Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 13 December 2018

Christian persecution complex

Christian persecution complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As discussed on article's talk page at Talk:Christian persecution complex#Merge into Persecution of Christians, there is a clear lack of availability of reliable sources which would establish notability of the subject. Excelse (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough coverage by RS (scholars and mainstream media) that clearly indicates the topic is notable. Here is a non-all-inclusive list. Note that the term "evangelical persecution complex" is also in use as a synonym. Also, note that not all editors have been informed of this AfD proposal. . Is that Canvasing? Anyway, the list.

Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I took some time to analyze the sources by Cinadon36. Here is my review:

Excelse (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Notable topic and well-sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Echo the above. However, it's pretty poorly written and if it survives the AfD it ought to be rewritten in a coherent fashion. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The problem with the article goes beyond notability, it is a WP:CFORK on historicity of persecution in the early church. The use of the term "Christian Persecution Complex" limits the sources to those who are arguing against historicity, thus with the current title it is not possible to write a neutral article. Our articles on this topic are usually named "Historicity of..." etc. But, not all of the sources above are on the same topic. The term is an ill-defined neologism, so the content about historicity of early Church martyrdom stories and hyperbole in present day American evangelicalism represent at least two different topics. It would be easier to nuke this and start over then it would be to fix it.Seraphim System 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is neither a neologism nor a fork. The article does not deal with the historicity of persecutions in extent-there is just a brief mention in a section. When discussing early christian times the focus is on the perseption of those persecutions, not persecutions per se. Having clarified that, I would like to point out that the main body of the article deals with a current phenomenon -the idea of christians in the west that are being persecuted and in a lesser degree, its effect on mainstream politics. That has nothing to do with other WP articles that I know of (ie persecution of christians) hence I can not understand the claim that the article is a FORK.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep That the topic is notable is unquestionable. Maybe the article's name should be changed to something else. "Christian persecution myth" could be one option. There are many sources that elaborate on the topic, using different terms of course. But for deletion, I do not see enough reasons. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I'm commenting on this AfD as an editor who consulted the sources and tried to clean up the article before I saw how deep the issues ran and agreed to support a second AfD nomination. What you are calling the "persecution myth" starts with the narrative concerning Stephen in Acts of Apostles. The text of the Bible, as many editors are probably aware, is considered semi-historical and the degree of its historical authenticity as been discussed at length in scholarship - with near unanimity, Stephen scholars assume that behind Luke's highly stylized narrative of Stephen there lies a historical person. We can't just dismiss something that is nearly unanimously agreed upon in scholarly sources because Candida Moss wrote a new book. Since the main article hasn't even been created yet, this is an inappropriate FORK dealing with only one POV about a broader subject.Seraphim System 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is not semi-historical, it is about a current phenomenon. Candida Moss published a notable book that made an impact. She is a leading expert on the subject. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: The topic of usage of claims about persecution is notable, though the current name of the article might be wrong. Could interested editors agree to delete this article and write a new and more neutral one on the topic? If not, is there any other option to cover the topic while deleting this article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Despite my attempt to take a wikibreak to reduce the wikistress in my life, I could work on something along the lines of "historicity of persecution in early christianity" if it will help us reach a consensus here. The plentiful background reading for the article will give me something to do during my downtime.Seraphim System 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This article is a WP:NEOGLISM and an WP:ATTACK article. Most of the citations used in the article are opinionated blog articles, such as the Salon article. Some of the citations provided by the creator of the article User:Cinadon36, are self-published, such as "Persecution Complex: Why American Christians Need to Stop Claiming That They Are Persecuted" (printed by Crowdscribed, LLC). What a neutral book title by the way (sarcasm). This article also contradicts academic studies that demonstrate that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world in the present day. desmay (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly it is not an attack, as it entails all views ie the hostility against Christians. WP:NEO does not apply either, as there are multiple secondary sources that are using the term. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Per User:Seraphim System's reasoning both here and on the article's talk page. Take away the handful of op-eds written by unauthoritative commentators in sources that fail WP:RS, and the remaining article violates WP:CFORK. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the idea that Christians suffer from persecutory delusions sounds like a fringe theory. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep It is both a current psychological and sociological phenomena that is being researched, talked about and dialogued about in academic circles. The sources are not primairly blogs or self-published, :) :( that is a fringe claim. Sethie (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I quickly reviewed about three mainstream sources in the article and this passes WP:GNG pretty clearly. SportingFlyer talk 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons that Bmbaker88 noted above. Dhalsim2 (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsubstantiated by reliable sources. Majority of the sources are self-published or simply unreliable. Given the confirmed lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources" I believe there is no reason to keep the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Which sources are unreliable? The Atlantic? Salon? Al Jazeera? The numerous published journal articles? All of these easily combine to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• You can say yes, and also include patheos blog, medium.com, etc. for confirming that this subject lacks GNG. Those sources claim that this belief is old, but if it is really old then why it failed to receive attention of reliable sources such as scholarly publications? Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• This argument makes absolutely no sense. We have multiple academic articles which discuss the topic and multiple secondary independent news articles which discuss the topic. Calling the Atlantic or Al Jazeera "unreliable" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it's unquestionable WP:GNG has been satisfied. If you think the article should be deleted, you need to find something in WP:NOT to overcome the presumption the article should be on Misplaced Pages. SportingFlyer talk 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The extraordinary claims in this article need reliable high-quality sources, not just the opinions of one author contained in non-scholarly online news articles. Knox490 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: This article should be deleted per WP:POVTITLE and WP:CFORK. Could you imagine Encyclopedia Britannica or Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia hosting this article? I think not. Carajou (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Neither of those are reasons to delete, as deletion is not cleanup. This article just passed an AfD several months ago where it was clearly established it passed WP:GNG, especially with the sources found by the user E.M.Gregory (who I am not hotlinking so I do not canvass.) I'm not sure what making a comparison to the Britannica has to do with notability, either. SportingFlyer talk 03:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, nothing that can't be fixed through regular editing, with plenty of WP:RS on the subject. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete A subject such as this could receive significant coverage by reliable sources if it really happened to be notable. I have searched for the sources there is obvious scarcity of reliable academic sources. Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. A handful of top quality reliable sources is enough. WP:NEO doesn't apply to scholarly research. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the sources are sufficient. -- , and as they are from mainstream academics, I do not understand the claims of insufficient reliability. The delete arguments do not seem to apply to the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete There are plenty of primary sources to effectively refute the contents of this article. James Clifton — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Walter Clifton (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Rename, merge, or delete. In other words, NOT Keep as is. The title is POV. I object to any proposal that results in a standalone article with that kind of a title. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Expand content, this is about a controversial term, there should also be adequate coverage of opponents of the term in the article. Note that the article title is not POV because the article title just reflects the term that the article is about. It is the term itself that is controversial, that makes quite a difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete We don't even have an article on persecution complex (this redirects to "persecutory delusion" becasue no serious psychiatrist talks about a "persecution complex" any more) so its absurd to have one on "X persecution complex". And if we had articles specifically about "X persecution complex" for every group where someone had alleged that some members of the group had a "persecution complex" (whatever that means) we'd be cluttering up Misplaced Pages absurdly. NBeale (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that the Christian Persecution Complex has nothing to do with any kind of medical term. The term was coined by academics in the discipline of humanities, not medicine. Maybe a tag/note "not to be confused with...." would solve this particular problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is going on. Delete !votes based on "this is a content fork" and delete !votes based on "this is not a content fork". wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates