Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

problematic paragraph

In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island that killed 77 people. Early reports erroneously stated he was a Christian fundamentalist.[36][37] Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, identifying himself as a "Christian crusader" while describing himself as not very religious.[38][39]

Citation 37 failed verification. Citation 38 failed verification. Citation 39 is not a reliable source.

The citation 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.220 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post and New York Times (among others) are not reliable sources for current events? On what planet? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

let's look at it closely.

• first sentence says:ays "early reports erroneously stated he was a Christian fundamentalist"

BBC source 36 is a news report and says ""We have no more information than... what has been found on [his] own websites, which is that it goes towards the right and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist.". This passes verification for "Christian fundamentalist" - it fails verification that the report was "erroneous"

dead link‍] WaPo source 37 is an op-ed by a theologian, and it talks a great deal about the christian motivation for the violence. Not sure this passes WP:RS but one could argue that it does for the "early reports said" aspect. if it passes RS it provides verification for "Christian fundamentalist" - it fails verification that the report was "erroneous"

• 2nd sentence says: "Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, identifying himself as a "Christian crusader" while describing himself as not very religious:

NYT source 38 is a news report says "Mr. Breivik, 32, a self-described Christian crusader" and later describes some of the "manifesto " saying "Mr. Breivik wrote that Muslim immigrants were undermining Norway’s traditional Christian values." reliable source and verifies part of sentence, but doesn't verify "not religious"

Internat'l Business Times source 39 , OK I checked RSN for IBT and found this which is not a "no" but it is not glowing either. Questionable (in the real sense of that word) then. I wold not say unreliable. This has an explicit quote ""If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian," and they also quote the following ""I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment,".

there you go. this is interesting to me. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I was here when that section was written, and I remember it as having been checked for sourcing at the time. Jytdog, sorry if I'm being a little dim, but I just want to confirm that I understand you correctly: you are saying that the sourcing ultimately checks out, aren't you? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

While it has been much discussed before, terrorism experts describe Breivik's actions as right-wing terrorism, not religious terrorism, because his motivation was political, viz., to protect white European culture. Certainly he considered Christianity to be part of that culture, in the same sense that many IRA terrorists, Tripura and Arab nationalist terrorists considered religion to be part of their cultures. But the fact is that for most of the latter terrorists, nationalism was the main influence, and they adopted Marxist principles, and allowed people of different religions or no religion to join and assume leadership positions. That is in stark contrast to al Qaeda for example. Where are the Christian and atheist leaders of al Qaeda?

While there is of course nothing wrong with including the fringe view that their primary motivation was religion, it is tendentious to assume it as given then launch into a description of their actions, without acknowledging that we are describing a fringe view.

TFD (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

hey trypto - so I did not find that "erroneous" in the first sentence is supported by the sources provided for that sentence (they are sources from the breaking news, so were unaware of the error yet). the sources are OK... the essay by the theologian is the weakest and IBT is next weakest, the other two are impeccable. on whether this should remain in the article, my position is "yes". religion is a cultural thing as much as it is theological one, and Breivik very strongly identified with Christian culture and used terrorism to support that view and attack what he saw as the encroachment on specifically Christian culture. It would be useful to have nuance in the article (if editors here can work together to do actually acheive something nuanced... something too often impossible when folks are unwilling to compromise) Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with redoing the part about breaking versus erroneous news. That's very fixable, and per WP:NOTNEWS we probably don't need to belabor the point. Having edited this page with TFD for a very long time, I'm now going to say to Jytdog, you decided to step in here, so I'm going to let you and TFD discuss TFD's issues for a while, and I wish both of you good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

uh oh... ! Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

still problematic paragraph with citation that does not check out

subsequent analyses of his motivations have noted that he did not only display Christian terrorist inclinations, but also had non-religious, right-wing beliefs.[42][43]

Number 43 failed verification. It says nothing about non religious, secular, atheist or anything along those lines.42 is a broken link, but judging by the history here, I think it should be removed unless someone can veryfy that it says he was motivated by something "non religious" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.160 (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While we may remove broken links, we do not remove sources because the links are broken. I fixed it anyway. 43 says he was motivated by right-wing ideology. Non-religious motivation does not mean motivated by non-religion. It means motivation by motives other than religion. TFD (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "No True Scotsman" Edits Being Added By Multiple IP Addresses...

Someone keeps making additions to this page, with a few days between edits, under different IP addresses. They always get reverted, because they consist of multiple "No true Scotsman" logical fallacies, but because the person is using multiple IP addresses, the warnings that are left on the talk page(s) are unheeded and un-tallied. Does anyone have any idea of how best to deal with this? Here are some examples of the different IPs: [1], [2], [3], et cetera. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

personally i don't care - it is probably one angry idiot and they will go away after a while. i look at this behavior as vandalism, and would recommend you go to WP:ANV - they block the specific IP address and if there is an identifiable range of addresses, they will block that.. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection which will temporarily prevent IPs and new accounts from editing. TFD (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the semi. I noticed a thread at WP:ANI that there may be some off-site canvassing by pro-Christian persons happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me second that. I just don't have the time available to deal with things like WP:ANI and stuff these days. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Motivation of Christian terrorists

Jytdog writes above that he is "struggling" with my efforts to "draw bright lines" by saying that classification is determined by motivation. But that is exactly what reliable sources do. See for example Aubrey's The New Dimension of International Terrorism, p. 44: "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring about sweeping changes."[4] He provides al Qaeda as an example. On page 43, he says, "The term nationalist terrorism generally connotes the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group...." He provides the IRA and PLO as examples. All mainstream sources acknowledge these categories, their definitions and what is included in them.

Most sources acknowledge that religion can be a component in terrorist organizations, even when it is not the motivational force.

The only dispute is from a small minority that believe IRA and Christian Indian terrorism is motivated by religion.

I should not have to rebut the point that since human motivation is complex, we cannot "draw bright lines." The is just original research unsupported by any sources. However, it is not a good argument for terrorist organizations. The IRA included people who wanted a fascist, liberal, communist or Catholic Ireland, some were just psychopaths. But the reason they planted bombs in the UK was to persuade the people and the govenrment to leave Northern Ireland so it could re-unite with the rest of Ireland. Whether the conflict was a continuation of the conflict between the protestant king, Henry VIII, and Irish who remained loyal to the Pope is a wholly different issue. Unless sources say that the terrorists' motivation was a crusade for the true church, it should not be included. The vast majority of Irish nationalists did not support terrorism and it is original research to assume the terrorists had the same motivation as the rest of the nationalist community unless sources say that.

I notice the "no true Scotsman" argument is frequently mentioned. No terrorism experts use that argument.

I suggest the article should not label groups as Christian terrorist unless that is the view in mainstream reliable sources, although I have no objection to including the minority view that the IRA etc. were Christian terrorists.

TFD (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the idea that there is not (as much?) RS describing the Irish situation as being "Christian Terrorism". (To be honest, I haven't researched the situation very much.) On the other hand, the Indian situation is one that I have researched extensively, and there is plenty of RS to back it up. Also, the concept of "nationalist terrorism", which in your quotation, "generally connotes the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group", can also be "religious terrorism" if that "national group" is defined by religion. If Group "X" seeks to create a new state for the ethnically "X" people, but the "X" state is also to be based upon religious law (particularly when that religion is different from the surrounding/majority/minority/whatever religion)? Example: I live in Florida. If I were to create a secessionist terrorist organization, whose purpose would be to create an independent Floridian State, which would be run based on strict Biblical law, and/or committed to the forced conversion of all Florida residents to Christianity, then my theoretical group would be both a Floridian "Nationalist" group, and a Floridian "Christian Terrorist" group, no? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As TFD and Bryon know, we have had this discussion many times before on this talk page, and there has been regrettably little in the way of anyone being persuaded by anyone else to change one's mind, in either direction. For me, it keeps coming back to the source material, as opposed to arguments made by editors. I think that the issue about "bright lines" comes from editors wanting to say that X absolutely is Christian terrorism and Y absolutely is not Christian terrorism and must be deleted from the page, when we have some sources that call Y Christian terrorism and some sources that call Y non-Christian. When the "no true Scotsman" argument has been used on this talk page, I have not seen it applied to sources, but to editors who appear to argue that something should be deleted because the relationship of the terrorism to the "divinely commanded purposes" appears to contradict normal readings of scripture, as though terrorists were rational people. (Sometimes, such editors appear to be offended by anything that reflects badly on Christianity, and sometimes, editors appear to be specifically interested in a single conflict in a single country, in which case we also get editors arguing on the other "side" about that country.) As I have pointed out before, Jessica Stern, who is an undeniably mainstream expert on religious terrorism, has articulated how people who are motivated by secular economic or family issues eventually come to attribute those motivations to religious beliefs, because they find it comforting to do so in the context of group identity, and she classifies that as religious terrorism too. And academics like Steve Bruce and Mark Jeurgensmeyer are not WP:FRINGE sources, either. I keep seeing contradictions to "All mainstream sources..." when I see it instead as "many" rather than "all", and the insistence on "all" comes to look to me like the creation of a "bright line" where the "bright line" does not exist in the source material. And when I keep seeing arguments that the sources say that "the motivational force" is a single motivation and that other motivations highlighted by the same sources are "components" but not "the motivational force", that also seems to me to be a "bright line" imposed on the sources by editors, rather than being in "all" the sources to begin with. My argument is that we have multiple sources, and we ought to reflect all of those sources (and we can have appropriate discussions about relative weight), but we should not simply throw out a big portion of those sources because a few editors say that those sources are not mainstream. Throwing those sources out is OR; acknowledging all the sources is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I provided you with a source that says the "bright line" as you call it does exist. And here is a link to The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research which presents the same typology. It "bring[s] together the collective wisdom of experts from around the world" (p. xv). It even includes a paragraph or two about Juergensmeyer: "A narrower analysis of the new terrorism can be found in Mark Juergensmeyer's 'cosmic war' hypothesis. Juergensmeyer's hypothesis was driwen by two trends in religious violence: a tnedency towards mass-casualty violence, and an apparent lack of grand strategy in the employment of violence. 134 His answer to these puzzles was that the 'new terror' was an example of 'cosmic war', which in turn was an outgrowth of 'cosmic struggle'.... [His] testing of his theory is plagued, however, by conceptual stretching that calls into question his findings. First, his case studies span Aum Shinrikyo, Al-Qaeda, Babar Kalsa and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). While the first is only nominally political...the last two might be only nominally religious, drawing into question whether their actions can be ascribed to 'cosmic warfare.' Certainly those of the IRA cannot." (p. 233)

We can argue amongst ourselves whether Juergensmeyer was right, but the main issue is whether his typology is generally accepted and in fact it is not.

Bryon Morrigan, so your terrorist group would not allow in people from other religions who wanted Florida to separate and would not allow in people of the same religion who had no ties to Florida. Tactically, it would make no sense not to ally with fellow Florida nationalists. And it would not make sense if they wanted a religious state to exclude members of their own religion. For your example to work, they would actually have to share a church organization, so that a priest in South Carolina would be a priest in Florida, could lead congregations, yet would be killed as an alien.

The problem with hypotheticals of course if that they often do not reflect what we see in the real world.

BTW, terrorism expert Jessica Stern was widely quoted in 2003 for her belief that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and links to al Qaeda and Hugo Chavez was harboring Islamic terrorists in Margarita Island.

TFD (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And TFD, I pointed you to other sources that, to varying degrees, disagree with that bright line. Look, we obviously are not persuading one another with this back-and-forth (and your casting aspersions on one of the experts does nothing to motivate me to change my mind). I'm sure we could go on and on with this discussion, but instead, I hope that you will accept that the recent edits I made to the Ireland section were a good faith effort to respond to your and others' concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources that disagree on the definition of Christian terrorism, merely sources that disagree on which groups should be included. And those sources acknowledge that they are presenting a minority opinion. The issue is not what you or I think, but that we accurately report what sources say and provide proper weighting to their opinons. TFD (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK then, you and I agree 100% about your last sentence. Could you please point me to where sources, themselves, say that they are minority opinions? That would be very helpful. I'm traveling right now, so I don't have my copy of Terror in the Name of God by Jessica Stern with me, but I'll work on a properly sourced introductory section to the page, as discussed above, when I am able to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I presented the source The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, which explains how the mainstream understands terrorism and the reception of Juergenmeyer's views. Juergernsmeyer is well respected as an observer of terrorism, but his view that religion is a major motivation of what most scholars do not see as religious terrorism is not widely accepted. And you have not yet provided any sources that Juergensmeyer rejects the mainstream definition of religious terrorism. Indeed he accepts it and only differs with the mainstream in that he believes the IRA etc. are driven by religious rather than secular reasons.

Have you read Stern's views? She thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. FYI no one believes that any more.

You still have not provided a source for your definition of religious terrorism. Juergesmeyer does not dispute it, he only argues that the IRA etc. were religiously motivated.

TFD (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion at NPOVN.[5] TFD (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to you at WP:NPOVN#Christian terrorism. I asked you above, "Could you please point me to where sources, themselves, say that they are minority opinions?" (bold font added this time), and I'm still waiting for an answer. Yes, I've read Stern, and she is not the incompetent that you are painting her as here. There is a talk section below, where you can help editors work on the best presentation of definitions and arguments about religious motivation. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain

The section Great Britain is misnamed. Although James I ruled in a personal union the realms of England and Scotland were only in a personal union something that would last until 1707. The Gunpowder plot was aimed at the English establishment not the Scottish establishment. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm from the US, and I'll readily admit to being utterly confused about the proper naming conventions. What do you advise that we change the section name to? I'm guessing England, but I'm not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was "England and Wales" or just England. I suggest using the term England. After all we have a separate section on Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

England would be fine with me. Given all the controversies about naming, is anyone else going to object to that? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I made the edit, because there haven't been any objections so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinas christian terror group known as "The Almighty God group" Public stabbings and murders

Please include "The Almighty God group" & "Eastern Lightning" of china! They have been getting alot of public attention this year with the public killings of a young woman.92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

I think it is the same group - there is a Wikipedia article, Eastern Lightning. While it seems to meet the criteria, we would need to show it is considered a Christian terrorist group and is considered significant for inclusion. TFD (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As with so many other examples, there seem to be lots of sources saying that they are motivated by Christianity, and lots of sources that call them terrorists, but they seem to be separate sources, at least per what I could find on an initial look. At least I consider it progress towards consensus that you said "While it seems to meet the criteria...". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

drafting overview section

working on this... feel free to expand, amend, etc. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

draft

Definitions

Reviewing theories of religious terrorism occurring between the 1970s and the 2020s, Bradley McAlister and Alex P. Schmid describe a spectrum of theories: "Not all aspects... are agreed upon, however. These debates usually centre upon the effect of religion on violent political movements. At one of the spectrum are scholars who argue that the (re-)introduction of religion into political violence has fundamentally changed the nature of terrorism. At the other end are those who hold that religion simply acts as a collective action solution, and the ends of contemporary terrorism remain political change or reform in this world, not salvation in another world".

Bruce Hoffman and Stefan M. Aubrey define religious terrorism narrowly. Aubrey writes: "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring about sweeping changes." He argues that religious terrorism tends to be more violent than other kinds of terrorism, has a worldview that divides the world in bright lines, and is often supported by clerical authority. Hoffman writes: "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now, there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms, but are not 'religious' in the sense I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role." Like other scholars of terrorism, he notes that religious terrorists are alienated and feel existentially threatened, and they dehumanize others on moral grounds; he also argues that leaders of religious terrorist groups must constantly change their goals in order to retain their effectiveness, leading to diffusion of the original clear religious justifications for their movement and making it more difficult to classify them.

Mark Juergensmeyer, a sociologist of religion, characterizes Christian terrorism in a way that applies to a broader range of groups and individuals than only those who directly base their actions on scripture. He uses the mainstream definition of "terrorism" as acts of violence, usually against noncombatants, intended to bring attention to a message through shock and fear. With respect to "religion", he argues that religious terrorists often have a mixture of motivations and that religious and political ideologies often intertwine. He writes that in the history of many of the world's religions, "violence has lurked as a shadowy presence. It has colored religions darker, more mysterious symbols" but finds that religion only spawns violence "with the coalesenence of a peculiar set of circumstances – political, social, and economical – when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for poltical change." In his 2004 book, Religious Terror and the Secular State, he writes:

Though the World Trade Center and United Nations assaults and many other recent acts of religious terrorism have had no obvious military goal, they are meant to make a powerful impact on the public consciousness. These are shows meant for television. They are a kind of perverse performance of power meant to ennoble the perpetrators' views of the world and to draw us into their notions of cosmic war. In my study of the global rise of religious violence, Terror in the Mind of God (Juergensmeyer 2003), I have found a strikingly familiar pattern. In virtually all of the recent cases of religious violence, concepts of cosmic war have been accompanied by strong claims of moral justification and an enduring absolutism that transforms worldly struggles into sacred battles. It is not so much that religion has become politicized, but that politics have become religionized. Worldly struggles have been lifted into the high proscenium of sacred battle.

This is what makes religious warfare so difficult to combat. Its enemies have become satanized—one cannot negotiate with them or easily compromise. The rewards for those who fight for the cause are transtemporal, and the time lines of their struggles are vast. Most social and political struggles look for conclusions within the lifetimes of their participants, but religious struggles can take generations to succeed.

Jessica Stern, a policy consultant on terrorism, defines terrorism as "an act or threat of violence against noncombatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating, or otherwise influencing an audience." Her book on religious terrorism, Terror in the Name of God, limits its discussion of religion to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and the religious terrorism she addresses in the book is limited to "terrorists who claim to be seeking religious goals". She argues that this does not mean that religious terrorists' goals are purely religious: "As we shall see, most religious terrorists promote a mixture of of religious and material objectives, for example, acquiring political power to impose a particular interpretation of religious laws or appealing to religious texts to justify the acquisition of contested territory." She describes how groups from which religious terrorism arises focus on a narrow set of religiously-articulated values to the exclusion of others, which allows them to make issues black and white, and to dehumanize and harm those who do not share their values.

Rhetorical use

In Lebanon in 1989, General Michel Aoun, commander of the Christian army, created an uproar when he threatened to take United States hostages in the form of "a good dose of Christian terrorism". In subsequent comments, Aoun made clear that he was not actually threatening terrorist acts, but instead making a rhetorical point about American policy in Lebanon in the context of Islamic terrorism.

Comments

Well, that didn't take long after my comment in the previous section. Let me suggest beginning with sources that TFD would consider mainstream. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

just getting started. these are two books that i have and have used in course work on religious terrorism, taught at a christian seminary. :) why put a box around it? i put it here so everybody could edit to it and add to it..... Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I put the box there because I'm a terrorist. No, actually, it's just because it sets it off from discussion better. No impediment to everyone editing it, which everyone should do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ok! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This draft will work. Don't see unreliable citations, some are really good. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting that the draft above is about religious terrorism not christian terrorism per se. don't know is that is unsatisfying but i don't know any reason why we would apply it differently for one religion vs another. also, as i worked, i was looking at the religious terrorism article and was thinking that this section should really be closely aligned with, if not the same as, the definitional section there.... Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about what you said about the course that you took. (I realize of course that any editor's individual recollection of a class taken in the past is original research, but I still see some usefulness in asking about it in talk, in this instance.) If I understand you correctly, this was a class dealing with violence by Christians, taught at a Christian seminary, and the instructor used the books by Juergensmeyer and Stern as assigned books. Is that correct, and is it correct that some of the sources that apparently use narrower definitions were not assigned? If so, then with the appropriate caveats, that would be an anecdotal indication that Juergensmeyer and Stern were regarded in one Christian scholarly setting as somewhat mainstream. (Myself, I'm pretty much an autodidact in this subject area, insert joke about hairy palms here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

it was a course on religion and violence with a special focus on biblical "roots" of violence and how understandings of violence/power arise and perpetuated in religious communities. There was a segment on terrorism. We used some articles that i am still in the process of trying to dig up along with Juergensmeyer's and Sterns's books. The course had a strong focus on trying to understand religious violence (including terrorism) from the inside (with empathy), and when you leave the ivory tower and deal with actual people and their stories, bright lines fall away. When you come back up from the weeds to reconsider broad categories, it becomes clear that while categories can be very useful, bright lines between them are not sustainable and are dangerous to rely on. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

At WP:NPOVN#Christian terrorism, TFD presents some quotes from Aubry and a Routledge collection. Those should probably be worked into the draft here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

happy to do that as I want to build a balanced section. However, TFD is most welcome to add content directly as well. It is a sign of POV-pushing under WP:TENDENTIOUS to demand that others do your work for you. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with the propoposal, but for a start I would like to discuss Juergensmeyer's thesis, which I believe is inaccurately presented. First, I think it is always a bad idea to use a primary source (in this case an entire book) that presents an author's opinions. It is better to use a secondary source that summarizes them, even even written by the same author. That approach helps us identify what is important and often establish the weight of the views. Here is how he explains his views in "Religious Terror and the Secular State" (2004).

"Though the World Trade Center and United Nations assaults and many other recent acts of religious terrorism have had no obvious military goal, they are meant to make a powerful impact on the public consciousness. These are shows meant for television. They are a kind of perverse performance of power meant to ennoble the perpetrators' views of the world and to draw us into their notions of cosmic war. In my study of the global rise of religious violence, Terror in the Mind of God (Juergensmeyer 2003), I have found a strikingly familiar pattern. In virtually all of the recent cases of religious violence, concepts of cosmic war have been accompanied by strong claims of moral justification and an enduring absolutism that transforms worldly struggles into sacred battles. It is not so much that religion has become politicized, but that politics have become religionized. Worldly struggles have been lifted into the high proscenium of sacred battle.

"This is what makes religious warfare so difficult to combat. Its enemies have become satanized--one cannot negotiate with them or easily compromise. The rewards for those who fight for the cause are transtemporal, and the time lines of their struggles are vast. Most social and political struggles look for conclusions within the lifetimes of their participants, but religious struggles can take generations to succeed."

So he is not providing a broad definition, but basically the same as other terrorism scholars. He does not say that religion is one of the motivations, but that thereligious aspect has become so broad that it has overtaken "secular nationalism" and Marxism, which have been abandoned.

The Good Friday Accord made him acknowledge that religious terrorists can negotiate, and says that when religious terrorists compete over the same land, compromise is possible. But then this category is surprisingly close to the concept of ethnic/nationalist terrorism. And while people like McVeigh and Breivik are unlikely to negotiate, that is well explained by their categorization as right-wing terrorists. There is a lot of similarity between religious and right-wing terrorists, but some notable differences as well.

TFD (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Majority and minority views

One issue that I think we need to figure out, based strictly upon the source material, is which views amongst scholars might be majority or mainstream views in the scholarly community, and which might be minority or dissenting views. It seems to me that there are three principal possibilities:

1. The views of scholars such as Hoffman and Aubrey, who treat Christian terrorism narrowly, represent the mainstream of current scholarship. Authors like Juergensmeyer and Stern represent minority views. When some authors write, for example, about Juergensmeyer, that "A narrower analysis of the new terrorism can be found in Mark Juergensmeyer's 'cosmic war' hypothesis. Juergensmeyer's hypothesis was driven by two trends in religious violence: a tendency towards mass-casualty violence, and an apparent lack of grand strategy in the employment of violence. His answer to these puzzles was that the 'new terror' was an example of 'cosmic war', which in turn was an outgrowth of 'cosmic struggle'.... [His] testing of his theory is plagued, however, by conceptual stretching that calls into question his findings. First, his case studies span Aum Shinrikyo, Al-Qaeda, Babar Kalsa and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). While the first is only nominally political...the last two might be only nominally religious, drawing into question whether their actions can be ascribed to 'cosmic warfare.' Certainly those of the IRA cannot." (from Routledge, cited in #Motivation of Christian terrorists above), that is an example of a mainstream critique.
2. Juergensmeyer and Stern represent the mainstream of current scholarly consensus, and Hoffman and Aubrey are minority views. The Routledge-type critiques represent dissenting criticisms by the academic minority. (Based only on that quote, this possibility is equally plausible.)
3. The scholarly field contains a variety of expert opinions, and there is currently no clear consensus, but rather, various analyses existing on a more-or-less coequal basis. The Routledge-type critiques represent criticisms of one sub-group by another, as often occurs in academic discourse.

My gut feeling is that number 3 is really the case, but my gut feeling is not a reliable source. Can we find third-party sourced material that resolves these three possibilities? Are there sources where someone objectively analyzes opinions in the scholarly literature, and concludes that opinions are settling in one direction or the other? That is not the same thing as someone analyzing opinions and concluding that they agree with some opinions and disagree with others, or that some opinions are correct and others incorrect! Or are there minority sources that say, themselves, that they are minority views presenting a dissenting viewpoint? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Aubrey seems to be describing what mainstream sources say, rather than presenting his own opinions.[6] If you want to search, I suggest using "terrorism"+"typology". While sources say there are multiple typologies used, the most common are left, right, nationalist, religious and a few others. All sources define religious terrorism as religion-motivated terrorism. IOW the organization commits acts of terror in order to achieve religious objectives. In contrast to ethnic/nationalist terrorists, they have far greater disregard for life, work internationally, do not claim responsibility for attacks and do not negotiate. Juergensmeyer agreed that they have greater disregard for life and do not negotiate, although he has altered his views about negotiation since the Good Friday accord. So look forward to John Kerry sitting down with moderate members of al Qaeda. TFD (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm looking forward to are sources. We are already citing Aubrey in the draft, and when I look, via the link you provided, at his conclusions, Chapter 12, page 299, he seems to be self-describing his book as the testing of a novel hypothesis of his, more so than a weighing of scholarly consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked about the three possibilities above. I think we have an answer. It's the third one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Typologies

I did a search for "Christian terrorism" and "typology", and I found this book: [7]. It has a chapter about "Toward Profiling Christian Religious Terrorism: Typology of Observations". At the bottom of page 74, the author classifies the IRA as Christian terrorists. He then says that being classified as Christian terrorists is not mutually exclusive with classification as racists or as political terrorists, all in the same sentence as the IRA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The 'novel hypothesis" is that al Qaeda and similar groups represented a "new dimension" of terrorism. He takes his typology from the Council on Foreign Relations website section "Terrorism: Questions and Answers", then argues that al Qaeda has more in common with religious terrorism than nationalist terrorism. Rapoport's essay was published the same year and he uses the term "fourth wave". There is nothing original about the typology explained, and he is not providing his opinion, merely reflected what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So, perhaps we can establish that the Aubrey, Rapoport, et al. typology is one of the typologies that are fairly well established in the source material, and I have no problem with that. But, given the source that was the first book to pop up when I followed your advice about searching under "typology", it seems increasingly likely that scholarship treating Christian terrorism as not mutually exclusive with national terrorism, even to the point of explicitly naming the IRA as Christian terrorists, is also much more than a minority scholarly view. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide your source. I have not found any sources about terrorism in general that call the IRA "Christian terrorist." And Juergensmeyer supports the same typology as other terrorism scholars, at least when describing religious terrorism. He does not say that groups can have twin nationalist/religious motivation. TFD (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Could I provide the source? I already did, but here it is, again: [8], bottom of page 74, in a chapter about the typology of Christian terrorism, where it also says that classification as Christian terrorists is not mutually exclusive with classification as racists or as political terrorists. And I found the source by following your advice about searching for typology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In your source, Schbley writes, "almost al contemporary Christian terrorism, spanning the spectrum of affiliaitons from the IRA to the PP; may be labeled as racism or political terrorism committed by a group with a strong ethnoreligious identity because their goals are not to bear witness against dogmatic antagonism or despotism but to consciously and forcibly redress a policy or political grievance.... All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following groups of monks.... [They] are the only true Christian terror organization."

