Talk:Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kosovo[edit]

The sources do not connect events in Kosovo with anti-Orthodoxy sentiments. The destruction of churches might happen for a variety of reasons, for example identification of them with an oppressing governmental force or a particular ethnic group. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, particularly if it might be that buildings other than churches are included as well. Having said that, if only churches are being destroyed, that might maybe be included in some article if that article is the one a separate article on the burnings, if that theoretical article were created and proposed for merger, might be merged into the one the material is actually being added to. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to inform all editors of this article that in the past few days user @Ktrimi991: made several failed attempts to remove entire sections in three different articles: Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Christians in the modern era, and also Anti-Orthodoxy. All those sections were relating to one subject: crimes of Muslim Albanians, committed against Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. The same user tried to delete all those sections unilaterally, before initiating this discussion on the talk pages. I would urge all editors to take a good look at the nature of all those deletions, since they were rightfully reverted by several editors. Sorabino (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, with respect, that this is a slight misrepresentation. On this article, all Ktrimi991 has done as far as I can see is restore the 2 January version by Joefromrandb after the insertion by one anonymous editor of some (rather un-encyclopedic) text, cut and paste from other articles. The inserted material is dubious, because it attributes sectarian violence during a civil war situation to a particular motivation "Anti-Orthodoxy" without citing a single reliable source that suggests this motivation. So, instead of ad hominem attacks on an editor, perhaps Sorabino you could give us the case why this material should be in the article?BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you talk about Ktrimi991's "failed attempts", but from glancing at the edit history it looks like they "failed" because you insisted on reverting and refused to discuss on the talk pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: @Bobfrombrockley Apart from churches, the target included shops, offices, cultural centers and institutions. The conflict in Kosovo, before, during and after war was caused by a mixture of nationalism and disappointment from economy and corruption. The UN secretary-general's report of April 30, 2004 described the events as "ethnically motivated violence". Sorabino is not replying so I think the section does not have to stay any longer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: I am removing the section here. These tendentious attempts to misrepresent nationalist conflicts as religious ones needs to cease as they help absolutely no one on Wikipedia or in the real world either.--Calthinus (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some observes described the persecution of Kosovo Serbs as persecution of Christians.[1][2][3] There is also many Serbian scholars.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Anthony McGuckin (2010). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444392548.
  2. ^ Donald G. Lett (2008). Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic. Phoenix Rising. p. 144. ISBN 9781434364111.
  3. ^ "Le martyr des Chrétiens-Serbes du Kosovo et l'irrédentisme islamiste-ottoman dans les Balkans..." (in French). Atlantico. Retrieved 3 May 2020.

What is anti-Orthodoxy?[edit]

This article does not cite a single source which uses the term "anti-Orthodoxy". It has been tagged as needing verification since 2015. Each of the sections relates to bad things that have happened to Orthodox Christians, but does not give a reason why they should be understood as part of something called "Anti-Orthodoxy". The section on the Ottomans, for example, explicitly notes that Orthodox and other Christians were not differentiated, so why is it in this article? The whole article seems like an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Unless decent citations are added, I will nominate the article for deletion.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: I agree. I reckon we should wait for a reasonable time, maybe one or two weeks. If nobody makes some improvements, the article can not sustain itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...@Bobfrombrockley and Ktrimi991: a lot of 3000 or so Google results [[1]] seem to suggest that the word has a different definition -- meaning "sentiment that opposes established thought", not the Orthodox Christian faith. These seem much more common in books and other preferable sources actually [[2]][[3]][[4]]. Results are also including a large percentage of links about hostility to Orthodox Judaism (like this [[5]][[6]]). And the main actually reputable sources that are using this term use it in the Soviet context it seems where you have atheists of the same ethnicity and nationality persecuting Orthodox Christians for clearly non-national reasons, which is curiously entirely absent from this page. --Calthinus (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came to exactly the same conclusion. I specifically checked Google Scholar and Google Books, and I am more convinced than ever this is a made-up neologism. Will go to AfD.BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Add your thoughts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search shows that "anti-Orthodox" primarily hits on this subject. On the first three pages, I receive exactly 22-vs-8 in favour of anti-Orthodoxy as in anti-Orthodox Christianity. "Anti-Orthodox sentiment" as per other examples?--Zoupan 01:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Zoupan- feel free to add reliable sources to the page then. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a majority of hte first set of results are about Orthodox Judaism, see here [[7]] (you need to remove Wikipedia, Wikia and Wiki from the search). On hte first set, 5 are about Judaism, 2 about Christianity and 1 about... botany. It needs to be clarified to be against Orthodox Christianity. I also note that the first one of the sources that actually referred to Christianity is this [uhhh... "academic" work which claims Anti-Orthodox conspiracies by Ukraine] which is an overwhelmingly Orthodox country itself, while the second is about views associated with Russian fascism accusing certain literature of being "anti-Orthodox" and therefore burning it (Orwellian, huh) [[8]]. Interesting results, to say the least. --Calthinus (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We actually could have Anti-Orthodox Christian sentiment. However this page, especially a lot of the recent additions by Zoupan, are not describing sentiment they are describing actions that are (allegedly) based on such sentiment -- hence Persecution of Orthodox Christians seems to describe it better (if it was about anti-Orthodox Christian sentiment, I would expect to see polls which I doubt exist). A lot of these additions are dubious. I removed the Ukraine "anti-Orthodox" conspiracy theories that were added. I also take issue with this sentence: The Albanian nationalist movement of the 1981 protests in Kosovo had an anti-Orthodox focus, but this was due to identifying Orthodoxy with the Serbs. which explicitly acknowledges that the motivation isn't really religious-- so why is it here? Actually ironically calling this anti-Orthodox ignores the fact that many Orthodox Albanians from Albania proper cheered (and still cheer) for UCK and hold similar feelings toward Serbian Orthodoxy because it is Serbian, clearly not because it is Orthodox (their own faith). Indeed Orthodox Albanians like Klodian Sotir Gjika rushed to Kosovo and took up arms to fight the Serbian army alongside their Catholic and Muslim kin. Likewise these Albanian nationalists in Kosovo have no negative feelings towards Albanian Orthodox (indeed they revere Orthodox figures like Fan Noli, even Sotirovic will admit this). The sentence about the Kosovo Catholic church being anti-Orthodox in the view of some Serbs is a lot more acceptable to me, because it attributes the viewpoint rather than stating it as fact. --Calthinus (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Polls, really? You are implying the opposite, but in my view, organized attacks and campaigns towards the Orthodox, such as in destroying church property, terrorizing clergy, etc., motivated by ethnic hatred or not, should count and be included in the article. I see destruction of churches and mosques, murders of priest and imams, be it state-organized or in civil unrest, the same way.--Zoupan 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Actually, it is different. Once upon a time in the land of America, a boy named Dylan went on a rampage against a church. Under your view, that should automatically be viewed as anti-Christian. It was anything but. The assailant himself was a Christian. It was, in fact, anti-Black. Just like anti-Serbian Orthodox actions of the Ustasha are anti-Serb, not against the Orthodox faith. --Calthinus (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What if there was rampage on over 100 Orthodox churches? What if priests were kidnapped and executed? What if civilians were executed if they did not convert? You know I am talking about wars in former Yugoslavia and the strange thing called "The Balkans", not some pissant pill popper racist psycho. You imply some sort of coincidence. Very bad example from your side. Not buying your efforts to have anti-Serb/Orthodox campaigns removed from the article. At all.--Zoupan 03:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
If there was a rampage on over 100 Black Protestant churches, it would be 100% anti-Black, and 0% anti-Protestant, and yes, I would remove it from a page about anti-Protestantism, absolutely. I think it is an excellent example which you still aren't engaging. Serb does not equal Orthodox although it often implies it. The Ustasha happen to also have been the definition of "pill popper racist psychos"-- they had a lot of hatred towards Serbs, plus Jews and Roma. In fact, if you notice, with regard to Jews, tehre are two concepts, anti-Semitism (ethnic) and anti-Judaism (religious) -- note how our page for anti-Judaism does not include the ethnically-motivated Holocaust. -Calthinus (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, are you really denying that there were religious aspects of the Holocaust? Such claim would be preposterous! We have special article on Religious antisemitism with entire section on the Holocaust. Somehow, you failed to mention that. Correlation between racial and religious aspects of Holocaust, and other genocides and ethnic conflicts, constitutes an entire field in social studies, with thousands of scholars working on those subjects. Holocaust did have both racial and religious aspects, that is a well established scientific fact. So, please, educate yourself! Sorabino (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino Um no, racial and religious aspects were by no means equal contributors in the event itself, in that the motivation for the Nazis was almost entirely "racial" (note I am not endorsing this view, actually my view is that all "races" are made up fantasy categories when humanity can't really be separated into discrete groups...), even though the history of how it arose involved religious aspects. If you actually read the section you're referring to, you'd realize it says this : Interviews with Nazis by other historians show that the Nazis thought that their views were rooted in biology, not historical prejudices.. "As for anti-Semitic attitudes and actions, he insisted that 'the racial question... [and] resentment of the Jewish race... had nothing to do with medieval anti-Semitism...' That is, it was all a matter of scientific biology and of community", and the conclusion of American Jewish scholars -- Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. This very accurately sums up the general view on what motivated the Holocaust. Religious aspects such as age-old prejudices and Luther's polemics and etc played a role in how such an ideology arose but they were not decisive motivators in the event itself as perpetrated by the National Socialist Party. However, the point is not for us to discuss the Holocaust of all things. Anyhow, this section is actually pretty well done, so I will propose an offer based on it. --Calthinus (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Can I draw everyone's attention to the result of the AfD mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy There was a strong consensus for the article to remain, but also a strong consensus for a name change to something like Persecution of Orthodox Christians. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Orthodox sentiment and Persecution of Orthodox Christians are not synonymous though. The latter is a subset of the former.--Zoupan 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Feel free to make a WP:move request. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will at some point if I can work out how, unless someone else does. Didn't want to preempt the discussion emerging in the section above - but if anyone else wants to, they should do ahead.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source falsification?[edit]

