My copying of the secularity section was just my way of giving us a fresh staring point. That section in the main article was pretty much identical before we went in and cut out the POV and added a few experts. It probably still isn't perfect but it is a better start than what we have on this page - which is an utter mess of POV and weasel. The Dawkins argument is very weak and if it stays in it needs to be countered or balanced by something. Popular public misconceptions should only feature in order to explain why they are wrong. At the moment the section is nothing but popular un-evidenced criticism of Christianity with nothing in the way of expert opinion or even contrary views.

Ion Zone (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ion Zone wrote "At the moment the article is nothing but popular un-evidenced criticism of Christianity with nothing in the way of expert opinion or even contrary views."

You have got to be kidding. You don't consider the text about William Cavanaugh, Miroslav Volf, J. Denny Weaver and John Teehan to be "expert opinion" providing a contrary view? Almost every negative criticism presented in the article is countered by a scholar who defends Christianity against that criticism. The defense is at least as long as the criticism and is sourced to a scholarly paper written by a scholar. If you don't see this, you haven't read the article text in depth but rather skimmed it and formed a superficial understanding of it based on your dislike of seeing the criticisms presented. As I've said above, the argument that "well, secular violence also exists" is only one argument against the charge that Christianity has a violent side. The scholars that I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph go beyond that weak defense and, while conceding that Christianity has at times been used to justify violence, those occasions don't justify branding Christianity as a violent religion because Christianity does in fact preach peace and love. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say section, not article. Sorry. I was talking about the bit I tried to replace. Specifically I mean ignorant statements like: "Maurice Bloch also argues that Christian faith fosters violence because Christian faith is a religion, and religions are by their very nature violent" And the Dawkins bit. As I said, I think most of that (now divided) section is pretty-well covered by the main 'Religious Violence' article and that it is almost all assertions and painfully weak arguments. I wasn't thinking about the wider article at all and haven't read very far bellow that yet. My method of operation is very top-down, it stops me getting confused.

Currently the 'Religious violence' section has about half a sentence of very meagre and half-hearted defence vs two paragraphs from four other people, all of which is just assertion. That section needs to confront and counter those arguments at the very least.

Ion Zone (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to see how these edits work out over time, without my jumping to any conclusions prematurely, but I do think that Ion Zone may be chopping too much too quickly from the page. The problem with approaching these edits as "mainly focused on removing POV and weasel wording" is that removing what one editor thinks is POV (I'm not convinced that most of it really was) runs the risk of editing according to the opposite POV, so I'd advise being careful about that. And I want to emphasize the importance of sources: scholars like Miroslav Volf are hardly what any reasonable person would consider to be hostile to Christianity! I realize that people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are indeed controversial, but that does not make their writings fail WP:RS. It is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to report what notable people say on the subject, and neither WP:POV nor WP:UNDUE to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be entirely reasonable to report on their views, but we should not let them be confused as an authority on the subject, and we should especially avoid giving them the floor - which is how the first part of the "Religion and violence" section now reads. It may be the case that Miroslav Volf supports religion, but the way he is used is defensive and lacklustre at best - he seems to spend more time apologetically backing up the attacks (and backing away, for that matter) than anything else. Compare what he says to Professor Hart's short to-the-point refutation. We need less messing around with rhetoric and more dropping the plain facts on the table. From both sides, I might add.

Ion Zone (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we "give the floor" to reliable sources, and we should be careful about using the opinions of individual editors to determine whether notable persons are really "authorities" based upon what position the notable person takes on a subject. If Volf or anyone else is being misquoted, quoted out of context, or cherry-picked for unrepresentative quotes, that absolutely needs to be corrected, no question about that. But we shouldn't rule out sources because they take a nuanced position when editors would rather have a clear-cut one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we already have a Religion and violence article, I think material germane to that topic and not, specifically, to Christianity, should be moved there. Nothing wrong with briefly (one sentence) summarizing it. But it is non-WP:TOPIC to use material which properly belongs in another article. Are we so hard up to uncover and report Christian specific violence that we have to "adopt" the material belonging somewhere else? Student7 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to summarize it. Failed with Cavanaugh.

One of the problems (which Wikipedia MOS tries to forestall by discouraging "AND" titles) is the title. It should probably be something like "Violence in Christianity." Student7 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Trypto, look, I am not suggesting that we weigh the article on the side of Christianity. I'm saying that none of those people are experts. They all make grand, vacuous, and rather ludicrous rhetorical statements that I think they would find very hard to back up. I'm glad that that section has been parred down to the points and that it is now less about how much those particular people hate religion. As I said before, there are plenty of experts who aren't Christians who we could quote.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who are you saying is not an expert? And who are you saying is an expert? With the exception of Hitchens and Dawkins who are included here because someone else wrote that text, many of the sources in this article are the result of extensive searching and reading of sources found by me via Google Books. Now, I recognize that there are weaknesses in using Google Books as a research tool. I think what you are arguing is that the article give undue weight to some sources. That may be true. So, let's hear your argument as to which sources should be given more weight. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ion Zone, thanks, I appreciate that. In my opinion, Richard's request to you is a useful one. It seems to me that people like Volf are academics who are unambiguously experts for our purposes here. Sources like Hitchens and Dawkins do not have the same academic status, but they are highly notable persons who are entirely reasonable to refer to in a page like this, although I'm very receptive to being careful about how we quote them and how we assign relative weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish and point out again that I was not the one who inserted Hitchens and Dawkins. The sources that I inserted that are critical of Christianity vis-a-vis violence have stronger academic credentials than Hitchens and Dawkins who are more popular soapboxers than academics. Of course, the academic position is varied. There are those who are critical of all religions, and others who are critical of Christianity in particular. Calling them "ignorant" as Ion Zone did wrt Maurice Bloch isn't a counter-argument, it's just slinging insults. \

There's more than two views on this issue. That is, it's not just "Christianity is evil and violent" and "Christianity is good and peaceful". There's more than one way to attack Christianity and more than one way to defend it. If you don't like Volf as an apologist for Christianity, then find someone else. Ion Zone mentioned "Professor Hart". Who is that? Can you provide a reference that meets the criteria for a verifiable reliable source?

Here is a link to the Google Books preview of Hart's ATheist Delusions book. I have a hard time believing that the whole of his argument can be distilled down to the one "short to-the-point refutation" that is currently in the article. That's not a refutation, it's a sound-bite. What we need is for someone to work with the book (either through Google Books or preferably by sitting down with a copy of the book) and determine what Hart's main points are vis-a-vis violence. I note that Atheist Delusions is not just about violence although it appears there is likely to be quite a bit about it. For example, there is an entire chapter on "Intolerance and Persecution" which, no doubt, addresses some of the charges of institutionalized violence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let's stop talking in generalities and get down to brass tacks. What sources can you present that defend Christianity against these criticisms?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying here is that I want to see more stuff (from both sides) like this:

Robert Pape, a political scientist who specializes in suicide terrorism, have made a case for secular motivations and reasons as being foundations of most suicide attacks that are often times labeled as "religious". [28] Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980-2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading — "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.[29]

In summery, Pape is a political scientist specialising in suicide terrorism. He is not expressing an opinion, he conducted actual research and came to a conclusion directly opposed to the kind of popular opinions that too many of the people quoted on religion, particularly those criticising it, are prone to. Sure, you can fill a page with people making assertions and stating their opinion on the matter, but when it comes to actually finding out what the real situation is, not what popular culture thinks it is, they are worse than useless.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK... I understand your point but you do understand that this is (at the moment) just your personal opinion, right? What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes this criticism and then we can insert it into the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I don't think it's too bad either, nor was it before your deletions. Whether or not you agree with what they say, a part of our world is people who criticize religion, and Wikipedia ought to report on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And what Richard said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you caught me mid-revision, could you read my text again as I explain my position better. In terms of defending my position with evidence, [see here]. This section basically takes apart most of those sorts of arguments. *Edit* Or at least it did, hmm. I think it may have been changed slightly as it dealt with the exact arguments Dawkins makes.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, after seeing the revision: I don't think you'll get much opposition to adding more material like that. The concerns arise when you delete material. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The bit about Robert Pape's study of terrorism is good as far as it goes. We should be careful not to assume that what is true about suicide terrorism over a short period of time is true about religious violence in general.

I would prefer a more comprehensive rebuttal of the charges of Christianity being a violent religion. I suspect that Hart's book is a better source for this than Pape's work although even that book does not seem to be focused entirely on the issue of Christian violence. In saying this, I will comment that it is not always true that facts (in the form of statistics) proves more than conceptual arguments. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Much of this debate is focused on ideas and theology. Arguing about statistics collected over the last couple of decades is not likely to prove anything about the charges of Christian violence over the last couple of millennia. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Religions as inherently violent

The material about "all religions" is weak. It looks as though someone was grasping at straws. I would suggest that it be deleted in favor of stronger arguments aimed at Christianity. Poor arguments tend to dilute any controversial article IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the problem may have come from importing text from Criticism of religion Religion and violence. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who wrote the text in question, I disagree. The point is that there are some people who assert that all religions are inherently violent and that Christianity as a religion is thus also inherently violent. You may think these are lame arguments but that's just your opinion. If you want to challenge those arguments, then go find a reliable source that does so. (Although the text does already have some reliable sources that mount rebuttals of the arguments.) Lame or not, they are nonetheless the arguments that are made and are cited as precursors to the arguments that Abrahamic religions in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular are inherently violent. You could drop the "all religions" part but you wouldn't be telling the whole story. Go look at the sources cited and read them. Then, if you still want to delete my text, come back and let's talk about it.

In the meantime, let me revisit the rationale behind my framework. We've gone around the question of Christians committing violence being different from Christianity as a religion fostering violence. It seems the question some scholars are interested in is not whether various Christian institutions (such as the Vatican) have promoted or condoned violence but whether the nature of Christianity is, in itself, inherently prone to foster violence. At this point, you are looking less at historical incidents and more at philosophical foundations (such as the possibility of establishing moral absolutes) and religious precepts (such as ostracizing or killing unbelievers). The idea is that the atrocities associated with religion in general and Christianity in particular are enabled by these philosophical foundations and religious precepts. You may agree or disagree with this line of attack but that is what I found after looking at many results that came up via Google Books search. If you think there are other lines of attack, then present them. My focus was on presenting both the attacks and the defenses (cf. Volf, Cavanaugh, Weaver and Teehan)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard, I wasn't talking about what you had written. I meant that Ion Zone had deleted some of what you and I had written, and replaced it with material that was copy-pasted from Religion and violence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... you may be right. I assume you are talking about this edit by Ion Zone. I will comment that the beginning of his inserted text is text that I wrote. I don't remember whether I wrote it here and then copied it over to Religion and violence or wrote it over there but the text about Selengut, Tanner and Bland was written by me. The part about secular violence was written by some combination of Ion Zone and Ramos1990 as an attempt to balance the POV of those who attacked religion as violent. I'm OK with some text about secular violence but although I thought it was too long and I want to make sure that we don't wipe out the attack on religion and Christianity and leave only the defense. That would be unbalanced. Also, I think we need to focus in this article on people who are attacking and defending Christianity. We should provide a short summary of the discussion about religion and violence and then focus on Christianity, leaving the larger discussion of religion and violence to the article on that topic.--Pseudo-Richard

PseudoRichard: not lame just out of place. Non-WP:TOPIC here. This is supposed to be Christianity and violence, in theory a "fork" (lower-level article) of "Religion and violence." In most "forks", we would try to summarize (if it were mentioned at all. Usually the problems are in the other direction) the material in the higher level article with a link or see also or some other reference. It shouldn't be in both places at such lengths IMO. Okay for a sentence to give context, but after that it seems like the venue for "Religion and violence" is insufficient, so the material winds up here. I don't think that is a good reason for moving material from a higher level article to a lower level one. Student7 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Student7, the comment that some may find the arguments "lame" was directed at IonZone who I think feels that presenting such arguments creates an imbalance towards the POV that is critical of Christianity.

Re the relationship between the parent article (Religion and violence) and this article, I agree in principle with what you wrote above. We just have different opinions as to what is an appropriate level of detail. I think I am OK with the summary that you have provided in the "Religion and violence" section. I might want to revisit the summary later and tweak it a bit but I think the idea of bullet-pointing the major points helps to provide a concise summary for the reader without getting bogged down in a lot of prose. The fuller exposition is available in Religion and violence at least until some POV warrior attempts to excise it out of there as well.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criticism of Religion (Or rewrite, etc)

All the other topics have such things. So if there is a "X and violence" article, there is usually a "criticism of X" navigational template. As a sidebar, it does seems a bit pov-ish and non-WP:TOPIC since articles are often in a "see also" type category rather than relating to the article at hand. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my problem with them also. I think we should really get rid of all the criticism sidebars, all except for the the literary and film (etc) ones criticism in those circles doesn't usually equate to 'very biased'. It's almost as bad as putting articles on Christian violence under Wikiproject atheism (or vice versa, though I can't see it happening). When I see articles tagged that way I don't need to see anything else to know that somebody or other has a POV to grind and that the article is likely a mess.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This thread grew out of a comment I made near the beginning of the thread above. Ion Zone, Student7 seems to me to be saying, in part, that inclusion of such a sidebar is current practice on Wikipedia. Although I understand your NPOV concerns, I consider such templates to be, primarily, aids to readers of the form "if you are interested in this page, here is how to find other pages that may also interest you". Often, a useful rule of thumb is that, if a sidebar links to this page, then it should be used on this page. Deleting templates from individual pages does nothing to change practice on Wikpedia, or their use on other pages. It seems to me that this page, about Christianity and violence, deals with issues that are raised in thoughtful criticisms of Christianity, and therefore the sidebar was a useful one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. It can be considered disruptive to insist on the deletion of sidebars from articles where the sidebar is clearly relevant. You could issue an RFC to argue that this article doesn't belong in the sidebar but I don't think your view will win out.

You could argue that the Template:Criticism of Religion shouldn't exist but I don't think that argument will win either. If you really want to try it, you need to go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and make your case there. I note that the template was already nominated for deletion when it was named Template:Criticism of Christianity. You can find that discussion here.

