Template talk:Religious persecution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Atheists/anti-clericals

I don't think this "persecuting group" should include atheists. The article this links to does not have ANY mention of atheism (or agnosticism). It sounds more like catholic anti-clericals. The article lists the anti-clericals as "fighting for Christ", not a group of people lacking a religion.

[edit] NPOV Question

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

[edit] Two way grid?

We need a two-way grid really, "Persecution of atheists by Mormons", "Persecution of Zoroastrians by Christians", etc. Admittedly, some would be a bit short. Poetlister 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, the longest article would probably be "Persecution of Christians by Christians". We'd then need to split it into "Persecution of Protestants by Catholics" and vice versa, etc. RachelBrown 10:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Afraid I have to agree with you. Poetlister 10:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientologists

I do not see this as a notable group, and this page is already sinking under the weight of its unused links. (In case you have not noticed, it is being VfD-ed itself.)

If you want to add Scientologists, then kindly first create the relevant articles. --EMS | Talk 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Those articles would be rather long, and I don't see any problem with them being red links in the template. Scientologists have been persecuted and persecuted others in thier history. SCN is very relavent to any article on Religious persecution. Klonimus 07:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I find that to be remarkable in a 50-year-old religion.
As far as I am concerned, you have demonstrated that the concept of this template is corrupt. It was meant to be a navigation bar, not a billboard. Historical, dominant religions I can accept in this list by default. Lesser religions should at least have the articles already in place at the least.
Also, if this template is to accept anthing that comes along with the proper set of articles, it will get awfully long after a while. --EMS | Talk 17:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why should the fact that an article would be rather long mean that it shouldn't be written? On the contrary, it means that it's a substantial subject that may well deserve an article. And it seems awfully wrong to me to have a template dominated by red links. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy on this? Poetlister 10:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zoroastrians?

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

[edit] Pagans and Germanic pagans

I don't see why there should be a separate entry for Germanic pagans, when there is already one for Pagans in general. DFH 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Further duplication - Heathens and Pagans are the same. One just redirects to the other. This is overkill! DFH 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As nobody responded, I have just removed some of the duplication. DFH 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks and hidden links

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

[edit] "Christians, Jews, Muslims" then "Soviet Union"...WTF???

Okay, if you're going to generalize people by religion, then do it equally, do it fairly. The first three are RELIGIONS. The last one is a COUNTRY. You should do one of two things:

1) Replace "Christians", "Jews", and "Muslims" under the "by persecuting group" column with the specific NATIONS that did the persecuting, or

2) Replace "Soviet Union" under said column with "Atheists".

It is not fair to say that when the Soviet Union persecuted people, it was the Soviet Union not Atheists that did the persecuting, but when anyone else persecuted people, it was (religion) and not the respective nation or country. You are either being unfair towards religion, or letting atheists off the hook. Take your pick, and fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.227.63 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Template_talk%7EReligious_persecution_e603.html"