So basically he is saying what all the mainstream sources are saying. Can you find any sources about terrorism in general that call the IRA Christian religious terrorists?

TFD (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You misquote the source, to a degree that I consider cause for concern. The source actually says, at the bottom of page 74:

"Therefore, in its final analysis and conclusion this study incorporates the psychological profiles of [long list of names] as delineated by court-appointed psychologists. However, this is not to be considered a setback in this search for a common profile for almost all contemporary Christian terrorism, spanning the spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP, may be labeled as racism or political terrorism committed by a group with strong ethnoreligious identity because their goals are not to bear witness against dogmatic antagonism or despotism but to consciously and forcibly redress a policy or political grievance."

End of paragraph. Then, the next paragraph begins:

"All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following group of monks, who were well organized and funded to terrorize due to perceived canonic antagonism;" followed by a description of Maronite Monks.

Then a new section of the chapter begins:

"The search for the only true contemporary Christian terror organization that is unconscious of the maliciousness embedded in its acts and was formed to protect against a perceived threat to religious ideology unfortunately took this research back to Lebanon." This is followed by extensive text about the Maronites.

The language is dense, but the source is actually saying that "contemporary Christian terrorism" is something that spans a "spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP". It says that the findings of the study of court psychologists are not "a setback in this search for a common profile", because contemporary Christian terrorism may also "be labeled as racism or political terrorism". Because the author is looking for a common defining profile, he then differentiates a subset of contemporary Christian terrorism where he can analyze that profile without complicating factors. He is not saying that the Maronite Monks are the only group that meets the typology of "contemporary Christian terrorism", but that they were the single group that was worth examining in detail for purposes of this profile assessment. Where he says "All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism...", he is not saying that most so-called Christian terrorism is not "real" religious terrorism (although the wording is clumsy), but instead he is saying that some typologies may fail to identify "real" Christian terrorism, because those typologies depend on overly narrow definitions of "organized religious terrorism", and so the author will next look at a group (the Maronites), where there will not be this disagreement, in order to work out what the author considers to be the correct typology for Christian terrorism. The "Discussion" section that begins on page 77 treats it this way, as findings about the Maronites that can be generalized to other contemporary Christian terrorists, such as those targeting abortion clinics in the US. Likewise, the introductory parts of the chapter, pages 67–69, present the topic this way, and the material on pages 73–74 makes clear that difficulties in getting useful interviews with Christian terrorists in the US led to the decision to analyze the Maronites. There is a big difference between the "search for the only true contemporary Christian terror organization that" meets certain criteria – which is what the source actually says – and your framing it as saying that the Maronites "are the only true Christian terror organization." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not correctly representing the text, which is clearly written. In his search for Christian religious terrorism, he studied terrorist groups that were nominally Christian and found only one that was exercised "true contemporary Christian terror." He does not say that the motivation for the other groups mixed Christian and political objectives, but that their objectives were solely political. In other words the IRA bombed the hotel in Brighton not because they wanted to defeat Protestantism (some IRA are in fact Protestants), but because they wanted the U.K. to leave Ireland, which is a political objective. TFD (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you and I have both read the same source, and come to opposite conclusions about what the source is saying. Although different editors can certainly disagree about how to use a source, the source itself has to mean something specific that the author of the source is saying, and it obviously cannot be two opposite things simultaneously. You and I are both firmly convinced of our positions. So – I hope that other editors will help us resolve this disagreement. It's not as difficult as it might appear, just a matter of reading a couple of pages, and seeing what you think it is saying. Here, again, is the link: [9]. I hope that editors watching here will respond, but if not, I'll open an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Still hoping that other editors watching here will comment. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not complicated. TFD, above you quoted from the book: "All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following groups of monks..." I note that this Wikipedia is called "Christian terrorism". It is not called "Christian religious terrorism" (which you carefully (and i appreciate that care) mentioned just above, nor is it called "Christian organized religious terrorism" which is the fine distinction that Schbley makes. Schbely unambiguously denotes the IRA as "Christian terrorists". TFD is you want to rename this article "Christian religious terrorism", that is a different conversation. That is actually the focal point of this entire long-running battle - the scope of the article. I think trypto and i have said that there are plenty of authorities that calling terrorist groups with a Christian identity as "Christian terrorists". TFD you are absolutely correct that a more narrow distinction can be made. I think we should step back from the details of the IRA and have the scope question. ... which I am about to do. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We had discussions before about whether the article is about terrorists who happened to be Christians or terrorists who are motivated by Christianity and following sources we determined it was the latter. In fact if the article were about terrorists who happened to be Christians then it would violate policy for articles and should be deleted as in fact we deleted Jews and Money and Jews and Communism. The article currently defines the topic as "terrorist acts by groups or individuals who use Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on interpretations of the tenets of faith...." If you think that is wrong, the onus is on you to find another definition. And if you believe it is about terrorists who happen to be Christian why don't you add a section about Arab nationalist terrorists, like Sirham Sirhan, who happened to be Christians. TFD (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

this discussion has no point. focusing on the scope section below. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I thank Jytdog for providing a third opinion about what the source is saying. I think that folks here need to understand that no one on this talk page is arguing for inclusion of "terrorists who happen to be Christians". But, of the larger "set" of "terrorists who happen to be Christians", sources tell us that some of them merely happen to be Christians, but without Christianity playing any role in the fact that they are terrorists, and some are directly motivated by Christian religious beliefs (as the terrorists idiosyncratically believe them), and everyone here agrees that the latter are Christian terrorists. But some of the sources, including this one as well as multiple others, also tell us that the larger "set" also includes intermediate subsets, of terrorists who not only happen to be Christian, but who are primarily motivated by things that are directly related to being Christian, and not just incidentally related, even though those things are not strictly theological. Reliable scholarly sources give differing interpretations of this "middle" group. Jenkins and Aubrey look at the IRA, place the IRA in this middle group, and call them "political terrorists" who are not Christian terrorists. And, as Jytdog and I both can clearly read, Schbley also places the IRA in this middle group, but decides that it is appropriate to call them Christian terrorists. (And I came up with Schbley by doing a search using the terms that TFD suggested that I use!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I want to go back and further parse the source. Again, here is the source: [10]. The author of the chapter, the late Ayla Hammond Schbley, Ph.D., was a professor of criminal justice at Washburn University, after having worked in the US military and the CIA, with an expertise in terrorism and counter-terrorism.[11] By any reasonable accounting, he can be considered a reliable source about terrorism issues. He wrote chapter 4 of the book that we are discussing (and I found the book by following TFD's advice to search for "typologies".) The chapter is called "Toward a Common Profile of Religious Terrorism: Some Psychosocial Determinants of Christian and Islamic Terrorists".

• The introduction to the chapter makes the premise that Christian terrorists should be motivated by the same kinds of things as Islamic terrorists, a perfectly mainstream proposition. At the bottom of page 67, he words this as "strong ethnoreligious identities". Please note that this wording makes the religious aspect central, not incidental, and frames it in relation to ethnicity rather than to scripture.
• Around the middle of page 70, he notes a conceptual difficulty, in that there is circular reasoning in using theoretical propositions to generate empirical hypothesis testing that is interpreted in those theoretical ways.
• On pages 71–72, he seeks to apply knowledge gained from experience with Islamic terrorism to persons in the US who were involved in anti-abortion criminality, and he clearly considers these Americans to have been Christian terrorists.
• On page 73, he starts to explicitly develop a "typology" of these "Christian terrorists". On that page and the next, he discusses how it proved impractical for him to obtain the information he desired by interviewing these abortion clinic bombers and shooters, largely because they were elderly and/or uncooperative.
• At the bottom of page 73 to the top of 74, he says something very important to understand: "Although all the attacks on abortion clinics and obstetricians are acts of terrorism because they are violent assaults against symbolic victims and have been legally identified as such in court documents, they were performed by individuals without a cell or organized structure." He goes on to make the point that this fact makes it more difficult for him to develop a typology, because there isn't some kind of group statement. Thus, he considers it Christian terrorism even when the terrorist is a lone individual, but his subsequent analysis is going to look for groups where he won't have to rely on unavailable interviews with individuals. What he says after that is occurring in this context.
• At the bottom of page 74, we come to where editors at this page have been disagreeing. The author talks about how, absent his own interviews, he has had to rely on court records of analyses by court psychologists. He writes:

"Therefore, in its final analysis and conclusion this study incorporates the psychological profiles of [long list of names] as delineated by court-appointed psychologists. However, this is not to be considered a setback in this search for a common profile for almost all contemporary Christian terrorism, spanning the spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP, may be labeled as racism or political terrorism committed by a group with strong ethnoreligious identity because their goals are not to bear witness against dogmatic antagonism or despotism but to consciously and forcibly redress a policy or political grievance."