I have to say that I am almost inclined to re-create Template:Criticism of Christianity since I agree with those who !voted to keep it and there was no clear consensus to delete it even before Noleander expanded it to be Template:Criticism of Religion. Sorry if this makes you crazy, Ion Zone. Wikipedia is host to a wide diversity of opinions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not that Wikipedia is host to every available opinion. My problem is that sidebars such as (but not limited to) this one are, essentially, POV flags. People make them to suit their POV, fill them with polemical links and then go around claiming articles with them as a form of POV turf war. It's ridiculous, it's pointless, and it ruins articles. Lets take a good hard look at this particular sidebar. It lists a few religions and their holy books. And right after that it lists ten people who would like to do away with religion. Several of whom I and many others think of as outright bigots. You'll note that there aren't any counter-critics, because the opposing side must never be allowed to raise a hand in defence of the lash. I hope you can see the problem here!

If we really must have one of these sidebars it must be called 'Critical Discussion of Religion'. I'm going to do as you say and list it for editing\deletion. You should find notification on your talk pages, but for everyone else:

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criticism of Religion

Template:Criticism of Religion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Teehan and Dostoevsky

So the problem here is that we are mixing contemporary academics with great thinkers and writers and also putting Dostoevsky after Teehan when Dostoevsky clearly predated Teehan. At the core of the problem is the fact that the question of whether Christianity is violent goes back further than Dostoevsky. Thus, if we are going to use sources that are not from the last half of the 20th century, then we should frame the whole question as a much older debate involving philosophical perspectives such as Dostoevski's. Note that I am not objecting to including Dostoevski; I'm just saying that we need to put him up against other great thinkers of a similar stature. I'm thinking that there must be Enlightenment thinkers who would be good representatives of the critical side.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Christianity as a religion corrupted by the secular

I recently re-discovered my copy of A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson. I hadn't seen this in a long while and had assumed that I had lost it over the years. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that Johnson's perspective may be relevant although I suspect Ion Zone won't like it much. The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on A History of Christianity:

...the book is not an apologetic defense of the religion and presents a hard-lined discussion of many of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Johnson admits such in the Epilogue, saying his book "has necessarily stressed [Christianity's] failures and shortcomings, and its institutional distortions." But, also in the epilogue, Johnson makes the case that Christianity is self-correcting, with an "outstanding moral merit to invest the individual with a conscience, and bid him to follow it" and states "it is thus no accident that all the implantations of freedom throughout the world have ultimately a Christian origin."

What I remember from reading this book almost 30 years ago is that Johnson argues that Christianity was dramatically changed by its adoption as the state religion of Rome. He argues that there has been violence associated with Christianity since at least very early in its history and references the violence between sects of early Christianity. However, he also argues that Christianity became corrupted by the secular when it became the official state religion of Rome. He then documents the many efforts to reform Christianity over the years and how they failed.

I'd like to propose that we consider restoring some of the historical details that we excised a year ago using the outline of Johnson's book as a model. NB: Johnson's book is about Christianity as a whole and does not focus solely on violence. For example, he counts as corruption the excessive wealth and sexual misbehavior of the medieval church. Nonetheless, I suspect that his argument about the corruption of the spiritual authority of the church by the secular authority of the Roman Empire is among the prominent views of scholars.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it would be easier to respond thoughtfully after seeing the actual edits, but it sounds fine to me. WP:BEBOLD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What I read was that Christianity become "Roman" and civilized. It was later "affected" by the barbarians taking control of the former Roman Empire. It became barbarized by comparison. While the goal of the church is to recommend practices for self-improvement, neither the congregation nor the clergy can be completely free of influences around it. When a fish swims in sewage, it cannot remain pristine, contrary to what may have been its best intentions. And this is true for any religion or institution. A religion that is "totally insulated" is probably "totally isolated."

Lindisfarne#Vikings is a particularly nasty example of a group of monks who were wiped out, being totally defenseless. An object lesson, doubtless, to observers at the time. Student7 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably be surprised to learn that I agree with a lot of what you've just said. Though I think any proper totalling would show Christianity has, by far, the fewest shortcomings of any system we possess (with the possible exception of Islam), particularly in comparison with the secular regimes. You can't expect to find perfection on Earth (to paraphrase Jesus). If Christianity automatically made you perfect we wouldn't need confession or forgiveness.

Personally I think that people cling too readily to all these disparate examples of religious wrongdoings (and supposed wrongdoings). Often I hear Christianity being condemned because of things that happened an awfully long time ago and which regularly have little or nothing to do with religion (the whole Galileo thing being a prime example of this), as well as a crapload of significantly worse crimes that were actually committed by hardline atheists!

I say: so what if a small minority out of a few billion have been bad? The existence of Christians who can be labelled as bad does not mean that all Christians are bad or that Religion is the “Root of All Evil” (which is a prime contender for ‘Most ignorant and bigoted statement I have ever heard’). It just means that humans are fallible (something we’ve been saying for quite a while now), and that hindsight is a wonderful thing (particularly ignorant hindsight informed by popular opinion a few centuries on). People get very obsessed with portraying religion as bad, but religion is not one person or even one ideology, and plenty of the people who do the accusing are hardly pristine themselves!

To put all that another way, the positive effect that Christianity has had so strongly outweigh the negative that it may be considered the exception. And that is quite an achievement.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Is pacificism one of Christianity's "core" teachings?

An anon IP editor removed the word "core" from the lead sentence: "The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its core teachings advocate peace, love and compassion while other teachings have been used to justify the use of violence."

I was going to put it back in but I figured I would ask here first. Do we agree that "peace, love and compassion" are part of Christianity's "core" teachings? Seems obvious to me but I thought I'd ask first in case there were any differing opinions.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the same edit, went through the same sequence of thoughts, and decided to leave it alone unless someone objects. I'm ambivalent about it. One can argue these things any number of ways. It occurs to me that restoring the word "core" could, in the future, lead to disputes about whether examples should be deleted if they seem to be based on "non-core" interpretations. I kind of think there is no harm in leaving the word out, but I wouldn't object strongly to putting it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep it out. Love and compassion I agree are pretty much among Christianity's "core" teachings, but there are times like in just war scenarios when peace is not consistent with them. And, historically, just war scenarios have happened fairly often. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, I understand that perspective but I'm not satisfied with the resulting text. Clerical celibacy is also a teaching of the church but it isn't as central as "love and compassion". I think we need to craft text that takes into consideration John Carter's point but still emphasizes how important love and compassion are to Christian teaching.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the way to go would be to consider alternative wording. Would "important", instead of "core", be an agreeable solution? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not taking "sides" here but an operative phrase here from an epistle, and emphasized by all Christian churches concludes with "...Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is faith charity(corrected per comment below)." Which still could include charity as "core" or "important" or whatever you decide. Student7 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh... my Bible has that verse reading as "faith, hope and charity (love) and the greatest of these is charity". Perhaps you are using a different translation from mine? -)

That notwithstanding, I don't think anyone would contest that Christian fellowship, neighborly love, and charity are core components of the Christian faith. Words like koinonia and agape are central to the faith. The problem is in deciding whether these concepts necessarily lead to pacifism. The whole discussion about "just war" is about determining when violence can be justified. Pacifism, in its extreme form, would argue that violence is never justified, not even to counter injustice or aggression, not even in self-defense.

Thus, as others above have commented, "love and compassion" are pretty much core teachings. "Peace", on the other hand, is not so clear. Easier to leave it out of the lead and deal with the complex argument about peace and "just war" in the article. ---Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is, of course, obvious. Anyone who has a knowledge of Jesus Christ from Scripture would agree. Those who do not agree have probably no knowledge of Scripture or confuse the old Covenant and the New or who cannot see that the Old Testament is the history of Israel linked to the monarchy and territory and from which Jesus and therefore Christianity has detached himself: My kingdom is not of this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.22.44 (talk • contribs) 19:22, December 7, 2013‎

There are obvious problems in David Bentley Hart's argument

"Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill - indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted."

1. There is no data to support this argument.
2. According Demographics of atheism "Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01%, and non-religious a further 9.66% of the world population", his argument was possibly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenzhuxi (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Since during the twentieth century, some 50,000,000 - 70,000,000 people were murdered under Stalin, Pol-pot, Mao, and other communist dicators, most or all of whom were atheists, I think it is safe to say there is, in fact, evidence to support that claim. Especially when you consider what you've just brought up: that 2.01% of the human population was responsible for most of its mass murder in the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.153.242.91 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Christian militias

Why does this article not include details of any Christian militias? There are various notable militias (esp from Lebanon wars, Serbia wars etc.). Just today BBC posted an article about the Christian rebels in Ukraine and their aim to establish a Christian state, their flag even has Jesus on it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28619599 Josh Keen (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think better here than at Christian terrorism. Just make sure that there is sufficient source material discussing how the violence by these groups relates to Christianity. It's not enough to simply say that the groups happened to be made up mostly of Christians. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Residential schools

Just thought this could be of use to the article:

In Canada there used to be residential schools that were run by Catholic and Anglican churches. Native children were taken away from their families and culture, severely punished if caught speaking their own indigenous language, never allowed to laugh, to read, to hug, or talk of their Native heritage, deeply scarring them for life. Now revealed, pedophilia rings, torture, sterilization and experiments at the hands of the nuns and priests. Designed for genocide, the schools had a 50% death rate. Armed with bible verses, the church mass murdered Natives who refused to convert and then stole their land. Over the years, millions died from the intentional spread of tuberculosis and smallpox.