I just removed the Czech Orthodox section. It had only one source, this (google translated [[9]]) and the translation... doesn't even mention the string "Orthodox". Looks like source falsification to me. I have removed it.--Calthinus (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did good. There are a lot of issues with this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Orthodoxy → Persecution of Orthodox Christians – The current name actually doesn't typically refer to what this page discusses, but instead refers to anti-establishment views or hostility to Orthodox Judaism (see google results [[10]] and Wiktionary [[11]]. This AfD had the vast majority of people agreeing that the current name of the article was unacceptable [[12]]. Persecution of Orthodox Christians much more accurately describes the contents of this article.--Calthinus (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia recognizes two main branches (denominations) of Christian Orthodoxy (with capital O): Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. This article deals with persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, and therefore it should not be renamed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" since that would be an ambiguous title, that also applies to the persecution of Oriental Orthodox Christians. Consequently, this article could be renamed to "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" or to some similar title that acknowledges the denominational difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Also, it should be noted that official FBI terminology on the animosity towards Eastern Orthodox Christianity is quite clear: FBI officially uses the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" (basic Google Search currently shows more than 800 hits for such use of term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" (in relation to the FBI terminology). Therefore, this article could also be renamed to "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment" or to some similar title. Sorabino (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino Could you please explain why "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" would be an ambiguous title, as opposed to simply an article whose topic is more broadly focused than one about a particular denomination? For example: there would be nothing wrong with an article entitled, "Persecution of Christians", it just would have a larger scope than this one, and likely would have to be a summary style article for that reason, but there's nothing wrong with that. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it does exist, well, good then; so how is that article not ambiguous? Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term Persecution of Orthodox Christians is ambiguous since it may refer to different subjects, like Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians and Persecution of Oriental Orthodox Christians. It can also refer to the persecution of any other Christian community that self-identifies as orthodox. Sorabino (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why this is such a vexing issue but I would be fine with Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, personally.--Calthinus (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite an important issue, since Oriental Orthodox Christians have been severely persecuted throughout history, and that is a different subject - here are some relevant articles: Persecution of Copts or Armenian Genocide. Quite soon, we might also have a distinctive denominational article on the persecution of Oriental Orthodox Christians and therefore the title of this article should include unambiguous denominational terminology. Sorabino (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may have an argument in favor of your desired title, but stating that "The term Persecution of Orthodox Christians is ambiguous" is certainly not it. That's no more true than saying that Persecution of Christians is ambiguous. Both topic titles are perfectly unambiguous, and have different scope; that is all. If you want to support your view, I'd go more with the argument that others are making for you, namely that that's what the article appears to be about now. Although, that does beg the question of why the article is not currently named Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" is a mouthful and sounds unnatural in the English language to my ear (imagine using it in a sentence: compare "Wow man, that's some crazy Anti-Catholicism" versus "Wow man, that's some crazy Anti-Eastern Orthodox...y). To compound this somewhat OR-ish reasoning, Google gives it, with Wikipedia removed, only [3 results]. --Calthinus (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" is quite common. Google Search shows more than 1600 hits for the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" and therefore this article could be renamed to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Sorabino (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EO is obviously the subject. Those are two different and separated communions. Btw, "Orthodox Christianity" in common usage is the Eastern Orthodox Church.--Zoupan 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Slightly changed my !vote per Sorabino and Zoupan comments above. Agree, we should keep the two denominations separate. byteflush Talk 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -though still am open to discussion - The name proposed by @Calthinus: Persecution of Orthodox Christians encompasses what the content of article is really about. @Sorabino:, i would not be against it having a more narrower focus in its title but would need to have the word Christian in it so its precise like Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiment. Also on the first proposal, how about something like Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians ? One of these can be the article page title, while the other can be a redirect - whichever editors go with in the end for either option. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment" in your example would suffice. The subject includes Persecution (and that word would be bolded in intro).--Zoupan 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Zoupan:, it needs to have the word Christian in it. I know this is a bit generalised what i say here, but many places (i.e most of Africa, Asia etc) around the world don't know what Eastern Orthodox is (as Orthodox Christian populations are not found there) and for a sizable amount of them, various denominations of Christianity come of as being the same. Hence my comments above for the needed additional wording. In the end however i support the proposed move with the additional word of Eastern being in it.Resnjari (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, are you implying that title Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment would be ambiguous? Basic Google Search shows that term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" is used only in reference to Eastern Orthodoxy (see more than 1600 hits). As I stated before, the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" has been adopted by the FBI as official designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy (see more than 800 hits on Google Search). Therefore, we could and should rename this article to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Sorabino (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, do you really think that the title, and consequently the scope of this article, should be reduced to "persecution" only? Comparative denominational examples, here on English Wikipedia, are quite clear: Persecution of Catholics is just a redirect, correctly pointing to Anti-Catholicism, and Persecution of Protestants is also just a redirect, correctly pointing to Anti-Protestantism. So, why should we reduce only this denominational article to persecution? Sorabino (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as article subject is anti-sentiment and persecution, the former terminology not necessarily meaning the latter. As Persecution of Catholics redirects to Anti-Catholicism, I do not see a point in having this article in a different style.--Zoupan 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
"Anti-Catholicism" is not an ambiguous term.--Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term Anti-Eastern Orthodox is also not ambiguous, and therefore it would be best to use that term, and preserve the basic style of the title by renaming this article to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Sorabino (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is confusing, and the proposed name solves all issues. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians as original poster, but this version seems to have wider support.--Calthinus (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed rename of the article into Persecution of Orthodox Christians, as per proposer. It removes the problems of the current title. If people really think that's ambiguous, I guess the addition of "Eastern" would be fine, but I don't see why it'd be confusing without it; it could surely encompass both, as Persecution of Christians covers persecution of all Christian denominations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians - that is the subject of this article (by its very content) and since title of every article should reflect its content it is quite clear that standard denominational terminology should be followed here. Proposed title "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" would not reflect the content of this article, since persecution of Oriental Orthodox Christians is not dealt here - that is a different subject, related to Oriental Orthodoxy as a distinctive Christian denomination with its own set of articles, including articles on persecution, like Persecution of Copts or Armenian Genocide. Sorabino (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The scope of this article should not be reduced only to "persecution" since article deals with various negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians, and therefore this article belongs to the same class of articles as Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Mormonism or Anti-Judaism. Also, we have titles like Anti-Hindu sentiment. As I noted above, one of several possible solutions for renaming this article, without the reduction of its scope, would be based on official FBI terminology on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Google Search shows more than 800 hits for term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" in relation to FBI terminology and more than 1600 hits for its use in general. Therefore, this article could be renamed to "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment" without unnecessary and unjustified reduction to "persecution" only. Sorabino (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to Persecution of Orthodox Christians. Per User:Resnjari, I'm open to discussion about narrowing the scope to Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, but wanted to be clear that the argument that "The current title is ambiguous" is mistaken; the current title isn't ambiguous, it just refers to something other than what move proponents wish it to. Likewise, the argument that the proposed title, Persecution of Orthodox Christians is inappropriate "since that would be an ambiguous title" is also mistaken, because that title is not ambiguous, it just has a different scope than some wish for this article; i.e, from their vantage point, it is "wrong", not ambiguous. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In English language, term "Orthodox Christians" is ambiguous, because it can refer to different Christian denominations and their adherents, for example: Proto-orthodox Christians or Eastern Orthodox Christians or Oriental Orthodox Christians. In general, term "Orthodox Christians" can refer to any group of Christians that self-identifies as orthodox. Sorabino (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, what you haven't done in all the times you repeated this point, is explain how such ambiguity -- i.e. the grouping of Oriental Orthodoxy with Eastern Orthodoxy -- is "bad". After all, they are all Orthodox Christians in that they are not members of the branches of Western Christianity (Cath./Prot.). It also doesn't seem you think grouping Ethiopian Orthodoxy with Russian Orthodoxy is really so bad after all outside of this page, seeing as you included both in the category "Anti-Orthodoxy" (creation of Eastern Orthodoxy incl with cat "Anti-Orthodoxy": [[13]] and the same for Oriental Orthodoxy here [[14]]. Why is the grouping bad here, but not when you did it for Category pages? --Calthinus (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus It is you who should explain (since you proposed the move) why do you want to reduce the scope of this article to "persecution" only? For example Persecution of Catholics is just a redirect, correctly pointing to Anti-Catholicism, and Persecution of Protestants is also just a redirect, correctly pointing to Anti-Protestantism, so if you want to be consistent here why don't you propose reducing "Anti-Catholicism" to "Persecution of Catholics" or reducing "Anti-Protestantism" to "Persecution of Protestants"? Somehow, I think that you wont make such proposals, because it is quite obvious that such proposals would also be problematic, so you should explain to the community why do you want to reduce only the scope of this article? So far, you did not say a word about that. The content of this article covers the entire scope of negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians and therefore it could be renamed to "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment". That would be a proper title, correct in terms of content and unambiguous in terms of denomination. As I said above, Anti-Eastern Orthodox is commonly used - Google Search shows more than 1600 hits. Sorabino (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino:, i did say this alternative: Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiment as a pagename taking into account what you said. Didn't hear from you though.Resnjari (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment is not ambiguous, since it is used only in reference to Eastern Orthodoxy, and therefore no further clarification is needed. Since the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" has been officially adopted by the FBI as designation for various negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy (see more than 800 hits on Google Search), it is quite clear that it would be best to apply that terminology, and rename this article to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Sorabino (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone knows what Eastern Orthodox is on its own. Sure many from Europe, parts of the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Oceania have to varying degrees awareness of what Eastern Orthodox means. For the rest of the world like most of Africa, a large chunk of Asia etc that have increasing numbers of English speakers using platforms like Wikipedia they don't know what Eastern Orthodox connotes, hence the need to have the word Christian in it. For now i am going to agree with the current proposal for the page name change as it addresses to some extent what the article is about. Some more work on the content and structure of the article could allow for a name change your suggesting in the not to distant future done via a proper page move process. I would be open to that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to question general knowledge and cognitive abilities of users from those regions. Any user interested in subjects on Christianity can easily inform himself about English denominational terminology.Sorabino (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I often socialize with people from that part of the world due to university, and many of my friends only after some time when introduced to someone with that background (i.e: Orthodox Christian) then become aware. That's the vantage point i had in mind when it wrote my comment. Anyway Wikipedia also has in its policy (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) on naming recognizability saying" "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." In the end with Calthinus' proposal the word Eastern will be added to the end result -if passed in the page move and with your proposal if done in future, it will need the word Christian in it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari: The scope of this article can not be reduced to "persecution" only, for the reasons I stated several times above in this discussion, and besides that, we did not so far hear a single word of explanation of why should only this article be reduced, wile articles like Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism are left with their full scope. Reducing the scope of this article to "persecution" only would be clear example of double standards, and therefore contrary to several Wikipedia policies and rules.Sorabino (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that that we have consensus, in principle, to change the current title of this article, but on the other hand, it is clear that the proposed title did not receive support, on the grounds of style, scope and denominational ambiguity.Sorabino (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WWII persecution of Serbs[edit]