• The "PP" are the Phineas Priesthood. After the words "racism or political terrorism", there is a footnote. The footnote reads: "Political terrorism may be distinguished from religious terrorism for the latter is perpetuated to communicate a perceived divine message by zealots who are unconscious of the maliciousness of their terrorism." That footnote is exactly what the more "narrow" sources say about the differences between religious and political terrorism.
• So, is he saying that "the spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP" are contemporary Christian terrorists, or are not? Well, he clearly understands and acknowledges the distinction between religious and political terrorism. His wording treats that "spectrum" as a group. His entire chapter is about Christian terrorism. Is he saying that the Phineas Priesthood are political or racist rather than Christian? Obviously not. He's treating all of them from the IRA to the PP as being part of a continuum, with the IRA at the "end" of the "spectrum" that is most like racism and political terrorism, and the PP at the "end" that is most Christian. He is including the IRA in the same group as the rest, while acknowledging that their motivations include "a perceived divine message" but are not limited to it. Unlike some other sources, that analyze the IRA in more detail, his inclusion of them is a passing reference, so I'm not arguing that we should give it prominent weight in the Northern Ireland section of the page. But I am arguing that we should give due weight to the fact that secondary sources, even when they use the same definitions of Christian terrorism, differ in how they apply those definitions. We cannot just take the most narrow applications and omit the other sources, such as this one.
• Then, in the next paragraph, we come to the next instance where editors here disagree: "All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following group of monks". He is not saying "religious terrorism", but "organized religious terrorism". We have to understand that in the context of what he said back on page 74, that he is looking for an organized group in order to get the data that he wants. But he is not saying that a group has to be organized in order to be religious in motivation. TFD's framing of this as having said that the monks "are the only true Christian terror organization" misrepresents the fact that Schbley is instead saying that the monks are the group that he studied because they are an organized group.
• Schbley then profiles the Maronite monks, and clearly classifies them as Christian terrorists. In his discussion on pages 77–78, he concludes that there is a shared typology for both the Maronites and the PP, and that it is pretty much the same as for Islamists. He isn't saying that the Maronites are Christian terrorists and no one else is. Not for a moment. Where TFD wrote above that Schbley said: "[They] are the only true Christian terror organization.", that's not accurate. Schbley's actual words were ""The search for the only true contemporary Christian terror organization that" meets the criteria he needed for his study. There is no "are".
• By the way, note that our page on the Phineas Priesthood says, amongst other things, that they are opposed to taxation and are white nationalists, neither of which are particularly religious. And yet Schbley says very explicitly that they are Christian terrorists.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are going to put an idiosyncratic spin on even the most straightforward text, then discussion is pointless. Incidentally, the Phineas Brotherhood is not an organization. It would be tendentious to determine the motivation of different terrorist groups that call themselves Phineas Brotherhood and then claim PP is a terrorist group with mixed motivations. TFD (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributor. This is indeed a frustrating and deadlocked discussion, which is why I was hoping to get additional voices involved so it is not like two bulls locking horns. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was excplaining why further discussion is pointless. How else would you have worded it? Incidentally you could contribute by reading the text and saying what you thought it said. TFD (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did already. sorry you missed it. (i should have made 2 separate edits to reply to this and start the new section, but did both at once. i see why you might have missed it.) Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The author uses the term "Christian religious terrorism" in exactly the same way most sources use the abbreviated version "Christian terrorism," which is a type of relgious terrorism. Concepts require defintions and most writers on the topic provide one, which is essentially terrorism motivated by Christianity. There is no reason to believe that the author has created a new topic. He provides no definition of "Christian terrorism", so presumably he is referring to terrorism carried out by majority Christian groups. That makes sense since he is investigating Christians who commit terrorist acts in order to determine to what degree they are motivated by religion. His finding was that the only "true Christian terror" was carried out by the Maronite Brothers. If you think he means something else and has developed or used a new typology, then please point to where he provides a definition. TFD (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Responding to TFD's comment to me (and I don't feel personally attacked, for whatever that's worth), I'm not putting an idiosyncratic spin on it, but where you say below in the RfC that Schbley denies the very existence of religious terrorism, well, that strikes me as a pretty strange spin, since the entire piece that Schbley wrote is about identifying Christian terrorists. As for the PP, it isn't me calling them Christian terrorists, it's Schbley. I don't see anything tendentious about citing him. And as for where this discussion has gone, three editors have taken part (me, TFD, Jytdog), and TFD has yet to get anyone to agree with him. But I'd welcome more editor opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Tryptofish. It looks to me like TFD was quoting that sentence out of context, got called on it, and refuses to Mea Culpa. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I quoted the wrong name - should have said Pape and others, their views are described in "Contrasting Secular and Religious Terrorism". Bryon Morrigan, I find your continued personal attacks irritating. I console myself with the thought that when one cannot argue against what a person says, one might argue against the person in order to discredit what that person has said. I notice that you said on your webpage that monotheism is the cause of violence in the world. While you may be correct, you should accept that most observers see other causes, such as competition over resources or ideology as major factors. TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, I wouldn't be getting angry if it wasn't for the following issues:

1. I've put a lot of work and research into the India section, over a few years.

2. I've managed to defend that section fairly well against attacks.

3. The two primary "camps" of people attacking the India section are: (1) People who think Indian sources "can't be trusted" because the country is majority Hindu, the people complaining can't read Indian languages, the people complaining are racist and think Indians are incapable of legitimate scholarship, the people complaining have no conception of Indian politics, etc.; and (2) People who think Christians are incapable of committing acts of terrorism because No true Scotsman.

4. We've had this debate, multiple times, and you keep basically reiterating your theory that this page shouldn't even exist.

We've all heard your arguments, and we've seen certain other (Christian POV) editors use any example of anything you type that even throws the tiniest bit of scrutiny on any RS as an excuse to delete them. It's old. I'm irritated that we keep running in circles about this page, and specifically about this section. You don't understand Indian politics. You can't force Western bias onto the Indian mold and expect it to explain things. Indians are fully aware of the religious terrorist violence that goes on in that country, whether Christian, Muslim, or even Sikh. Trying to carve out a religious theocratic society out of a pluralist society through terrorism can not just be offhandedly brushed aside as "nationalist terrorism". It's really just a sophisticated version of the aforementioned No True Scotsman argument, by just saying, "Well, they're trying to create a new nation, so they're 'nationalist', and no 'nationalist' can be motivated by a religious belief." (Or something...) There is probably more RS, that has been vetted more thoroughly, in the India section than in the entire rest of this page, but you (and others) keep whittling away at it to chip it away, piece by piece. I have better things to do than constantly defend it from these attacks. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that you were not saying that it was Schbley who denies the existence of religious terrorism, and thanks for the link to the "Contrasting Secular and Religious Terrorism" source, which I will look at, and we should probably cite. I still do think that, as Bryon notes, you misquoted Schbley's sentence about the Maronites. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just looking at our page on Definitions of terrorism. Subject, of course, to all the caveats appropriate to WP:CIRCULAR, I found it interesting how emphatically it makes the point that terrorism has been difficult to define. Given that fact, it seems reasonable to me that there would not be a monolithic view in the scholarly literature as to how to label terrorists as Christian terrorists. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan, I have never demeaned Indian scholarship or claimed that Christians cannot carry out terrorist acts. OTOH, when Christians commit terrorist acts or other crimes, I do not automatically attribute their motivation to their religious beliefs. Tryptofish, there is no agreement on the meaning of the term socialist, but that does not mean the typology, of democratic socialist, Communist, Trotskyist, Maoistm, etc., is controversial. The main stumbling block to developing a definition of terrorism is that major powers do not want it to be so broad that their own actions and those of their clients are included. There is a major dispute for example about whether recognized states can commit terrorist actions. But I do not see any dispute that individuals and groups can carry out acts of violence in order to advance a religious agenda. TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope

As I mentioned just above, the real point of contention here is whether the scope of this article should be "Christian terrorism" defined broadly, as several sources do, or defined more strictly as "Christian religious terrorism". I think it is clear where the various parties will fall on those two scopes. It seems to me there are two ways to manage this.

1. Provide both terms at the beginning drawing a clear distinction between them, and categorize each group discussed as satisfying the more narrow criteria or not. (this is my favored approach)
2. If TFD is unwilling to do that, the only other thing I can think to do, to avoid tangling over this forever, would be to have an RfC or the like to get community input on the scope, and then abide by whatever comes out of that.