There was clearly Christianity abuse and violence here. Furthermore, there have been archaeological surveys and test digs conducted at an old residential school in Brampton since October 2011 and they have revealed a considerable number of bones, as well as buttons that might have been part of school uniforms. If there are any sources available for this that would great. Volcanoguy 07:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. We would, of course, need sources, and we would also need to distinguish between violence and abuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article does have this: "We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills". Apparently the government and churches are still hiding from these abuses. Volcanoguy 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The abuse in the Canadian schools is part of the general Christian persecution of native religions that took place in the new World over centuries. it should be included in a description of that historical effort of forced conversions.Bdubay (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Definition of violence is incomplete

This section should make very clear the distinction between violence committed by Christians, say the dropping of the atom bomb by christians, the slaughter of 6 million jews by Christians, or the killing of 3 million Vietnamese by Christians, and violence committed for reasons of religious belief, say persecution of heretics or people of other faiths by Christians. People of all religions commit violence, it is true, but not all religions as such commit acts of religious persecution against other religions--which always involves violence.

It is also important to identify the other techniques of deicide, destroying other people's religions by outlawing their religious rituals, artifacts, temples, and practices. Edward Gibbon points out that this was the main policy of the Christian persecutors of paganism. The violence was directed not at pagan practitioners or their teachings but at the external practices, rituals, and symbols of their religions.

Many authorities have also noted that most religious persecutions have been conducted by people of monotheistic religions. Perhaps that should also be noted.Bdubay (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is so disorganized

There is one section that has the same title as the article. There should be a theological section on the Christian teaching on violence, then the history of the Church's persecutions of other religions down through history, and the complicity of Christian churches in national wars, racism, the Holocaust, anti-semitism, the atom bomb, slavery, hate crimes, capital punishment and violence against women. The final section should be on Christian opposition to slavery, war, persecution, and anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdubay (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

Okay, material from Christian terrorism has now bled over to this article. Does Wikipedia really want dozens of articles slightly differing in names with "pretty much" the same content? This does not seem efficient for maintenance purposes. What is the difference between "Christianity and violence" (a poorly named article BTW, which is why Wikipedia tries to discourage "and" articles) and Christian terrorism? Student7 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

they are separate. this is broader as is clearly shown in the "Christian violence" section, which has a subsection per WP:SUMMARY taken from the lead of the christian terrorism article. This is normal WP procedure for related topics. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1. So because this is "broader", it should contain everything (or summarize everything) from Christian terrorism?

2.Minor point, more easily addressed: The recent forced Hindu conversions are listed under "Christian terrorism" in that article, but added to "forced conversion" here. I think this should be consistent, wherever it appears. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1) not what I said and not what is in this article. 2) this is also discussed in the main article cited in the forced conversion section. things often have multiple catogorizations. it's unclear what your point is... Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Do you support importing all examples from Christian terrorism, including those under subsections there: 1.1 Central African Republic, 1.2 Great Britain, 1.3 India, 1.3.1 Tripura, 1.3.2 Odisha, 1.3.3 Nagaland, 1.3.4 Manipur, 1.4 Lebanon, 1.5 Northern Ireland, 1.6 Norway, 1.7 Romania, 1.8 Uganda, 1.9 United States?

1a) Do you intend to merge these two articles?

1b) If they are "different", how are they "different"? What (in words here on the talk page) make them "different?"

2) Is forced conversion from Hinduism to Christianity an issue to be listed under "Forced conversion" or is it an issue to be listed under "Christian terrorism?"

1) no

1a) no

1b) answered above. it is common as dirt in WP to have articles on a subtopic that are discussed in a main article on the topic. i can't believe you are not aware of this but in the bizarre off-chance that you are not please do read WP:SUMMARY. christian terrorism is a subtopic of christianity and violence.

2) why does it have to be one thing? many things and events have multiple aspects. the immaculate conception is relevant to mariology, notions of original sin and some christologies; should it only be treated only in one article as one thing? likewise the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has environmental aspects, legal aspects (civil and criminal), corporate governance aspects, and so on.

3) Please respond - what is your point with all this? Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare

Not in touch with mainstream scholarship and overflowing with supersessionism which most of the world got over, oh about 50 years ago. I will be doing a rewrite with appropriate, mainstream sources. kind of a bitter bummer to find this article in such a retrograde state. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First, total agreement regarding the miserable shape of this articles of the "religion X and violence" type which have been kind of problematic for at least a few years. I wish I could say I'd help but finding good sources that deal with the topic is I imagine very difficult but I'm willing to offer what help I can.John Carter (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a bit of a jolt on seeing the talk section header on my watchlist, having been here through numerous I-don't-like-it efforts to delete the page entirely. But since the actual intent is to update and improve the page, I'm all for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a course in the bible and violence some years ago ... will dig up my notes, articles, and books and fix these, one of these weekends! sorry to have scared you, trypto. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

note - i fixed most of the issues that prompted me to write the above over the past few weeks. the article still needs improvement, of course. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes this article is a nightmare. Disorganised, outrageously POV, essentially one long anti-Christian screed (and I am not a Christian nor even much of a sympathiser). Prominent among its many fundamental errors is attributing the Torah and 'Old Testament' to Christianity. 172.56.32.252 (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the article is outrageously POV, and the "Old Testament" is very much part of Christianity - this was decided way back in the 2nd century, when Marcionism was determined to be heresy and the OT was definitively included in the Christian canon. But please point out specific passages that you think need improvement. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The history of Christian violence is missing