I don't think Calthinus' removal of WWII persecution of Serbs from the article is the least warranted. Why is the campaign against the Serbian Orthodox out of scope? Isn't forced conversion within the concept of anti-sentiment/persecution? The Vatican–Ustashe relations are known, as are Catholic clergy's involvement in concentration camps and mass conversions of Orthodox adherents (which may have saved their heads). The NDH's open hostility and hate towards the Orthodox, as part of identification with Serbdom or not, is a fact.--Zoupan 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Zoupan Because it wasn't a campaign against Serbian Orthodox, it was a campaign against Serbs. If it was anti-Orthodox, why was the Croatian Othodox Church founded? Serbian atrocities against Croats are not considered "anti-Catholic" in the same way. It was horrific, and yes, genocidal, but it wasn't based on their religion. The Vatican has had fucked up stances but it is a Catholic institution not an "anti-Orthodox" institution so it's irrelevant unless you thihnk this page is actually "Persecution by Muslims and Catholics" rather than "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" or whatever its name will be in the end. This all gets confusing because it just so happens that some 99% or so of Orthodox in Croatia happen to be Serbs.
That being said, you make a fair enough case regarding the forced conversion and whatnot-- I'm fine with returning the part about forced conversion but only if it is made clear the context that it arose in (i.e. Orthodoxy viewed as "Serbian" and thus a fifth column). Sometimes I'm hasty. Comes with having limited time. --Calthinus (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Religious animosity goes back centuries. The Croatian Orthodox Church was only established in 1942 by the Ustashe government as a gateway to Uniatization and Croatization. The Orthodox Serbs were still persecuted and murdered. The Orthodox faith was foreign and incompatible with the Ustashe Croatian nation-state. If Chetniks or Partisans issued a "one-third-converted/killed/deported" on Croats and systematically targeted the Catholic church, clergy, and adherents, I would consider that anti-Catholic.--Zoupan 03:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
  • Calthinus, are you denying that there were religious aspects of the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia during the Second World War? Such denial would be inappropriate and even offensive, as was your removal of the entire section. Why are you continuing to make such disruptive edits? Regarding the subjects in question, we have special articles on World War II persecution of Serbs and Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. Connection between ethnic and religious aspects of anti-Serbian policies of Croatian Fascists (Ustaše) is very well researched by historians and other scholars, including many Croatian scholars, like Viktor Novak, who wrote the famous work "Magnum Crimen", classifying the Croatian Ustaša movement as typical clero-fascist movement. Persecution of Serbs by Croatian Fascists did have both ethnic and religious aspects, that is a well established historical fact. There are literally hundreds of scholarly works on the subject. So, you can easily educate yourself. Can you produce any scholarly reference that would actually support your claims? Sorabino (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm I guess I must be a self-hater then? Interesting take on my internal mental life :). Anyhow, yes, most scholars would consider the Holocaust as motivated by racialized anti-Semitism which was a pinnacle of the National Socialist ideology. It had very little to do with the tenets of Judaism as a religion and unsurprisingly it isn't mentioned on the page Anti-Judaism which covers hostility specifically against the Jewish religion -- there is even a literature clearly delineating which views are associated with which ("Jews as 'Orientals'" -- anti-Semitic, "Jews killed Christ" -- anti-Judaic, and so forth). You can read all about it if you like. This page, whatever its name is, is about hostility to the Orthodox Christian faith. Just like with Dylan Roof who attacked a Black Protestant church was anti-Black not anti-Protestant. As I have said before to Zoupan, I am actually fine with restoring the part about forced conversions, and perhaps the part about Catholic clergical involvement. But there is an issue regarding the clergy -- even on the page Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustaše I see nothing that explains the origins and characteristics about "anti-Orthodox Christian sentiments" among the clergy -- indeed, instead the page seems to suggest the clergy was motivated by nationalism and profit (while other elements of hte Catholic clergy firmly opposed Ustasha violence).--Calthinus (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have to modify my statement -- to be fair, here is one thing that could definitely belong on this page -- "In a meeting with Stepinac, Pius XII reiterated the words of Pope Leo X, that the Croats were "the outpost of Christianity", which implied that Orthodox Serbs were not true Christians. Pius XII foretold to Stepinac, "[T]he hope of a better future seems to be smiling on you, a future in which the relations between Church and State in your country will be regulated in harmonious action to the advantage of both." --Calthinus (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal -- model on Religious antisemitism#The Holocaust[edit]

Sorabino has brought up this section. I think this is a much better model of what should be done. I think Zoupan has convinced me that, although there are not many sources explicitly saying this, there may have been some anti-Orthodox sentiment involved in the whole Ustasha affair -- so, just like the excellent section linked above, the section here, if there is to be one should discuss the role attributed to such sentiment by authors, if sources can be found discussing such, rather than just summarizing the event itself. In the section Religious anti-Semitism#The Holocaust it does this pretty well, discussing some alternative views like that of Davidowicz, and also making clear what the mainstream view is on the issue. Since this is a controversial issue, I think this is the best route for us to take. Also, I regret that the conversation between us three has become somewhat of a minefield, and I want to say that if I have offended anyone I am sincerely sorry -- it is hard for us all to talk about such topics while having differing opinions.--Calthinus (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding the main issue, and still not producing any scholarly reference that would justify your actions and deletions of entire sections. Sorabino (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not need to "produce scholarly references" to justify deleting sections that are based of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH after consensus agreements in discussions you opted not to participate in. You've been around long enough to know how wiki works -- you can't shift the burden of citation like that.--Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need "scholarly references" or other reliable sources showing the persecution was targeted at them because Orthodox (or more precisely, Eastern Orthodox I guess?) to include it here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