I think either approach would put this to bed. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is against policy to define it as Christians who happened to be terrorists, unless it can be shown that is a significant topic in the literature. Furthermore, per disambiguation, Christian terrorism is a term most commonly used to refer to Christian religious terrorism, so you would need another name for the new article, such as "Christianity and terrorism." And that article would have to be written in a neutral point of view, which would mean including greater weight to describing Christians who opposed terrorism, since only a minority of any religion are terrorists. TFD (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is tempting to start "Male terrorism" if anyone seriously considers that "considered broadly" makes sense for such a very large number of possible examples where 50+% of the people involved are "Christian" as being sufficient here. What makes sense is to limit this to "examples where promoting Christianity is a primary goal of the terrorism" just as "Fascist terrorism" should require the goal of the terrorism as being primarily the goal of promoting Fascism, etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

TFD, there are plenty of sources that define "Christian terrorism" broadly. It is fine disagree on the scope, but you cannot keep insisting that Trytpo and I have no argument whatsoever.' That is neither reasonable nor even trying to pursue WP:CONSENSUS. Please answer: shall we have the definitions section with broad and narrow definitions and delineate as we go, or shall we have an RfC on the scope to lay this question to rest? If you refuse to answer again, we'll have just have to move forward without your input. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you beleive their are "plenty of sources that define "Christian terrorism" broadly", then please provide a source that provides a definition that differs from the one used in the lead of this article. By definition I mean something like, "Chrisitian terrorism is x. TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My take on scope is that we should be guided by reliable published scholarly secondary sources. It is becoming increasingly clear with each passing day of discussion that there is some diversity of opinion amongst such sources, and we need to reflect that – not dismiss some sources because they apply the definition too broadly for some editors' likes. If a high quality sources calls an individual or group "Christian terrorists", then we need to include that, and if other sources disagree, we should include that too. I also think that the page needs to start moving away from this country-by-country litany that cannot stop eliciting POV wars. We need to start the page with a discussion of the topic broadly, as treated in the secondary literature, along the lines of #draft. Then, I'd like to see an historical section, including things like the Gunpowder plot in England. Then, only at the bottom, we could have a country-by-country contemporary section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact you have not provided reliable secondary sources (or any sources) for the definition of Christian terrorism, which I have provided several. TFD (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I continue to read the source material, I increasingly realize that this is not so much a matter of different sources saying that they have different definitions, as different sources using similar definitions but applying them differently. Thus, two sources may say very similar things about what "Christian terrorism" is, and yet come to different conclusions as to whether a specific individual or group should be called "Christian terrorists". That's a messy situation to have in the source material, but it is what we have been given to work with. As for scope, I continue to think that we ought to get away from lumping the historical and the contemporary together. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The main example is Northern Ireland which can be seen as an ethnic/nationalist conflict where ethnicity is defined partly be religious affiliation or as a conflict based on religious differences. TFD (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I take some comfort in seeing that we are increasingly agreeing about where the question lies, even though we haven't yet been able to agree about the answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

RfC suspended as a result of anticipated mediation. If the mediation does not actually get started, this suspension may end. Collect (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the help. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ought this article be limited to terrorism primarily associated with promoting Christianity, or ought it be broadly construed as including all terrorist groups which have any connection with Christianity, whether or not the goal of the terrorism is to specifically promote that religion? 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

I believe this fairly delineates the dichotomy of editor views given so far on this article talk page. Collect (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks Collect. But I think that is a bit... mushy. Better would be: "Should the scope of this article deal with "Christian terrorism" narrowly, as terrorists who state their goals primarily in religious/theological terms, or should it deal with Christian terrorism more broadly to include terrorists that have a clear Christian identity (religious or cultural) but have goals that are not primarily stated in theological terms. Examples of the former include the Lord's Resistance Army; examples of latter include the IRA (clearly Catholic but with the political goal of an independent Ireland) and Anders Behring Breivik (who said he was not "particularly religious" but strongly identified with "Christian culture" and wanted to protest what he saw as encroachment of other cultures)." Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief and simple questions for RfCs tend to be less POV-ish than ones which include "examples" of the type you appear to wish to be discussed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

i hear that. But "any connection" is too broad and does not reflect a reasonable scope. I would have to vote against it and I don't want the narrow scope. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe your earlier comments indicate that you prefer "defined broadly" as the criterion, and the Wikipedia term of art for that position is "broadly construed." Collect (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort but the broad end is too broad and I will not support it. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If they state that at least one of their primary goals is either a "Christian State/Nation/Homeland/etc.", or the promotion/conversion/etc. of Christianity through terrorism, then I think it's pretty obvious that they fit into the category of "Christian Terrorism". If they, or news/articles/etc. written about them, do not make this explicit, then all we have left are any RS describing them specifically as "Christian Terrorism". If they openly boast of those kinds of motivations, then I'd say it's pretty cut-and-dry. Unfortunately, some editors with POV axes to grind, have grasped hold of ethno-cultural prejudices, and the lack of Western interest in certain areas of the world, in order to promote their Denialist agenda of deleting this page. I try to stay out of the specific groups/areas that I am not very knowledgeable about (i.e., Ireland, Romania, Lebanon, etc.). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

what does your comment have to do with RfC? Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a refinement of Collect's criteria, which were:

1. "terrorism primarily associated with promoting Christianity" OR

2. "broadly construed as including all terrorist groups which have any connection with Christianity, whether or not the goal of the terrorism is to specifically promote that religion"

Since Collect's criteria do not specifically denote Dominionist Theology/Christian Nationalism, or other primary goals of creating a "Christian State", or focusing terrorist attacks on other groups solely based upon religion (i.e., blowing up non-Christian places of worship or threatening to kill those who attend such places), then I feel the criteria is insufficient. I don't see a whole lot of #2 (terrorists who just happen to be Christian, while not promoting a Christian agenda), but off the top of my head, I'd think Timothy McVeigh was an example of that...and I don't remember anyone trying to add him to this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The first IRA was partly Jewish, partly atheist, and partly Church of Ireland -- would that make it "Christian Terrorist" in your opinion here? Collect (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I for one don't care what Bryon thinks of the first IRA, or what Collect thinks, or what Tryptofish thinks. It depends on what the preponderance of sources think. (At the moment, the first IRA is not on this page, anyway). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, in light of this comment, where you make it clear that you favor the narrow alternative and actually mock the non-narrow alternative, please withdraw the RfC so we can start a valid one. The proponents of the non-narrow alternative have explicitly told you several times that you framed the non-narrow alternative too broadly; you've made a strawman out of it. This RfC is a big waste of time and we are not going to make progress without a valid RfC or some other means to break the impasse on scope. Please withdraw it so we can try to move forward. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I worded this RfC is as neutral a manner as rationally possible. I will not "withdraw" a properly worded RfC, and I found your "edits" at WP:RFC to be a problem in itself. That you do not like an RfC is not reason to try attacking the person who presented it - your personal attacks, in fact, are a far greater problem here than anything else. Cheers -- now accept the fact that this RfC exists. Collect (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine waiting, there is no deadline.Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Badly flawed RfC. As constantly seems to happen on this particular talk page, we have now gotten yet another RfC that frames its question in a manner that only muddies the water. The real answer to the question is that we should include or exclude examples based upon what reliable scholarly secondary sources say about them. And experience shows that such sources often disagree, so when that happens, we should include the example, but present both sides of the disagreement according to due weight. Sources, sources, sources. Not editor opinions. It should be simple. Sigh.
  • But, we have the RfC that we have, so I'll attempt to answer it as written. Part of the question is whether the page should "be limited to terrorism primarily associated with promoting Christianity". There is little question that it should include terrorists described by sources in that way. Whether it should be limited depends on what the sources say. If a university professor writes in a published scholarly book that a particular terrorist was not precisely "promoting Christianity" but calls that terrorist a Christian terrorist, editors who don't like it don't get to say that the source doesn't count.
  • The other part of the RfC question is framed in terms of "all terrorist groups which have any connection with Christianity, whether or not the goal of the terrorism is to specifically promote that religion". That leaves a gap so big you could drive a truck bomb through it. Sources tell us that some terrorists have multiple goals, and some have goals that are about Christianity, but in various ways. Go with what the sources say. The preponderance of sources, not just the sources that some editors like. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• RFC is too broadly constructed. Narrow it so that uninvolved editors can contribute. As it stands now it is nothing but impossible to respond to. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• DOA RfC Suggest that proposer withdraw it so we can work together to frame one, to have a productive RfC. I think we need one to break the impasse, but this is not it, as broad end is too broad to be useful.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to say RIP, but let's try to find some better RfC questions. One thing that I was almost about to start an RfC on was about what is discussed above, under #Typologies. It's a pretty clear-cut question to ask editors what a source is actually saying. Alternatively, editors could ask about specific sections of the page. If, for example, one is concerned about the Ireland section, one could ask about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

tryptofish, are you proposing to get a 2nd RfC going, running at the same time as this? I don't ~think~ that is best practice. From my perspective, since the positions are staked out and we are at an impasse, and Collect is clearly unwilling to amend or withdraw, I see little choice but to put the discussion on hold til the RfC expires. I for one don't mind doing that.Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you now. All we seem to be getting are walls-of-text, without anyone convincing anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just as with Islamic terrorism, the motivation must be religious. No sources have been presented that disagree with that interpretation, although sometimes some sources, particularly non-academic ones, will use the term to describe one side in an ethnic/nationalist struggle. For example in Northern Ireland, the two sides are sometimes called Catholic/Protestant, although nationalist/unionist or patriot/loyalist are also used.

