Talk:Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians

The Catholic Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church

• Paul Mojzes writes[1]: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Original research

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"[3] 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".[4] 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)

•  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)

• @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)

• Mikola22, thanks for making that additional copyright information available. Indeed, maybe the Museum of the Revolution of Yugoslav Peoples has the rights to it, maybe they don't (as in those rights having expired). Who knows and who can tell at this point. El_C 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

@El C and WEBDuB: And this picture is from "Museum of the Revolution of Yugoslav Peoples" today "Museum of the History of Yugoslavia" [5] 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.[6] Mikola22 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

@El C: More than 1200 Serbs from Glina were forced to convert. They were later slaughtered in the same church where they were converted.[7] 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.[8] Mikola22 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@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 [9]) 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 [10]. Mikola22 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, I asked the editor Peacemaker67 for clarification. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2021

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 ౪^99° 22:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 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)

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 ౪^99° 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC) It could be that I have confused this with a Request for Comment - anyhow.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Roger!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Persuction in Russian tsardom

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

Persecution of Orthodox Christians in the post-Cold war era in Eastern-bloc countries

I'd like to see a description on the discrimination, attacks and ethnic cleansing happened to Orthodox Christians in Eastern-bloc countries (eg. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic) and former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Slovenia) during the 1990s and later. In many predominantly Catholic countries in the former Eastern bloc, attacks and discrimination at their workplace, during their education and in public institutions took place in order to force Orthodox Christians to leave the countries of their residence. Banning on the use of Cyrillic letters or public protests against it's use were stage in many of the above countries, as well as social exclusion still being rife towards Orthodox Christian. 188.120.118.171 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)