Barely weeks ago, we had a CFP about a name change, with about a dozen participants, and a strong consensus for an article title change to "Persecution of--" while two editors argued for "Sentiments", so an admin duly changed the name to the one agreed. Wording the lede to reflect the personal views of the two dissenting editors goes against that consensus, so please can we keep the lede corresponding to the actual title. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The lede should be in line with the article's name and content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After nearly a month and a relisting over 2 weeks ago, it would appear that we still haven't found consensus for a new title, defaulting to the status quo. Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians → Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment – To broaden the scope of this article to match Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. Both Persecution of Catholics and Persecution of Protestants are redirects to their respective "Anti-" articles, in order that the articles' scope be broad enough to encompass both hostile sentiment and actual persecution. I respectfully submit that this is what should be done here, as well. Aervanath (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. That would be an appropriate solution, since this is general denominational article on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians. Proposed title would fairly reflect the full scope of this article. Since we already have full-scope articles on Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, it would be fair to ensure and acknowledge the same full scope of this article. Similar subjects on all denominations should be treated equally. Regarding the proposed style, it should be noted, as in various previous discussions, that the proposed term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" is also used by the FBI as official designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians (see more than 800 hits for such use of the term on Google Search). Therefore, same terminology should be applied here. Sorabino (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, are you serious? :) Why would you use the term "Catholicism" in title of this article? :) This article is about Eastern Orthodox Christianity, not about Catholic Church (see: Catholicism is redirecting to the Catholic Church). And also, the term "sentiment" is commonly used for this type of articles. For example, article on animosity towards Hinduism is titled Anti-Hindu sentiment and there are many similar examples, just look a the list here: List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. The title style "Anti-(X) sentiment" is commonly used for this type of articles, so why shouldn't it be used here? Sorabino (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Catholicism" is used because the article, to which you link, tells us that the Eastern Orthodox Church is "officially" known as the Orthodox Catholic Church.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, but not commonly. Though they're both pretty much the same to me, I think I read somewhere that right after the Schism both considered themselves Orthodox AND Catholic (depending on the context). Not in the modern common usage, though. The official name is probably an archaic leftover. byteflush Talk 02:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a second, you are mixing two terms here. The user Paine Ellsworth has proposed the term "Catholicism" and that term is not related to the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, because there is huge terminological difference between Catholicism as designation for the Catholic Church, and Catholicity as theological and ecclesiological concept of all traditional churches, including the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, term "Catholicism" can not be applied here in any form. Sorabino (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then in order to maintain the larger scope of the article, why not rename it to just Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy? (not entirely certain if there should or should not be a hyphen between "Eastern" and "Orthodoxy" – probably not.)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that "Catholicism" can not be applied here. Also, as far as I know, the common name of the EOC doesn't mention Catholicism or Catholicity. I only mentioned the adjective Catholic, which could refer to both of those nouns; however, since the common name doesn't refer to any of these, it's a moot point. To make myself clear: I oppose to Paine Ellsworth's rename suggestion. byteflush Talk 02:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such title would also solve the main problem here, in regard to the scope of this article, but since that term can also be used as common designation for theological opposition to particular doctrines of the Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems to me that for the sake of clarity it would still be best to use the proposed title: Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Comparative analysis of complex titles of articles on animosities towards various communities shows that term "sentiment" is being added in such cases precisely for the sake of clarity (see the list of of anti-cultural terms). Sorabino (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino:, as i said in the previous renaming discussion, unless your proposal has the word Christian in it (so it is: Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiment) i wont support it because its still vague. Just having Anti Eastern Orthodox on its own in the pagename does not tell a reader (who is not familiar with the internal divisions of Christianity) what they are looking for when searching and wanting to further their knowledge on the topic. If your willing to add the word Christian to it, i'll support it, absent that i wont. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari:, there is no ambiguity regarding denominational terms like Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Term Eastern Orthodoxy has only one meaning and redirects to Eastern Orthodox Church. Term Oriental Orthodoxy also has only one meaning and it is actually used as a title for the article on Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Do you have any proof for the claim that term Eastern Orthodox is ambiguous? It has only one meaning and redirects to Eastern Orthodox Church. So, there are no basis for your claims. Sorabino (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino:, agree to disagree. The current pagename has the word Christian/s + Eastern Orthodox in addition to the word Persecution in it making a reader able to find the page in the searchbox or if one was to google for it on the web based on name of group and topic. So in the end mine is a vote of oppose to your current proposal as it does not satisfy those parameters contained in the current name.Resnjari (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari:, it seems that you have no real evidence for your claims. There are no other meanings for the terms Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Orthodoxy since they point directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the community has acknowledged that in practice. Literally all uses of terms "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" on English Wikipedia are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, you are in odds with reality. Sorabino (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino:, my views are known on the issue (as with the previous pagename move discussion) and as such i am going with the reality of the current pagename, as it meets requirements of topic and group notability.Resnjari (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's literally a week since we closed a CFP with a strong consensus for the current title, in which two editors proposed this name as an alternative and it was opposed by strong consensus, so this feels like a bit of a vexatious CFP. I just think that "persecution" is something concrete that happens in history that we can easily find sources for and create a decent encyclopedic article, whereas "sentiment" is very nebulous and hard to pin down and leaves the page open to edit wars and to original research as we try to establish motivation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Persecution" narrows the scope, and detaches it from related articles Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. I suggest Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy, as a mirror of those.--Zoupan 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley:, your claims are factually not true. There was no "strong consensus" for the current title, as was explained by the closer in subsequent discussions, and certainly there was not any kind of consensus for the scope reduction of the content to persecution only. Precisely because of the lack of such consensus the reviewers decided to reopen this process, since they realized what was happening here and acknowledged that all denominations should be treated equally. In February, you wanted to delete this entire article, and now you are making claims that are totally unsubstantiated. So, why are you doing this? Sorabino (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure @Sorabino: why you would want to make this personal, but this is not an accurate representation. On the talk page above, I questioned whether there was such as think as "anti-orthodoxy", suggesting the article might be deleted if that's the case. Other editors agreed. I waited a week. Nobody put an opposing view, so I nominated for deletion. There was a strong consensus for keeping the article, but almost everyone who argued for keep suggested a name change. You, Sorabino, opened that discussion with this: "There is not a single reason for DELETING this article. The subject of this article (persecution of Orthodox Christians) is quite valid... Since we have general article Persecution of Christians, the title of that article could be also used as a model for possible solutions in this case. For example, present title of the article in question here (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be changed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" or something like that." You persuaded us (I said "I think that renaming would probably address my concerns equally well.", and the article remained. So, following your suggestion, another editor proposed a name change to the one you suggested. Eight editors supported a move to a formulation with "persecution"; one opposed. The discussion centred mainly on whether it should specific "Eastern", and so a variant of the proposed renaming was used, with the full support of the proposing editor (and me). That was closed 2 March, and then on 8 March you propose another name change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley:, that is not true, I was referring to the previous title of the article, in relation to the title that was used in the time of the proposed deletion, you should look at the history of moves! In other words, you should inform yourself before making assumptions, but who knows - maybe it is better that everyone should see here how far are you still ready to go after your failed attempt to kill this entire article. It is quite clear that you are trying now to wash it off. You did not have any arguments for the deletion then, as you do not have any arguments now for your opposing vote to the proposed title. And also, you are imagining things: I did not initiate any change of title, not the first time, and not the second time! Both proposals were made by other users, look it up, on this same talk page! And both times I clearly stated my preference for the wide-scope title Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. You voted against it, both times. During the previous discussion, there was no consensus for the reduction of scope to the "persecution" only. Sorabino (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino: I checked and OK you were the second not the first contributor to the AFD discussion, when the article was called "Anti-Orthodoxy" and I proposed deletion. You said The subject of this article (persecution of Orthodox Christians) is quite valid... Since we have general article Persecution of Christians, the title of that article could be also used as a model for possible solutions in this case. For example, present title of the article in question here (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be changed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" or something like that. As the proposer of the deletion, I didn't vote at first, only voting after reading your and other arguments for renaming to "Persecution of...", which I evidently found convincing as I voted Delete or rename:... I think that renaming would probably address my concerns equally well. It was a good, consensual solution, which prompted the move request on 22 Feb. There, you had no objection to the new title, apart from the addition of "Eastern", which again found consensual support (something like 7 to 2). This is why a new move request a week after that one closed seems unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley:, as I said above, pointing to "persecution of Orthodox Christians" was in reference to the previous title or the article, you should look again at the history of moves! That is why I was comparing that former title with titles like "Persecution of Christians", while opposing to your proposal to delete the entire article. And also, you are misinterpreting the vote again - there was no consensus for the reduction of scope of this article. You are still avoiding to explain why did you want to kill this entire article in the first place, and why are you naw opposing to the preservation of the full-scope of this article? Sorabino (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino: I think you need to step down from all these personal accusations. I never wanted to "kill" the article. I explained in the "What is anti-Orthodoxy?" section of the talk above why I thought the page was flawed (because there is no such thing as "anti-Orthodoxy"). When editors appeared to agree, I proposed the AfD, but was happy to go with the consensus that it needed renaming not deleting. I am not "opposing to the preservation of the full-scope of this article" (if I understand what you mean by that); I am arguing that it needs a coherent title, such as "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians", which relates to something that exists in the world, that people might search for, rather than an incoherent or hard to grasp title, such as the alternatives proposed. You're welcome to argue against this, but it's poor etiquette to ascribe dubious motives and desires to fellow editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley:, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper here. If you had some problems with the general term "Anti-Orthodoxy" you should have proposed the change of title, not the deletion of the entire article on negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination. So, why did you propose the deletion? Because you wanted to kill the entire article, that is obvious. And again, you are avoiding to answer the question, why are you opposing terms that are officially used by the FBI as designation for anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment? Sorabino (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the FBI using "anti-Eastern Orthodox": they use that as an adjective, as they also use anti-Hindu, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Mormon, anti-other Christian, and anti-Sikh, to designate different types of hate crimes. "Anti-Eastern Orthodox hate crimes" would be a reasonable article title I think, or to make it less limited "Anti-Eastern Orthodox persecution", but that suffers from the problem of "Anti-Eastern" being confusing, as identified by other editors below. Note there is no article called "anti-other Christian" anything, so the fact the FBI use an adjective is not in itself a reason to have an article on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" rather than "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment", as it includes the spectrum of criticism and opposition to doctrine, to persecution of its adherents (a very interesting topic). I also suggest to have "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" bolded as secondary later in an expanded lede. I don't see Resnjari's point, as the article has a lede, is categorized, and redirected. If a similar title or concept exists, a hatnote suffices. "Eastern Orthodoxy" is the common name.--Zoupan 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Pagename ought to have easy to find terms reflected in its title that allow a reader to search/find the topic/page easily as well. Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment on its own does not do it. Needs the word Christian. Without that addition its an oppose on my part, especially as @Bobfrombrockley points out there was a very recent CFP about the pagename with a strong consensus over the now new title of the article.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari:, that is not true. There was no "strong consensus" on the reduction of scope to the persecution only and precisely because of that it was decided by reviewers to reopen this process, since it was clear what was happening here. And also, there is nothing ambiguous with the proposed title containing terms "Anti Eastern-Orthodox" since it is officially used, as stated above, by the FBI (see 800 hits for such use of the term on Google Search). But, since you have some problem in acknowledging those facts, maybe you should complain to the FBI directly and make them interested in your case. Sorabino (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorabino:, it was mainly myself that was ok with a new pagename move (after some time -didn't expect it to be this quick -its ok though) and was also ok with either name provided they have certain qualifiers -like the word Eastern was incorporated with the previous pagename move and for this one -if it has the word Christian in it- i'll support it. Yeah sure Anti Eastern-Orthodox is used by the FBI, gets the hits on google from sites based in Europe and the Americas to an extent, so the topic is notable with those terms within parts of the West that is English speaking. Say one does not come from that area but is one of the new English speakers from other parts of the globe, what does Anti Eastern-Orthodox sentiment mean ? Its got the word Eastern + Orthodox but that does not signify that its about Eastern Orthodox Christians when a person who might be for the first time doing a search on the topic they are not acquainted with before. That's my angle on it. For now my vote is oppose unless there is an addition.Resnjari (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Support for "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy"; would accept "Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christianity" or something that points the word "orthodoxy" to the religion specifically. This does change the scope of this article, but I support that as a parallel subject to Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, which do not need "Christianity" in their titles to fully disambiguate the topic. "Sentiment", in my view is inappropriate; persecution is not a sentiment. "Anti", however, is capable of expressing all levels of opposition and action. Evensteven (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Evensteven:, the actual scope of this article was same as in Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, but recently an attempt was made to delete the entire article and when that failed, the same users who wanted to delete the article initiated its reduction to "persecution" only. Just take a look at the recent history of this article and you will see what was really going on here. Precisely because of that, reviewers decided to reopen this process, since they realized what was happening here and acknowledged that all denominations should be treated equally. And regarding the terms Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Orthodoxy, they have only one meaning and point directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is also acknowledged by the community in practice. All uses of terms "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" on English Wikipedia are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, there is no real ambiguity here. Sorabino (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, I am no stranger to the prejudices on WP against Orthodoxy, nor to the gangs who insist on promoting various biases and resist neutrality. They have the numbers to constitute what has come to be called "consensus" here, though in fact it is nothing but domination of the majority. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see this discussion be as even-handed as it is. But rest assured, I fully support a name change here. There is material enough for a full-fledged article on persecution of Christians in the world. But there is also more than enough for an "Anti-" article. I think both should exist. My only point is that this article, for whatever reasons, now says "persecution". Failure to have an "Anti-" article because of disagreements over article names is unacceptable, because "persecution" then becomes a limiting definition that censors material that is less "anti". "Anti" needs to be included first in WP in order to fill a gap that is permitted for the other Christian groupings. Then, when enough material has been collected to support the splitting off of persecutions, the persecution article can be created to handle the volume. That is the way to grow the encyclopedia, and preventing it for Orthodoxy is nothing more than another attempt to silence Orthodox contributors here. So you can see that I am quite in favor of the direction this proposal is pointed in. I just don't like the word "sentiment" in the title; that's too limiting also. And I don't really care if "Christianity" is in the title or not. I agree it's unnecessary. But it's not an impediment either, and if including it will salve others, I'm willing to go that way. Real redundancy changes nothing. Or am I beginning to repeat myself? ;) Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Evensteven:, yes, you are right, and I agree with you on all three accounts. In time, this article will certainly continue to develope, in spite of disruptive editing by some users. It was rightly recognized by the closer of previous discussion, and also by reviewers, that there are some serious problems here and that is why this new discussion was initiated, in order to resolve all issues on scope and terminology. Sorabino (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope that this naming proposal can end up in a resolution of the article name. And I tend to think there is a solution waiting that will prove acceptable. My greater concern, however, is for resolution of the principle of neutrality towards Orthodoxy. Fixing an article title will not be enough if it doesn't accord Orthodoxy parallel space. The west has been too long ignorant and biased by its own history and traditions. The Christian religion itself has been sadly divided for centuries, and it is way past time for the branches to engage with each other constructively. WP is not itself immune to the ravages of history, and their continuance into the present. But if good faith prevails, some ground can be gained on all sides. Evensteven (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name does not narrow the scope of the article. Every case of persecution due to victims being Eastern Orthodox Christians is rooted in anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiments. Thus, "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" and "anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" are one and the same. In this case, the first is a better name for the article due to many meanings of "anti-Orthodoxy" and similar terms. That those terms are problematic and give wrong impressions to readers is showed by the comments above. The current name is very good, it shows what the article is about without misguiding readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991:, everything you wrote there actually counters your claims. Since you are one of few users who previously supported the possible deletion of this entire article it is clear that something else is at play here. Not to mention your constant disruptive editing by removing referenced content from this article. Sorabino (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does that counter my claim? Tell me. On the deletion process and removal of material whose references did not back it, my actions were in line with both my own opinion and Wikipedia's policies. A discussion was held and all participating editors, except of you, supported the removal of that material. You were warned by several editors due to your battleground mentality and large scale canvassing while you were trying to force your personal opinion on other editors in that time. I do not have much interest in this article, and religion in general, as my editing history shows. Hence, "something else is" not "at play here". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And my vote at the AfD discussion was "Delete or rename", not "Delete". Do not say the opposite. Anyway, there is no reason to redirect the topic of the current discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, something is at play if you're replaying old hurts, even if it is simply continuing a fight. Such behavior is not discussion, and has no place here, no matter whose opinion is what, or who agrees. Stick to the subject. Evensteven (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, about your vote. The subject here is the claim that the current article name does not narrow the scope of the article. There are many ways to be "anti", or opposed to someone or something. Persecution is a particular, and extreme, method of expressing that opposition, in action, and in many cases to the point of injury, maiming, and death. The current article title restricts the scope to those particulars, while "anti" leaves open the inclusion of the variety of oppositions. You're entitled to your vote, but your claim about scope does not hold water. Evensteven (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991:, exactly as I said previously: you supported the possible deletion, and that can be seen here. That was your preferred option and you can try to wash it of here, but to quote Yoda: "Revealed your opinion is". Sorabino (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^This looks like a personal attack... --Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of "personal attack" for stating facts about public voting of a user? :) Please, report me on this! Sorabino (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino "Stating facts"? No that is not my criticism, as your behavior has also included non-AGF speculation on the motives of other users (including, now predictably myself, as you have done with literally everyone who has taken an opposing stance to yourself), on top of general bludgeoning of the process and demonstrating a battleground attitude. This, on top of edit warring, SYNTH edits, inappropriate campaigning on specifically chosen Wikiprojects, among many other unacceptable behaviors.... yes a report on you would be easy to make. You're quite lucky that I'm busy and also I don't really enjoy reporting people (in fact I've never done it in my life). Don't push it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, as I said, please report me on all those accounts, so that more people can see what have you been doing here. It is you who are having obvious problems with constructive criticism of your actions, and now you are trying to divert the discussion. You wanted to delete this entire article, and when failed to achieve that you continued with your disruptive editing. Those are facts, so please - report me for stating them. Sorabino (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the simple reason that it's clunky ("wow bro that's some crazy Anti-Eastern...Orthodox.. senti...ment" is not so easy to say as if you substitute in "Anti-Catholicism") as I said on the AfD, and that "Anti-Eastern-Orthodox...sentiment" does not seem to have as much of a body of research scholarly dedicated to it, yet (unlike, say, Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism; more like, Persecution of Ahmadis, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís etc). But its not a strong oppose, I am really fine either way. Weird theorizing of conspiracies by a certain user is widely out of line -- and anyways, frankly, the material that is getting removed is not because there is some unholy alliance aiming to change the scope, its because it was based on SYNTH and OR, as was said a gazillion times. That being said, changing it to anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment isn't really something I mind -- it simply doesn't role of the tongue given, seven syllable adjective clauses for a three syllable noun are not typical of English. As for "consistency" really this doesn't fall one way or the other, we have Persecution of Zoroastrians but Anti-Catholicism, most of the content would be the same anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus:, you initially supported the deletion of this entire article, and now you are stating that subjects on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy are not sufficiently researched in comparison with Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. Simply speaking, that is not true. There is a multitude of scholarly studies on various negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy, and any search on Google Books or Google Scholar can show that. Do you have any idea how many studies there are, for example, just on the anti-Eastern Orthodox policies and practices of Nazi Germany and other fascist states during the occupation of Eastern Europe in Second World War? If you are not familiar with the subject, please inform yourself. But, I am not really surprised by your attitudes here, since it is you who deleted the whole section of this article on the destruction of the entire Czech Orthodox Church by the Nazis! And regarding the terminology, as I said several times, the FBI officially uses term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" as designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians (see 800 hits for such FBI use of the term. So, it is clear that you have no real arguments for the opposition towards the proposed full-scope title. And regarding the previous attempt to kill this article, the very history of this talk page under the section "What is anti-Orthodoxy?" shows that deletion proposal was agreed by three users: @Bobfrombrockley:, @Ktrimi991: and you! And now, all of you are opposing the full-scope of this article, not to mention constant disruptive editing by removing entire referenced sections of this article. It is clear that that you have attempted to cripple and destroy this article. The question is, why? Sorabino (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino Your personal attacks (insinuations about "motivations") and misrepresentations are odious, but even more so they are astonishingly poorly carried out. Literally anyone can see that despite your accusations, the reason I deleted the Czech Orthodox was because the alleged source (translation here : [[15]]) said nothing about what it was sourced for -- source falsification. Yet for you my basic cleanup activities are proof that I am a member in some nefarious plot to "cripple and destroy" this article. Actually I do not want to "cripple and destroy" this article I may add some info about Ottoman persecutions in Greece nad Albania later, but a lot of cleanup was and is necessary as much material did not meet Wikipedia standards. Your defamation of not only myself but also Bobfrombrockley, Ktrimi991 and even Resnjari who expressed sympathy to your views does not reflect badly on us, it is you who should be worried about how you come off-- you have harassed literally every user who has taken a stance opposing yours in this discussion. As I said, you're lucky I don't like spending time making reports and that I'm busy. If you continue your present course of behavior, don't be surprised with the result. --Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, are you seriously accusing me of making "personal attacks" on you and other users? Please, explain yourself and state any example of me attacking you personally or making such attacks on any other user. Since you have publicly accused me for making "personal attacks" here, I am giving you chance now to explain yourself and retract those claims, before reporting you for making such unfounded accusations. Sorabino (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, your comments at certain points were not the best. In the end what a admin will decide he will decide. Just keep the discussion on the current topic about this pagemove.Resnjari (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, which comments? State yourself clearly. User Calthinus has publicly accused me here of making personal attacks, including the "defamation" of four users (you are stated as one of them), so what do you expect of me, not to respond to all that? Sorabino (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If some people had a previous position of wanting to delete the article, they did and that discussion was for then and resolved with a keep.People that dad a delete position their side did not carry the day, no need to revive it. Its done and dusted. Sheesh everyone, take five. Stick to the issues around this page move. Seriously take 5 before positing a comment.Resnjari (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, so then, was I defamating you or not? And regarding your call for silence, it should be noted that previous discussions on proposed deletion of this article, that occurred only a few weeks ago, are relevant for this discussion, because all those discussions are part of the same process - relating directly to the questions on scope and content of this article. But, since opposing votes to wide-scope title of this article are coming only from those three users who previously wanted to delete the article, it is quite clear that final resolution of this process will be quite positive. Sorabino (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, with me its not defaming. Remember i gave a keep vote. However if you keep bringing up the issue of everyone who wanted to delete the article over and over again, a issue that was concluded as a win for those wanting it to exist, its not in keeping in the area of good faith. Just let it go, you and i and others who placed a keep vote got the outcome we wanted. That issue is not going to be rehashed by admins. We are dealing with pagemove issues now and that's it. All discussion should be around that and that goes also for those who wanted to delete the article -your side did not carry the day and that now is wiki history. Sheesh everyone, headaches are unnecessarily created sometimes.Resnjari (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clunky, uncommon, ambiguous title. Who are those Orthodox people and why are they Anti-Eastern? byteflush Talk 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Byteflush, you have no real arguments there for opposing vote. Titles proposed and supported here, like anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment or alternative anti-Eastern Orthodoxy are four-word of three-word titles, quite common on Wikipedia and therefore "clunky" is no real argument. Same goes for "uncommon" as said before, go to Google Search for anti-Eastern Orthodox hits or anti-Eastern Orthodoxy hits. And also, those terms are not "ambiguous" as you imply here. Can you produce any reference for some other use of those terms? There is non. Comparative practice on Wikipedia is quite clear: Anti-Catholic redirects to denominational article Anti-Catholicism (animosity towards the Catholic Church), and Anti-Protestant also redirects to denominational article Anti-Protestantism. Obviously, terms "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Protestant" are not treated here as ambiguous, in spite of the fact that in principle first term can designate opposition to any denomination that uses the term "Catholic" in its name, and second term can be used as designation for opposition to any group of people who are protesting. In compare to that, term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" has only one meaning, and why should it be labeled as "ambiguous", please explain that. Since we are discussing here a very important subject - full-scope title for article on negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination, could you make some additional contribution and backup your vote with some arguments? Sorabino (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, those orthodox people are more specifically "Eastern Orthodox" people and they can be referred to as the "Eastern Orthodoxy" in the same manner as "Protestantism", "Catholicism" and "Islam". (That link, btw, sheds light on why the present title is so narrow in scope.) So "Eastern" is actually an adjective and an excellent disambiguator/qualifier.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Byteflush and think the replies here are missing the point. Obviously someone that read the article would get the answers, but the point is that (a) nobody is going to google "anti-eastern orthodoxy" and anyone who sees a "see also" link to "anti-eastern orthodoxy" whereas the opposite is true for "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" which is a term people are likely to search for an will immediately understand. The addition of the "eastern" adjective creates a problem of clunkiness as the negative has to be "anti-eastern", which makes no sense. This is a very strong argument against such a change (or possibly for pursuing the "sentiment" alternative). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in a way you both make good points. It's a quasi- or just an apparent disambiguity, though, and no more confusing than, say, anti-Middle Eastern. "Middle" is an adjective that in this case describes "Eastern", and it's no more correct to say "Who are those Eastern people and why are they anti-Middle?" Unless the reader is disadvantaged in their education or ability to learn, I find it an enormous stretch to expect confusion here.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, that is actually a very good point: since we have article titled Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, there can be no real argument against the title Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment on the grounds of the supposed "clunkiness". The "clunky" argument is not a serious one for this type of discussion. The opposing side has no real arguments, they were opposing the very existence of this article, then continued to make disruptive and reductive edits, and because of all that they are opposing now the full-scope of this article. Non of them has dared, during all discussions, to write a single word against the official FBI terminology, based precisely on the term anti-Eastern Orthodox. They are avoiding that because there is no real argument against titles like Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment or Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy. It is quite sad to see how some people are trying to prevent the existence of a full-cope article on the negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination. Sorabino (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name does not narrow the scope of the article. AND I really no know why do you have such hatred for everything that is Orthodox? Zoranzoki21 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the general principle of expanding the scope to include criticism of Orthodoxy as dogma or practice, but unsure yet on the proper name. "Sentiment" feels a tad harmless to describe events that include outright ethnic cleansing; "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" is clunky, and implies a coherent antithesis of Eastern Orthodoxy, whereas this refers to a collection of various oppositions to Eastern Orthodoxy as a dogma, and to Orthodox Christian communities as social/ethnic/economic/etc. entities. The most usual term I know for such stances is simply "anti-Orthodox", but "anti-Orthodoxy" means something else entirely. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, full scope of this article includes not only physical persecution, but also entire spectrum of negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians. That is why it is so important to have the full-scope title, that would be on the equal level with Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. And regarding the optional term "sentiment" that is just a standard term for this type of articles on English Wikipedia, here is the list of such titles. Sorabino (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy".--Dilic (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) This request do not give right reason why to move or remove this page.[reply]
Note to closer: Although I don't care much about the outcome, it is worth noting that I am concerned that Dilic was canvassed by Sorabino on Serbian wiki to this discussion. Here is the diff: [[16]]. This is after Sorabino has already been warned about campaigning. --Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the community was never given any real explanation for attempted removal of this entire article. Proposal for deletion was rightfully rejected and the article was saved, but subsequently there was some disruptive editing, and several referenced sections were removed. All of that will have to be fixed. Sorabino (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sorabino - Another bizarre personal allegation against me and others. I gave my reasons above and on the AFD page for proposing deletion. If you are suggesting that my "real" reason was different from the one I gave, I'd be curious to know what you think that might be and why you think it, or else withdraw your allegation please. Thank you.
  • Support This shouldnt go into erasing, but should get more serious article. --PetarM (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article covers a very important subject with lots of material to be restored and added, based on scholarly references. That is why it is so important to preserve the full scope of this article, and for the same reason it is very important to have a proper full-scope title for this article. Sorabino (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am concerned that PetarM was canvassed on Serbian wiki by Sorabino. Here is the diff [[17]]. --Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus Thanx for comment. Wont be so. I am covering Albanian terrorism long before you came to Wikipedia. Hence, i uploaded 1 more new shot on Commons. and added one more. --PetarM (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know and thank you for your contributions, but this is irrelevant to the fact that you were canvassed here -- which you should have mentioned.--Calthinus (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PetarM - this is not a proposal that the article should "to into erasing", but that it's name should change to "sentiment" from "persecution". Can you explain why that would enable us to "get more serious article" than is possible with the current name? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to closer: Sorabino has been blocked for a week by an administrator [18] for canvassing votes relating to this pagemove discussion.Resnjari (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me link to your rules about for how user will be blocked for what. This is and for laughing and for crying. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zoranzoki21: I responded on your talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are many references above to previous discussion, some with wikilinks or permalinks, many without and some with puzzling acronyms such as CFP, which doesn't appear in the glossary and seems just plain wrong (possibly a mistranslation). There's obviously previous discussion above at #Requested move 22 February 2018 and the subsequent move review, but the links we have to other pages all seem to point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy, closed on 17 February as The result was keep. As people seem to be pretty unified on renaming this page, feel free to start a move discussion on the article's talk page. Is that all correct? Is there other relevant discussion I've missed? Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks as if you've got a good handle on it, Andrewa. Interesting debate, don't you tink? As for "CFP", it seems to be an initialism used by BobFromBrockley to refer to the previous RM. Haven't a clue what it stands for.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's close to a perfect storm. I'm guessing that CFP means AfD on another language Wikipedia, that's what I meant by mistranslation. In Serbian for example the shortcut is ČZB, and as they don't use Roman script that might even be it... it's phonologically quite close. And the problem is, whether it means RM (as you supposed) or AfD (as I supposed) makes a big difference to whether the argument and the replies to it make sense, or whether they might be discarded as illogical. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it would be good for Bobfrombrockley to clarify his intention, the horse has bolted. We'd also need everyone who has based their replies on their understanding of what CFP meant to clarify what they thought it meant. I'm tempted to suggest a procedural close as an unintelligible mess and start again. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know how crucial it is to know exactly what the initialism means; however, I do think it's crucial to get this title debate settled, so I would plead for you to resist such a temptation. It's time to choose the highest and best title for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorry. CFP was my stupidity. I was referring, as I think was obvious from the context, to the request for move which had just closed. I have no idea why I kept calling it CFP. (I'm a bit dyslexic.) I think most editors read it as RM or AFD, and I linked to what I was talking about when asked to explain above, so I'm not sure it is that big a deal. Nothing fishy relating to other languages or scripts; I have never edited WP in another language, although I appear to have been discussed on Serbian WP as a result of editing this article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This thread had been closed as no consensus [19] until Sorabino asked the closing administrator to reopen it [20]. Unknown to the administrator at the time Sorabino had been involved in canvassing votes for support and later as a consequence got a one week block [21] by another administrator.Resnjari (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole (long) thread on their talk page is worth a read. Now quite unsure on the way forward. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa:, probably ask the two administrators who were involved in closing this thread and blocking an editor for comment here about moving forward if its allowed in wiki rules -as much of this discussion has turned into farce.Resnjari (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa and Resnjari: I honestly have no idea what the procedurally correct course from here is -- however, let me just say that it's incredibly hard for me to see how it would be even remotely useful to the project to have a third endless discussion on a topic we have argued about ad nauseam for months, probably producing a talk page longer than the main space, all over a really not very significant issue in the name. Very much the opposite. What matters is the content. Arguments like this are a waste of time and sap the time of editors adding content. --Calthinus (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has been closed as no consensus once before. As i am not sure about the correct procedure in this case, I just thought maybe the other two administrators might give a comment before some kind of resolution happens -as many editors have more then exhausted the discussion here.Resnjari (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy", persecution implies some kind of physical violence or imprisonment and the article is broader than that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward[edit]