The source two editors continually present to support inclusion of some ethnic/nationalist groups is Mark Juergensmeyer's writings. Juergensmeyer indeed sees these conflicts as religious and sees the Good Friday Agreement that ended the conflict in Northern Ireland as a model for future negotiations with al Qaeda. At the other end of the spectrum are writers who deny the existence of religious terrorism, sasying that they are a continuation of earlier political conflicts. But neither of these views suggest their is anything wrong with the basic definition, merely that merely disagree with the mainstream on which groups meet the definition.

TFD (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• At the end of what TFD just said is a point with which I am coming to agree: that sources differ less in terms of definitions than in terms of how to apply those definitions to particular individuals or groups. To me, it seems that reliable sources differ a lot about those applications. I've been thinking hard about what it is where editors disagree, and I think we are dealing with two conflicting views about the source material:

1. The preponderance of reliable scholarly secondary sources define Christian terrorism specifically as a form of religious terrorism. Under this definition, terrorists who are Christian but who are motivated by factors other than Christian scripture or theology are not Christian terrorists, but instead racists or political terrorists. The academic literature on this subject is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, but is settled, and this typology is established as mainstream scholarship. When editors cite scholarly sources as applying the term Christian terrorism more broadly, either those sources are minority, fringe, or dissenting sources, or the editors are misreading the sources.
2. The available reliable scholarly secondary source material about Christian terrorism is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, and although there are some broad areas of agreement in the preponderance of sources, there are still differences amongst expert sources as to how to apply the term Christian terrorism to particular individuals or groups. Some sources limit the typology to terrorists who are motivated only by Christian scripture or theology, while other sources say that Christian terrorists can be motivated by Christianity in the form of "ethnoreligious identity" or other, not strictly theological, factors, and may have complex motives. At present, there is no dominant consensus amongst expert sources about the latter point. We should treat these sources as having a variety of views, and editors should not limit the page to those sources that apply the definition of Christian terrorism most narrowly.

• I think that Collect and TFD tend to see the sources as #1, whereas Bryon, Jytdog, and I tend to see the sources as #2. The problem we are having is how to convince editors who feel one way to agree with editors who see it the other way. We have all looked at the same sources, and yet opinions seem entrenched. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly sources distinguish between religious terrorism and nationalist terrorism where the nation is partly defined in terms of religious affiliation. These are two separate concepts and we should not confuse them. TFD (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, some editors here think that, clearly, that is the case – and other editors here think instead that #2 is clearly the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I essentially agree that it should only be when the motivation is religious. Northern Ireland was a political struggle that fell along protestant/catholic lines. It would be be misleading to infer by the title "Christian terrorism" that it had to do with religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I think the article in its current form reads like the "kitchen sink" and broadening the scope of what constitutes "Christian Terrorism" will only make that worse. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your response to the RfC, but I also think that your comments highlight a problem with the way that the RfC has been set up. It's one thing to ask editors for what the editors' opinions are as to how to define "Christian terrorism", but it's another to ask what reliable sources say about how to define it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Would mediation help?

It appears to me that neither an RfC nor the discussion at NPOVN is really changing anyone's mind. We are getting walls of text, but opinions are very entrenched. I would like to suggest that we consider WP:Mediation. Having an uninvolved editor with no dog in the fight guide the discussion in an organized way might help us move beyond talking past one another, which is what we seem to be doing now. I've seen it be very helpful in these kinds of situations in the past, and it's not much work – less effort than the walls of text we are making here. But it only works if editors are willing to participate. How do other editors involved in this content dispute feel about doing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry for not responding earlier. i would be open to this. The Four Deuces?Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of going to noticeboards and having RfCs is to invite other editors into the discussion. That clearly has not happened in this case, possibly because there is a lot of discussion to read through, or it may be that no one is interested. I do not know if mediation would be useful, but am willing to agree to it. TFD (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD. I agree with you that we currently are hampered by the walls of text and/or other editors being uninterested in delving into the source material. I'll try to get the request set up shortly. I'll invite a few other editors, but even if it ends up as just the three of us, I am hopeful that it will be productive. (Who knows, maybe you'll cause me to change my mind!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism. (A bot will contact the editors I listed there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete RS From This Page, Whether You Think It Is "Superfluous" Or Not

A few months ago, some editors went through the India section, deleting a bunch of RS references, and the reasoning given was I believe that there were too many references, and that the section featured superfluous references. At the time, I protested, stating that any deletion of references would lead to a renewed fight to delete the section, which was why it had so many references in the first place. This warning went unheeded, and now we find ourselves in the exact situation that I predicted would come about. I have just hunted around and found one of the references, and re-added it to both the NLFT section and NSCN section. The reference is to the following sentences:

"NSCN and National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) under the leadership of Bishwamohan Debbarma promoted Christian terrorism. NSCN and NLFT worked for forcible conversion to Christianity. These outfits were responsible for the religious oppression of the Hindus and Buddhists in Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura respectively. Jamatiya Hoda and its leaders, to a large extent, were able to control NLFT run religious terrorism. NSCN's religious terrorism continued unabated."

It is from the book, "Problems of Ethnicity in Northeast India", a book of scholarly papers compiled by B.B. Kumar in 2007. The page cited is from Dr. Kumar's own paper, "Ethnicity and Insurgency in India's Northeast". Dr. Kumar also discusses in the book/paper how groups like that can be both ethnic separatist AND religious terrorism. For the record, here is Dr. Kumar's qualifications:

B.B. Kumar, M.A. (Hindi), M. Sc. (Chemistry), M. Sc., Ph. D. (Anthropology), is the Secretary, Astha Bharati, Delhi and the Editor of the quarter journals, Dialogue and Chintan Srijan. He is Principal (Retd.) of Science college, Kohima and Sao Chang Government College, Tuensang. He was member of the Academic Council, Executive Council, University Court, College Development Council, Examination Committee, School Board of Physical Sciences, Board of Undergraduate Studies in Chemistry and Board of Pre-University Studies of the North Eastern Hill University. He was Chairman of a Board of Studies and member of another one of Gandhigram Rural University. Dr. Kumar is founder member of India Central Asia Foundation, New Delhi. He has written/edited/co-authored 136 books and more than 100 paper.

It is the very DEFINITION of a "reputable source", and it soundly shuts the door on any further discussion of whether the NLFT or NSCN can be considered "Christian terrorist" or "religious terrorist". (Though I'm sure that won't stop editors from attempting to delete it.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As you said it is from a book called "Problems of Ethnicity in the North-East India". Kumar writes, "The separatist/secessionist ideologies in the North_East are of the following type: (i) Ethnic, (ii) Ideological/leftist/Communist, and (iii) Religious." (p.22)[12] IOW he identifies it as nationalist terrorism, then subdivides it according to the different ways in which they define their nation. I believe that that subtype of terrorism is then usually divided by region or country rather than religion, because the nature of the groups depends on their countries rather than their religions. So for example Palestinian and Phalangist terrorism would be studied with Arab nationalist terrorism, rather than grouping the Phalange with the IRA and NE India. TFD (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And like he says (on the same page), as I already pointed out, these groups COMBINE the 3 different ideologies in different combinations. And then he gives examples. And then he explicitly discusses the fact that the NLFT and NSCN include Christian terrorism, as a subset of "religious terrorism", in their ideologies. How difficult is that to understand? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, he says they are separatist terrorists who combine ethnicity, leftist and religou in different ways, exactly like all nationalist terrorism. He does not say they are religiously motivated, he says they are nationally motivated. Do you not see any distinction between people who commit acts of terror to achieve religious objectives and people who commit acts of terror in order to achieve nationalist objectives? TFD (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

this is really pointless you guys. like i said, impasse. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, impasse. I wish there were some takers for mediation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you missed that part where he said, "NSCN and National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) under the leadership of Bishwamohan Debbarma promoted Christian terrorism. NSCN and NLFT worked for forcible conversion to Christianity. These outfits were responsible for the religious oppression of the Hindus and Buddhists in Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura respectively." You know, because all "nationalist terrorists" go around forcibly converting people to Christianity and oppressing other religions. Sure, Chief. Keep telling yourself that. You've lost this debate, and you don't have the personal integrity to admit it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In all ethnic/nationalist disputes, there is a question of who belongs to the tribe/nation. As Kumar so well explains, the definition of national groups in E. India is problematic, so there is a dispute over whether the true citizen is defined by ethnicity, religion or class. But we should not confuse this with other types of terrorism. No reliable sources for example categorize them as Maoist terrorists. since Maoism is secondary to their separatist motivation. If you believed that instead of the terrorism being subtypes of nationalist terrorism, it was types of nationalist, religious and left-wing terrorism, why are you not editing the last article to support that view? In fact, you are not even editing the article about nationalist terrorism. TFD (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See [13] Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500, with Special Reference to Caste, Conversion, and Colonialism By Robert Eric Frykenberg; W.B. Eerdmans, 2003. As such, and especially as promoted by the BJP Government of India and its Hindutva or Sangha Parivar allies, "conversion" has become a hot button issue during the last two or three years. See feature articles in The Hindu (25 and 26 January 1999), entitled "The Conversion Bogie." et al. Collect (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) See [14] Despite the reassurances issued by the government of Orissa, which in a document submitted to the Indian supreme court calls the situation "under control", Hindu fundamentalist violence continues against Christians. See [15] The leader of Bajrang Dal was trying to convert Dalit and Tribal Christians forcibly back to Hinduism and was shot dead by a member of a Maoist group. Because this Maoist group includes Christian Tribal people among its membership it was interpreted by extremist Hindus as a Christian attack on a Hindu leader. As a result Christians were attacked in return – suffering loss of life (more than 30 dead), loss of property and forced flight, and in some cases forced conversion to Hinduism. See [16] etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