The article is missing the historical record of Christian violence, which I intend to correct--when i have the time.Bdubay (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the material that you added today. Please see WP:NOTESSAY (point 3), WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, there was no original research! The section I contributed was properly documented with references and links to lots of related material. Are you one to censor this contribution? You have left a large gap in the coverage of the subject. Bdubay (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by original research was where, for example, you presented your own opinions and interpretations in Wikipedia's voice. I promise you that it was not my intention to censor anything, nor for that matter to give your contribution short shrift. Please consider presenting those historical events where they are applicable within the existing sections of the page, and please present the information in a neutral manner that does not engage in advocacy. That's not my personal agenda; it's just the way that Wikipedia works. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I am sorry that my contribution appeared to advocate something. It is sometimes difficult to plainly state the facts in a neutral manner without causing offense in others. Could you please point out where i am not being neutral or objective? Objective scholarship demands stating the hard facts of history. I sincerely believe that the topic deserves a "history' section to show that the subject is anything but abstract and theological but has had real effects on the lives of millions. To leave out the history of deliberate Christian programs of persecution against members of other religions is to leave a big whole in this discussion.Bdubay (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, you don't need to feel sorry! Here's the diff of the revert that I made: [8]. Since that time, other editors have been revising the page extensively. If you'd like to discuss including the perspectives you were trying to add, as part of the ongoing revisions, that would be fine. It seems to me that the material that I reverted contained statements of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. For example, in the first line, "Christians do themselves no service by denying...". If something like that is to be in Wikipedia, it would have to be more like: "According to [scholarly secondary source], 'Christians do themselves no service by denying...'". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for responding. I am happy people are still working on this page. I believe that the page should at least cover the following eras of Christian persecution of other religions: 1. Christian persecution of pagan religions beginning with Theodosius I. Gibbon has a full chapter on this. 2. The Crusades. 3. the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, which would include the persecution of native religions in both North and South America under both the Spanish Conquistadores and North American colonists. The Popes as late as Pope Leo XIII were still in favor of killing heretics. There were 15 centuries of active persecution by Christians of heretics and members of other religions. Finally, the subject would not be complete without a section of the Christian support of slavery. The Catholic Church did not get around to condemning slavery until Vatican II in 1964. The historical extent of authorized Christian violence is nowhere reflected in the current page. I should not have to point out that these are all matters of facts agreed upon by historians and not issues of private opinion. Bdubay (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, every one of those topics is, indeed, appropriate for this page. My advice would be to present it, however, in terms of what sources say, rather than expressing evaluative conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. Jytdog, I know that you have been working on this page, so maybe you could take a look at this. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I am glad you see the need for a factual treatment of the history of Christian violence. I would be glad to offer all the documentation you require if you would please restore the original text. It would help me immensely if you could point out the passages you feel are POV and i will change them and give appropriate references. There are countless sources documenting this history. It is an embarrassment of riches, but I will be happy to sort them out for you if you wish to cooperate. Bdubay (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was pinged. It appears that the discussion is around this set of edits. Bdubay to be frank, that doesn't display anything close to WP:NPOV, from the first line to the last. The angry screed that you wrote has no place here - it is just pure WP:SOAPBOX and I am surprised that you are arguing to retain any of it. Further, there are almost no sources - the whole thing is pretty much WP:OR (and sources like this are not acceptable). I get it - I really do - that you are passionate about this Bdubay but you have to put the work in, to do this in a measured, scholarly way, to make it acceptable in Wikipedia. Put your mind where your passion is. There are serious people who have done serious work in this area - here, for example, is just one bibliography. It is an important topic, and you need to honor it by applying work and discipline to creating a high quality, very well-sourced, carefully considered treatment of it. That's all I have to say. I intend to do work to flesh out this article too but have been hammered at work. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JYtdog, As I mentioned before, I will be glad to provide you with the references needed to support my assertions. But all i get from you and Ttyptofish so far are a lot of name calling and vague statements about POV and angry screed. What I don't see from either of you are the statements you find objectionable (Other than the first sentence). Please, if there is any statement that strikes you as unverifiable or is the result of an impassioned screed please let me know. I will attend to it and supply the verification.