The way forward is of course in the first instance indicated by the closer. This RM was elligible for closing when I first came here, and is now in the backlog. And it's been relisted once already, and was already a discussion arising from an earlier discussion

I looked and wrangled over whether I could close it, followed what threads I could, and decided I wasn't going to be able to do so. But I thought what I had found out would be of help to another closer, so I posted this comment (yesterday my time).

I note that there are a number of comments above specifically addressed to the closer. I don't think that's helpful. All comments should be considered by the closer.

And that includes this section. As has been said above (and not by me), it's time to close this.

This won't be an easy one. Please don't get too upset if it doesn't go your way. I note that several contributors have Serbian or Albanian connections, and that has turned out to be an explosive mixture in the past, and not just in Wikipedia, see Category:Serbian–Albanian conflict. Please ask yourself, what's the best thing for Wikipedia?

And if you're not completely sure of being able to answer that honestly, take a step back. It doesn't matter all that much to Wikipedia. If it matters a lot to you, probably best to pull back. Andrewa (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa:, the comments to the administrator were in relation to canvassing. The process here was tampered with and need to be noted. When engaging in these discussions whether ones agrees or disagrees good faith needs to be maintained and canvassing for votes in no way suggests that. It does not matter whether editors have interests that focus on Serbian or Albanian related articles only that they follow wiki policy and not tilt the process artificially one way or another, as was attempted here. This thread was closed once with a no consensus, and that was prior to all the issues with canvassing came out in the open.Resnjari (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is assumed, and that is policy. But as you point out, we don't ignore evidence that suggests there may be other factors at work. The question here is whether those who have cultural ties to one side or the other have a significant conflict of interest. It's a sensitive issue, and I'm not suggesting disqualifying these editors from contributing in these areas, in which they have both an interest and knowledge.
But I will suggest that, for the good of Wikipedia, they should avoid becoming heavily involved in any controversial issue. Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa:, i agree. In the end everyone that places a vote whether here or other move discussions, does so from a personal point of view. So in that sense one can say that no one is without a bias. However Wikipedia does not have rules about conflicts of interests regarding being from a certain ethno-cultural or religious background and it precluding voting or editing articles for that matter. Its policy only relates to editors having good, strong and credible sources for article content and abiding by rules of engagement and rapport with other editors so even if there is disagreement (and passions can at times get a hot), that the process is respected and viewed as fair in the end. In this instance there was a proven attempt to distort the process through vote canvassing. In the end, a administrator closed this thread as no consensus (prior to the proven revelations of canvasing) before it being reopened. Its a complex situation and editors will tilt one way or the other, its kind of why i suggested maybe having the other two administrators involved add a comment or two on what to do -if its allowed and not considered canvassing. Either way your going to have to decide one way or the other. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa honestly this discussion might belong in a place other than this talk page as it touches on an issue that has long plagued Wikipedia (differences in personal POV among editors), but let me say this because I think my viewpoint here could be relevant-- I am neither Albanian nor Serbian, with virtually zero personal background connections to either group except that I made a choice to learn about both (yes, more the Albanian side, but to be fair I also know a fair amount about modern Greek history -- actually if you knew me irl you would probably agree I am more "connected" to Greece than Albania) for academic purposes some years ago. Where there are disputes touching my true background -- these are American politics and Israel-Palestine -- I do actually make my best effort to stay out of these (and believe me, it's a struggle sometimes), aside from a few talk page comments and votes in deletion discussions and whatnot. I have to say though, both sides in American politics, and (to a lesser extent) both sides in Israel-Palestine, are treated with much more respect than Balkan disputes are treated with, by those non-involved. I have never, once, seen anyone suggest to American editors that it would be best that they "stay out of issues regarding American politics" regardless of whether their behavior was in line with policy or not but just because it is "emotional", even though warring on American politics (with plenty of "emotions" on both sides) is quite probably a bigger problem right now on Wikipedia than there is for Balkan politics. I know you only have good intent here, but ask yourself-- if this was a Western politics dispute rather than a Balkan politics dispute, would you be saying the same things? Would you look at it the same way? --Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would, yes, particularly if some of the comments seemed to reflect a political orientation. It's not just politics! In NYRM2016 we specifically chose one of the panel members because of their connection to the topic. I supported it at the time, but in hindsight that might have been a mistake. It would have been far better to go the other way, and insist that the closers were all disinterested. And as it turned out, that panel member gave what still seems to me to be a rather strange decision, and one which was subsequently overturned by consensus (in effect if not in theory). I cannot see how anyone could have failed to assess consensus to move except by simply counting heads, and this was never explained despite many requests. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa I addressed a couple notes as "note to closer" not because I wanted the others not to be considered by the closer, but because in previous cases of canvassing I had observed that using a small but bold "Note to closer:" was the protocol used by editors more experienced than myself. Tell me, as you are an admin, is this considered inappropriate? I'd like to know for the future. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither banned nor uncommon. My bottom line here is not to influence the decision one way or another, but to make the closer's job as easy as possible. I decided not to close myself because it was looking just too hard! And I didn't find the note to closer label helpful, obviously, but other admins might. It was good to call attention to the matter. Perhaps a discussion section should have been started a bit sooner. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, i see where your coming from as in some discussions of the sort canvassing claims are made by some editors and are without foundation which are more often used as a smear tactic. In this instance, the issue of canvassing was mentioned in the discussion after the fact, when it was proven beyond doubt that attempts to distort the process came to light with sanctions applied to the editor engaged in that behavior.Resnjari (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And I am not seeking to disparage you or any other editor. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the intent is for it to be about Orthodox sentiment that is Anti-Eastern. This could perhaps be fixed by a dash. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Status quo[edit]

To editor Cúchullain: since the present title was created just this past February, I merely wonder what you meant by "status quo", above?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't count votes, so I guess that won't help in the move discussion above. However, at least, I wonder the same thing about status quo. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth: In this case I went with the status quo as of the last RM discussion. Neither a move review, nor this discussion, found consensus to change the outcome of that discussion. Additionally, the former title Anti-Orthodoxy didn't receive support in its own right in this discussion, so I don't think it would be wise to move back there. Perhaps a fresh RM at a later date, free of the canvassing and general toxicity that plagued this discussion, will find a workable consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All makes sense, thank you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of elementary logic[edit]