Any page claiming to cover Christianity and violence should cover these major periods that are matters of historical agreement: 1. Christian persecution of pagan religions. You already have a page dedicated to that. 2. Religious violence in the Crusades. 3. Religious persecution in the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions. 4. Persecution of Native religions in the colonization of Africa and the Americas. You have one page on the Americas. 5. Religious violence in the Christian wars of Europe. You already have a page on that. 6. The long Christian practice and support of slavery.

Before we go any further in this subject, don't you agree that all these subject should be covered in this article? I don't know why, in the name of fairness and objectivity, you would want to deny any of them. All the discussion (e.g. the bibliography you referenced) about religion and violence has to start with a clear view of this history. .Bdubay (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you cannot see what is wrong with what you wrote. If you gave an inkling you were open to learning I would put more time into working with you, but you continue to actually defend what you wrote, when you have heard from two experienced editors that the entire thing was unacceptable - you drew huge, unsupportable generalizations, and make judgements of your own throughout, with non-WP:NPOV language, and it is almost entirely unsourced. Read what you wrote and compare it to pretty much any historical article in WP and you will see how it differs. But I don't have time to try to teach somebody who is uninterested in learning. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

about your last paragraph, which was jaw-dropping for me, see Criticism_of_Christianity#Negative_attitudes_in_Nazi_Germany Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

i've addressed most of the things you raised. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, You and Tryptofish have only made it very clear that you were offended by my contribution, but you were not specific. Labeling items as POV or WP:NPOV is too generic and vague to be helpful. What precisely were "huge, unsupportable generalizations?" What were judgments of my own and not derived from the sources I cited? When i first discovered this page, there was no mention of historical events. it was mainly Christians commenting on violence in general. As scholars, you should know that one cannot make moral judgments without first seeing what people do. I don't think you realize the contemporary importance of this subject, considering all the debate about islamic violence. It is important first to lay down empirical facts as known in history, and not hide from them. Bdubay (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave you several specific examples, which you have not responded to. (Really! You ask for examples, I give you some, and you ignore them. argh.) You are making accusations of bad faith or ignorance about others, instead of dealing with the problems with what you did. You have not acknowledged the work I did in the article yesterday. Your behavior adds up to WP:TENDENTIOUS which I invite you to read and reflect on. Until you actually respond to what I have written and ask authentic questions, going forward, I am not responding to your further per WP:SHUN. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you pointed out one paragraph, my last paragraph, which you called jaw-dropping. Anyone who knows about the centuries of anti-Semitism among Christians would not find that jaw-topping. As Goldhagen and others have observed, the Shoa would not have taken place without the efforts, compliance, and silence of millions of German Christians, including priests and bishops. You think that Hitler's willing accomplices were Muslims or atheists? These are simple issues of fact and should be stated as such. Any honest historian can show you that for nearly 1,500 years, Christians conducted persecutions against heretics and other religions. Bdubay (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish and Jytdog: It is still disturbing that you refuse to put up a section entitled the History of Christian Violence. I don't think Wikipedia can afford to appear that it is white-washing the complicity of Christians in the atrocities and crimes they have committed as a matter of policy over the centuries. This history is unique. There is nothing like it in Islam or any other religion.

Christian acts of violence were not sporadic or incidental as the page now implies. They were part of official policies and modes of operation. They began with Augustine persecution of the Donatists and continued through to the end of the Mexican inquisition in the 1800s.

They were repeatedly enforced by Popes, bishops, saints, and councils. It is disingenuous to blame these crimes on the government or "the times." They were acts religiously motivated and caused by religious officials.

The 300-year persecution of paganism is the worst violation of freedom of speech of religion in history. It was very thorough, banning not only pagan worship and practices, but also pagan books, libraries and schools, leaving almost no record of that religion (the religion of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and little of the science. By the 10th century, there was scarcely a non-Christian text or library in all of Europe except for Spain and ireland. In the 13th century, Aquinas had to go to Spain to find a text of Aristotle. That persecution put the progress of western civilization behind by 500 years.

The long support of anti-Semitism, slavery, war, and capital punishment is also part of that same tragic history. They were not the acts of individual Christians, but Church-supported institutions, with direct and considerable effect on national and foreign policies.

As a Christian with a conscience and as an American with strong beliefs in the principles of the Bill of Rights and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, I want to know in detail that history of those crimes. Until we Christians recognize and acknowledge that history, we are doomed to repeat it. if you need the references for all this, let me know. but you have to revert the section first.Bdubay (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been away from this page for a little while, and I feel the need to comment. I do not really think that it's true that all I have said to Bdubay has been "a lot of name calling and vague statements about POV and angry screed." I think that I did point you to how to write content in conformance with WP:NPOV, and it's not that difficult to follow through on it. That said, I continue to agree that the page would be improved by addition of some of the topics that have been listed in this discussion, so long as the addition is done in conformance with the ways that Wikipedia does things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)