Those bent on removing this image [22] at all costs will need to address the following issue. Since Serbs were indeed persecuted in Kosovo, and since Serbs are Orthodox Christians, it follows that persecution of Serbs in Kosovo is persecution of Orthodox Christians. This is a matter of simple logic. I am not interested in technicalities, sophistry, and word games. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: Those who bent on adding the image at all costs should read the Kosovo section. The matter was discussed here and on two other talk pages. Be civil as your lack of civility towards other editors on and off-Wiki is well-documented, if you wish to go down that road. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: Your argument is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS, and that is not allowed here. Please, present a reliable source that says violence against Serbs on Kosovo was religious in nature. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ktrimi991 and Vanjagenije. Unless reliable sources show they were persecuted as Orthodox Christians (and not out of ethno-nationalist enmity, as Serbs) then it isn't Orthodox Christians. They probably used toothpaste, but that doesn't mean there should be a category "Persecution of people who used toothpaste" unless that's the reason for their persecution. Which is a matter of elementary logic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite simple. A) Serbs are Orthodox Christians and B) Serbs were persecuted. Therefore C) Orthodox Christians were persecuted. By your logic, nothing is religious persecution. You can just as easily say the the persecution of Armenians during the Armenian Genocide is not "religious" but "ethnic". The two are not mutually exclusive. The burden of proof is on those claiming that it's not religious persecution. Hundreds of churches were destroyed, some containing priceless medieval art. And we are supposed to think that that's not religious persecution? Also, Ktrimi, can you please explain what you mean by "off-wiki" incivility? Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you just wrote is the definition of WP:SYNTH. That is not allowed. Synthesis of published material is "logical", but can't be used. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. SYNTH is combining two different sources to say something neither does. Let me ask you this. Do you consider persecution of Jews during the Holocaust "religious" or "Ethnic"? Armenians during the Armenian genocide? Assyrians during the Assyrian genocide? Khirurg (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several academics have written on reasons of the Kosovo War and Kosovo unrest in 2004. Egleder, Judah, Rausch etc say that everything happened due to a mixture of nationalism and sociopolitical peoblems. Herscher says that nationalist sentiments were reflected on calls for "revenge". Perritt is another academic who elaborates on the reasons of the 2004 unrest, and says that nationalist and socioeconomic problems (partly derived from uncertainties about Kosovo' s status) were the reasons. Herscher highlights that some mosques and churches were damaged or destroyed, and this due to nationalist sentiments. There is some crap on some blogs and YouTube videos that Albanians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosniaks etc were victims of religious violence. The scholarship does not support that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there was nationalism, revenge, socioeconomic factors, etc...But there was also a religious component. Hundreds of Churches were vandalized. The fact there was nationalism and other factors does not exclude religion. There was ethnic and religious persecution by all sides. The two are not mutually exclusive. Here's a source btw [23]. Khirurg (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, as you often argue when it suits you, an encyclopedia falls under WP:IDTERTIARY. As I said above, several academics (among them some prominent on Kosovo-Serbia issues such as Tim Judah) elaborate on the reasons, and they do not mention religious hatred. Herscher highlights that some mosques and churches were damaged or destroyed, and this due to nationalist sentiments. In the case of churches during the Kosovo riots, they were damaged due to their identification with governmental forces of Yugoslavia. You have also Perritt who says that many of the KLA's leaders were Christian, and the KLA's actions were not driven by religion. The wars of Yugoslavia were violent, but not due to religious hatred. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was ethnic and religious persecution by all sides Nope, only persecution of Serbs by the Ustashe is regarded in mainstream scholarship as having, among others, religious roots. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a source, and when one was presented, you started playing games ("It's a tertiary source"). The source is very high quality, there are no grounds to disqualify it. Instead and dropping names, can you point to specific passages in the sources you mentioned that explicitly state it wasn't religious persecution? Otherwise I will start an RfC. By the way you didn't answer my question about "off-wiki" incivility. Khirurg (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to open a RfC. I will prepare the sources with quotes and will place them is a separate section to not mess this discussion. I did not forget the off-Wiki incivility issues, I will respond soon on my talk page. Do you want me to respond only with words or with evidence as well? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: So, all Serbs are Orthodox Christians now? This is so WP:SYNTH that it's painful to watch. An ethnic hatred inspired attack on a building some Serbs visit is definitely not enough to warrant inclusion in an article about persecution of the building's owners. Matter of elementary logic. byteflush Talk 00:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all, but the overwhelming majority. See ethnoreligious group. And the Serbs were the building's owners (in the form of the Serbian Orthodox Church), not just visiting it. Anyway, if Ktrimi or someone else can provide high quality scholarly sources that explicitly state that this wasn't religious persecution, I'll drop this. Khirurg (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Khirurg, you know that's not how wiki works. You need sources to make an assertion. You do not need sources specifically showing it is false in order to remove unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH connection making. This is the basis of the rules we all follow. We have been round and round this and let's be honest here, now that I have replied to you too, you're outnumbered 6 to 1 by a pretty diverse set of editors. What are you trying to accomplish?--Calthinus (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except your reply doesn't really address my point. I presented a high quality source. And numbers mean nothing, wikipedia is not a democracy. You know that's not how wiki works. Khirurg (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) By the way, I just noticed the Persecution of Muslims article has a rather large section about Kosovo, with loads of graphic language. Double standard much? Khirurg (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi has already demonstrated the issue with that source. Of course sources can be dropped about the role of Christians (including Orthodox volunteers from Albania) in the KLA, the KLA's rejection of religious fanaticism (in favor of multifaith "nationalist fanaticism" perhaps) and so forth. Much of your argumentation here is a rehash of Sorabino-- for example the Holocaust analogy, when ironically the Holocaust was ethnic persecution in which anyone with Jewish ancestry was to be killed or even Christian Germans or Slavs who "looked Jewish" could be killed, while practitioners of Judaism who lacked Jewish ancestry or were considered um, "not racially Jewish" by the Nazis (like the Crimean Karaites) could be exempt-- it was anti-Semitic rather than anti-Judaic and most Holocaust Remembrance (at least in the United States that is) is careful to emphasize its origins in scientific racism gone wild rather than portray it as some Christian-Jewish religious conflict.
Bringing up the Muslims page is pretty weird, given that there isn't some competition (spoiler: both pages aren't great) between Christians and Muslims for who gets killed more, nor do we care about other crap that exists, and also kind of ironic to bring up in argument with me as during that dispute I broke ranks from team "Keep" and ended up having the same position as you while Ktrimi/Resnjari/Seraphim/etc criticized me for doing so. --Calthinus (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) By the way I can somewhat understand where you're coming from as I suppose from a more Greek-focused perspective we do have the Greek genocide which could be called simultaneously ethnic and religious and equally both-- but that does not apply everywhere especially where there isn't a centuries old millet system that intentionally merged ethnic and religious identities still in place. Although I imagine some from Serbia may also perceive things this way (it is a bit more justified if we are talking about other historical events Serbs endured), the Albanian side which included Christian leadership and Orthodox volunteers certainly didn't, and for something to be "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" there has to be the intent-- lest we end up with "Persecution of toothbrushers", doorknob-users, and raki-drinkers.[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the source I presented. It is a high quality scholarly source. Did you read it? There is nothing weird about bringing up "Persecution of Muslims" either. There is a fundamental NPOV problem here. Persecution of Kosovo Albanians is persecution of Muslims (even though many Kosovo Albanians are Christian), but persecution of Serbs is not persecution of Orthodox Christians. It's the old our persecution is persecution, but their persecution is not persecution. No way. Khirurg (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually dont have access to the page but Ktrimi seems clearly right here that as an encyclopedia being used for analysis it falls under WP:DONTUSETERTIARY and also lets be honest, he is right that I can very easily imagine you using that argument yourself and I'll take his word on it that you have. I may disagree with Ktrimi on the Muslims page as I do think it has some severe issues but imo, the reason those are still there is not "double standards" but the lack of good faith between editors and bilateral perceptions of "agendas" stops any meaningful dialogue on the issue from ever happening and the status quo is entrenched. And you can't say I didn't try. But I failed. Now we can have this page get even cruddier because avoiding double standards apparently means "let's make more articles with dubious SYNTHy emotionally charged arguments". Or we can not and work to improve issues on the margins when possible. I choose the latter. As have 5 other editors above me. No numbers do not decide who is right but sometimes they are a hint.--Calthinus (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to write a long comment right now, and I am writing a few words. The Persecution of Muslims is not my work, I have never edited that article. Your source is WP:IDTERTIARY, and it counters with many academics who elaborate on the issue (among them are important academics on Kosovo-Serbia issues such as Tim Judah and Perritt). Your source actually says on page 568 During the UN-NATO occupation of Kosovo, some 200,000 Serb Orthodox Christians have been driven from Kosovo by ethnic extremists. Most of the remaining Serb Orthodox population in Kosovo lives in what are essentially ethnic ghettoes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
200,000 Serb Orthodox Christians = Persecution of Orthodox Christians. Khirurg (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me but the image of a vandalized church "is" a result of anti-Christian sentiment. No matter if the perpetrators' main objective was not an ISIS-style elimination of specific religious groups.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua Once upon a time a young man went on a rampage against a Protestant church in the US. A question, for you, do we automatically assume he was motivated by anti-Christian sentiment? What if I tell you his name was Dylan Roof, a Christian himself, and all the congregants were Black Americans? Doesn't that change things? --Calthinus (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an article about "anti-Black church sentiment" existed then this case would be a good addition.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it is incredibly obvious that racism was the motive. And the motive is important. Otherwise, as Bobfrombrockley noted, we could end up with Persecution of toothbrush users. --Calthinus (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) So would anyone here object if I removed the section about Kosovo from Persecution of Muslims? Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can almost guarantee you Resnjari will read this whole conversation at some point in the future and though I can't speak for him, my vague future sensing abilities foresee Wiki Wars : Khirurg versus Resnjari Part XXXVI. As for me, I would have to see what the sources used in that section are saying, which I don't have time to do at the moment. If anyone wants to watch the duel with me I can host and have a nice supply of ouzo, raki and meze :). --Calthinus (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The persecution of Albanians was not a religious one. That content must be deleted, otherwise it might cause disinformation and portray Albanians and Serbs as communities that base their identity on religious rather than ethnic values. For some examples of religious conflicts in the region see Greek Genocide, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Aegean dispute, Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Calthinus opened a discussion on that article's talk page, all interested editors can discuss there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church[edit]

  • Paul Mojzes writes[24]: Another manner in which the Roman Catholic leadership contributed to the tension in Yugoslavia was its support of the Albanian cause in Kosovo. This the Catholics did ostensibly in the name of protecting human rights. It is true that the human rights of Albanians in Kosovo were severrely curtailed, and that no decent human being could have been totally silent on this issue, but the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church was not evenhanded; it did not speak out on behalf of other repressed minorities -especially those on Croatian territory.(..) The Serbs would naturally interpret these appeals as both an anti-Serb an anti-Orthodox move by the Roman Catholic Church.
    It became Some Serbs viewed the Catholic leadership's support for political division along ethnic and religious lines in Croatia during the Wars in Yugoslavia, and support for the Albanian cause in Kosovo as anti-Serb and anti-Orthodox.
    Throughout the two sections about former Yugoslavia, bad use of bibliography is repeated. Wikipedia is not hosting space for political advocacy. Tags are not enough for such blatantly and purposefully bad use of bibliography and both sections deserve WP:TNT. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Major POV comment and WP:IDONTLIKEIT presented as if it there is any real problem + searching for creative ways to destroy the content ("advocacy") which is simply not to one editor's liking. Claiming that senior editors are "purposefully using bad bibliography" is a major WP:BATTLEGROUND and lack of WP:GOODFAITH. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When what editors write is not what an author puts forward, those edits either get removed or get tagged. Wikipedia is not advocacy space. Either use bibliography as its authors intend for it to be used or don't use it at all.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. The basis for the newly added tags is rather weak and looks like point-scoring.
it's just general comments without anything serious, as far as I can see. Let me guess, the next step would be to claim "I can't verify it" and then edit-war in order to remove the content. I hope that is not the case. Unless more serious evidence are provided, the tags are good to go. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia discusses what bibliography discusses. If something is not discussed in bibliography, it is removed. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this should be removed entirely as it's not even supported by the cited sources. Tags are totally justified. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Q., i'm going to guess that this is the section called "Former Yugoslavia". Apart from the source "alteration" (putting it nicely) mentioned above, the viewpoint during the Yugoslav wars by ethnic communities have their place, but aren't those best addressed in articles about the Yugoslav wars, especially in areas of the article that discuss community views and the eventual breakdown in social cohesion that led to war. As it stands now it only mentions a community view point without citing the actual event of persecution. It goes into WP:SYNTHESIS territory.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is really sad to see this again. Especially authors who persistently follow me and make changes to articles in which they have never contributed before, and always act in a coordinated manner, supporting each other in changes and discussions. (WP:HOUNDING, WP:CANVASS, WP:POVPUSH) Please explain which specific sentence or source is disputed. --WEBDuB (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The battleground mentality you show in the comment above is nothing new, but you should tone it down. On Kosovo, it had already been discussed several times. You can add it again, it will be reverted again. If you want to waste time doing that, it is sad really. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being rude to other editors. I suggest that every calms down a bit. No detailed explanation or real arguments have been given, the text above is an evidence of that fact. The material is sourced properly and that is all that matters. Nothing has been "discussed" as far as I know. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not hosting space for political WP:ADVOCACY. Much of what Sadko/WEBDuB have been trying to do follows the same narrative as Demonization of the Serbs. It's not what bibliography discusses and it's not something that can ever be part of a citizen science environment. You wrote that "Most Serbs have been expelled from Kosovo" which is neither true, nor relevant to the subject of this article, but removed as WP:COATRACK [25] the restoration of churches in Kosovo. It highlights the very big problems of the editing narratives that are being put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence presented to speak of any " political advocacy". Where is your proof, exactly? Otherwise, that is slander and you should apologize.
Just stating something is not making it true. The comparison falls flat and it is a poor way to try to discredit other editors + a textbook logical mistake.
How exactly is it not discussed in the bibliography? What rule or guideline are you pointing at?
Subjective comments about "science environment" aside, the more important questions is - is the material properly sourced and verified, and the answer to that question is - yes. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maleschreiber, please stop with labeling and paranoid accusations from article to article. Unfortunately, I have to say this again on the Balkans pages, we really need to work together to improve the article, rather than labeling each other’s work. Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree, and do not engage in personal attacks. (WP:CIVIL, WP:AVOIDABUSE). The whole content was good sourced, especially after the last changes. Everything is in line with the media and scientific consensus. Everyone knows about the persecution of Orthodox and Serbs from Kosovo. Please do not deny or cover it up.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Serbian Orthodox Church was targeted after the Kosovo War, but it's targeting is not the narrative that you've written about or what bibliography discusses. There are Serbs from Croatia who lost their homes after Operation Storm, but their story was not discussed in Demonization of the Serbs. There is the real suffering shared by many communities and then there are narratives about that suffering. Narratives will never manage to grasp reality in its fullness, but at the very least they have to be close to it and to bibliography. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But everything was well sourced. Nothing was invented or misinterpreted. Not only church buildings were attacked, but also priests, nuns, cemeteries, members of the religious community, especially believers during religious holidays and services. We are not talking here only about the so-called revenge attacks, but also on well-documented religious discrimination and restriction of freedoms. There are the United States Department of State and Minority Rights Group International reports.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem with this narrative is that it confuses ethnic conflict with religious conflict. The Serbian Orthodox Church was targeted for its ties to the state of Serbia, the Milosevic regime and competing land claims - it wasn't targeted because it's Christian Orthodox. The Catholic church in Kosovo despite being only a small part of the population, enjoys wide popularity. Orthodox Albanians from Albania and Macedonia are held in great esteem. The root of the conflict is political, not religious.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Head of Serbian Orthodox priest and Ustaše

  • This image from "Genocide of Serbs" section is WP:OR. The source which says that this is head of Serbian Orthodox priest does not exist as evidence. Also this picture according to source "Arhiv Znaci"[26] is from Muzej revolucije naroda Jugoslavije (Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia) and there writes that: "Informacije i materijale, koji se nalaze na vebsajtu foto.mij.rs, korisnik ili posetilac vebsajta može da koristi isključivo za sopstvene potrebe, odnosno u nekomercijalne svrhe, pri čemu ne sme doći do kršenja naznačenih autorskih prava i prava intelektualne svojine ili drugih prava o kojima postoji obaveštenje..The information and materials, which can be found on the website foto.mij.rs, can be used by the user or visitor of the website exclusively for their own needs, ie for non-commercial purposes, without infringing the indicated copyrights and intellectual property rights or other rights for which there is a notice".[27] which means that this is possible and WP:COPYVIO issue.
  • Based on the above, I suggest that this image be removed. Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Agreed. I, for one, can't figure out whether the Croatian Copyright Act of 1991 exemption applies. That the hrvatskapostanskabanka.com url is a dead link doesn't help, either. El_C 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: It's definitely a picture of Ustasha with someone's head. But whose, when, where nowhere is writen. We cannot have a picture without knowing what it is about. As for Croatian Copyright Act of 1991, I do not know much about this. I know that "Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia" has this writen: "Svako drugo kopiranje, distribucija, umnožavanje, izmena informacija i materijala sa foto.mij.rs ili njihovo slanje poštom, kao i širenje na bilo koji drugi način, koje nije predviđeno funkcionalnošću vebsajta foto.mij.rs, bez prethodne pismene dozvole je zabranjeno...Any other copying, distribution, duplication, modification of information and materials from foto.mij.rs or their sending by mail, as well as distribution in any other way, which is not provided by the functionality of the website foto.mij.rs, without prior written permission is forbidden". Mikola22 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation. I think the photo of forced conversion and the Glina massacres would certainly be more suitable.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and WEBDuB: And this picture is from "Museum of the Revolution of Yugoslav Peoples" today "Museum of the History of Yugoslavia" [28] and with possible WP:COPYVIO issue.
Muzej je 1996. godine odlukom Vlade SR Jugoslavije zajedno sa Memorijalnim centrom „Josip Broz Tito“ uključen u Muzej istorije Jugoslavije. Museum of the Revolution of Yugoslav Peoples is In 1996, by the decision of the Government of the SR of Yugoslavia, together with the Memorial Center "Josip Broz Tito", included in the Museum of the History of Yugoslavia.[29] Mikola22 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually okay with using the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a point of reference (photograph #90163). Maybe it's a bit murky, but if they're willing to "chance it," I think we're probably on the safe side of COPYVIO here. El_C 20:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: More than 1200 Serbs from Glina were forced to convert. They were later slaughtered in the same church where they were converted.[30] Could this information from your source(since this is information within the image and the event itself) be a problem ie RS problem because this information is likely fringe information? It is estimated that 250-420 peoples was killed in the church.[31] Mikola22 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C Also and this information from same source is probably fringe: "Across Croatia priests were instructed to inform the Serbian population that they must choose between conversion and death".(section: About This Photograph [32]) First time I hear that "they must choose between conversion and death". Croatian source(from Serb minority) "Svi ovi pokolji, koji su se zbili na području koje je centar istraživanja u ovome radu, imali su za funkciju zaplašivanje srpskog pravoslavnog stanovništva, koje je nakon toga trebalo ili izbjeći, odnosno prisilno iseliti u Srbiju ili pristati na prekrštavanje...All these massacres, which took place in the area which is the center of this research in this paper, had the function of intimidating the Serbian Orthodox population, which then had to either departure ie forcibly emigrate to Serbia or agree to be baptized". (page 141, Forced Conversion of Serbs on the Territory of Northwest Croatia in 1941 and 1942 [33]. Mikola22 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, just making it perfectly clear that the USHMM link is "my link" in so far as I mentioned it on this talkapge, but I didn't search for it or anything — I noticed it on the File:Glina church massacre.jpg image description (sorry if this was obvious). In answer to your first question: I mean, I'll preface by saying that the the Balkans topic area, overall, is not an area with which I am too familiar (I do better with WP:ARBPIA and WP:AP2, for example). Still, while the USHMM is a respectable institution, intuitively, in terms of general wartime historical demography, yes, going from 400, at most, to 1,200 does indeed come across as fringe-y. As for choosing between conversion and death, again, I don't really know enough about the subject to be able to tell, one way or another, whether that is or isn't an extraordinary claim. El_C 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I asked the editor Peacemaker67 for clarification. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 January 2021[edit]

The sub-section Former Yugoslavia says:

Some Serbs viewed the Catholic leadership's support for political division along ethnic and religious lines in Croatia during the Wars in Yugoslavia, and support for the Albanian cause in Kosovo as anti-Serb and anti-Orthodox.[17] Yugoslav propaganda during the Milošević regime portrayed Croatia and Slovenia as part of an anti-Orthodox "Catholic alliance".

I think we need to rephrase it in more neutral fashion, which should also reflect reality more closely, so that states:

Yugoslav propaganda during the Milošević regime portrayed Croatia and Slovenia as part of an anti-Orthodox "Catholic alliance", which led some portion of Serbian society, primarily in academia and political establishment, to view the Catholic leadership as supportive for political division along ethnic and religious lines in Croatia during the Wars in Yugoslavia, and for the Albanian cause in Kosovo, describing it as anti-Serb and anti-Orthodox in nature.

౪ Santa ౪99° 22:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That's not really how edit requests work, especially full protection edit requests. The responding admin isn't meant to be tasked with responding to a singular request that concerns matters of neutrality. Rather, once a discussion about that change gains consensus —even if only the weakest form of consensus there is: WP:SILENCE— then and only then an edit request may be submitted with the expectation of seeing it granted. El_C 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should't the request be directed at the community, and not at any particular admin, so that it entice editors who are involved to use the moment of greater scrutiny and try to agree on whatever edit is requested? But doesn't matter, it's not that urgent, anyway.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC) It could be that I have confused this with a Request for Comment - anyhow.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, a full protection edit request is, by definition, directed at the prospective admin who then decides whether to grant or decline it. They are the only one with the ability to make that change, and they are therefore the ones who stake their reputation on a correct interpretation of the request in question. To reiterate, items concerning neutrality should not be decided upon by an admin. That is a content matter, which is why a discussion (or, again, at the very least a prolonged enough period of WP:SILENCE) should commence first. El_C 17:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roger!--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persuction in Russian tsardom[edit]

What?!?! 78.86.33.96 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians&oldid=1212654793"