• As noted below, this section was moved here from the Northern Ireland section, and I want to say that I fully agree with that move. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

An RfC was just closed at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial?, and it is interesting to read the closing statement there, in that it reflects community consensus about some aspects of when to use or not use sources about a topic without violating WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The concluding statement says the term "climate change denial" may be used if the source "implicitly states they fall into the general group." It has no relevance to anything discussed here. It certainly is not a loophole for "synthesis". TFD (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for "loopholes". I'm not arguing for any kind of slavish devotion to that discussion here, just for editors to take a look, and to think about it with an open mind. I think that the closing statement makes some good points about common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "slavish" about the devotion. If most sources say the motivation of the terrorism is secular, then we cannot say it is religious and call it Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was saying that we don't have to follow that other page slavishly. And that other page isn't talking about situations where most sources say something is unrelated. If you are interested in what it does say, then you can read it. If you don't want to read it, then don't. Everything here does not have to be a WP:Battleground. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have noted before, unless reliable sources attribute some religious motivation or aim, I would not say Wikipedia should attribute such a motivation or aim. If the sources ascribe motivation to irredentism, economic or other attribute and do not ascribe a religious aim, then it does not belong here. Note the discussion just closed at Climate*.* where the result was basically "no consensus at all". Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I linked to a discussion where the closer said there was a consensus. I'm not going beyond what the closing statement said there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue has come up in articles about terrorism and about ideology. Different writers may use different terms to mean the same thing or the same terms to mean different things. Generally, in peer-reviewed literature, the terms used are defined and we can say that one author who defines "Christian terrorism" as terrorism motivated by Christian belief and another who uses the term "Christian religious terrorism" with the same definition are referring to the same thing. However, another author who uses the expression "Christian terrorism" and defines it as ethnic terrorism where religion is part of ethnic identity means the same thing as authors writing about "religious communal terrorism" carried out by Christians, or "nationalist terrorism" between different religious groups.

Can you provide a single source that should be included based on the opinion expresses in the climate change denial RfC?

TFD (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to just reply "yes". And I really would rather not get into a wall-of-text over things that we will soon be discussing at the mediation. But let me try to clarify why I linked to that discussion. This isn't about definitions of "Christian terrorism" in my view. It's about what the closing statement there said, that just because a particular word is not used explicitly in a source, does not mean that the source does not apply to a page – editors can use common sense to examine the context within the source. Thinking back to the discussions about the Lebanon section (now made somewhat moot by the Schbley source, that examines in detail the Maronite Monks), there was discussion of whether it was SYNTH to consider a United Nations source, because it used the word "genocide" instead of the word "terrorism". I'm pointing out that there is now some precedent for using common sense in evaluating the language of such sources, in context. If you or another editor sees common sense in that instance as indicating that genocide is not terrorism, that's still a discussion we can have. So that's why I provided that link. I'm not about to rewrite the Lebanon section on that basis, so we don't need to argue about the UN report. I'm just explaining why I drew attention to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon provides a good example. This article portrays the massacres as "Christian terrorism", yet the source you provided shows that only one of the participating groups, the Maronite Monks, were Christian terrorists, while the motivation of the main perpetrators was secular. In fact the article about the Lebanese Front which carried out some of the attacks does not even mention the Monks, it merely mentions "minor Christian groups" that were part of the multitude of organizations belonging to it.

Has it ever occurred to you that if one group of people displace another group and conflict results, not every source will conclude that the cause of the conflict is religious. It may well be that the displaced group is annoyed at being displaced, not that they have been displaced by people who differ on whether Jesus was the son of God or merely his prophet, or whether communion wine turns literally or only figuratively into Christ's blood.

TFD (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to make this a WP:Battleground, so please dispense with this "has it ever occurred to you". It appears that this discussion about Northern Ireland has now moved to Beirut, so I guess Thomas Friedman was correct about the world being flat. It would doubtless be a good idea to revise the Lebanon section per Schbley, so that the focus would be, instead, on those groups where we have good sourcing as to Christian terrorism, although I'm not looking to do that sort of thing until after the mediation process. We were discussing Northern Ireland because some editors wanted to discuss it. I linked to another discussion that had just happened, because I think it was interesting. That's it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion moved to Lebanon because you chose to bring up Lebanon. Ironically, you brought up an example where you synthesized the fact the Maronites are Christians with a UN accusation of genocide to conclude they were Christian terrorists. Then you present Schbley, who concluded that only a small group, the "Maronite Monks", were actually Christian terrorists.

I had asked you to "a single source that should be included based on the opinion expresses in the climate change denial RfC." Obviously you cannot.

TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked for a single source, and I gave you the UN source as an example, so your contention that I "obviously" cannot is unhelpful in reaching consensus. What I brought up was the discussion at the other page. It was you who asked me a question that led me to bring up Lebanon, and I answered your question. I didn't say what you attribute to me. I said that it might not be SYNTH to conclude that the UN source's discussion of genocide might also apply to terrorism, based on that other page's closing statement. Where I brought up the Monks was in saying that, since that time, new sourcing should probably make us reevaluate the whole Lebanon section, and change the emphasis from the Militias to the Monks. I never said that the Monks material applies to the UN material. I never said that. But, now that you mention it, I think that Schbley does talk about how the Monks and the Militias interacted with one another, so I should probably go back and look at that. In any case, there are bigger issues to settle about this page, first. See for example, #drafting overview section, above. I think that we should, first, have a structured discussion at the mediation, and then look overall at the page, and only after that revise the individual sections. This is part of a process, and I am in no hurry to get bogged down in the specific example of Lebanon. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the page because it quickly went off the topic of Northern Ireland in general, and the balance of the sources on Northern Ireland in particular. I think it is a useful discussion to have, and the best place to have it is at the bottom of the bottom of the page, where it will be most clearly visible and most easily accessible. Scolaire (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I will quote the closing statement at Talk:Climate change denial: "If the citation deals with the subject, and implicitly states they fall into the general group, there is no point of not mentioning them just because the word "denial" is missing. With a bit of common sense, it should be easy to work out what to and to not include." The "common sense" interpretation in that case is, that if people talk about climate change in such a way as to imply that there is no such thing, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is denial going on. What is the equivalent interpretation in this case? I can't see any. Possibly, that if a source says that terrorist acts are carried out in what is perceived as a "Christian manner", then it is reasonable to conclude that they are acts of "Christian terrorism"? Otherwise, no. It is in no way equivalent. The climate change denial RfC did not touch on the question of WP:SYNTH. The policy was not even mentioned in the discussion (although it was invoked in unrelated discussions both above and below the RfC, so participants are aware of it); it was purely about the interpretation of a single cite from a single source. The climate change denial question was clear-cut. This question, as shown by the length of the talk page and the attempt at mediation, is not. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, December 1, 2014‎ (UTC)

The phrase "Christian terrorism" obviously consists of two words: Christian and terrorism. I guess I should have realized that editors who saw my initial post would seize on the religious side of it, and it's my fault for not anticipating that. But at the time, I was actually thinking more about the terrorism side of it. That's why I remembered the talk about genocide supposedly not being terrorism (there are other sources that actually do call those massacres terrorism). (At the time, editors said it was SYNTH to compare genocide to terrorism, and because you had also referred to SYNTH, I initially commented on it in that discussion thread.) It seems to me that, when there is a consensus that editors can use common sense to look at a source that appears to deny climate change and conclude that there is denial even if the word "denial" is not used, then when there is one source that uses the word "genocide" for a particular event and other sources call the same event "terrorism", then we can use common sense to understand that the "genocide" source was talking about the same event. If other editors are worried that, for example, I want to argue that common sense equates "political" with "Christian", then rest assured that I'm not saying that! I'm under the impression that editorial discussions about climate change are just as heated as editorial discussions about terrorism or about religion. But I agree with you entirely when you say that this discussion, here, is not a clear-cut one, and I appreciate your acknowledging that. I take from that fact that we are dealing with a subject matter where the source materials reflect differing opinions, and that Wikipedia needs to reflect those differing sources according to WP:DUE, but not simply delete all material because some sources say one thing about it. And that's what the mediation is largely about. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not simply delete all material because some sources say one thing about it, but delete it because the paucity of sources for one point of view, compared with the huge number of sources overall (5–7 in this article v 180 in the Troubles article, which is only a sample of the total amount written over 45 years) makes it UNDUE. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate in the real world on whether the Northern Ireland conflict involved "Christian terrorism", and a debate that has not taken place should not be reflected in this article. As regards WP:SYNTH, the difference between climate change denial and this is that, when somebody says they don't think climate change is a thing, it is safe to say they are denying it: no synthesis is required. Whereas when somebody says that there is a religious element in a terrorist act, that has to be synthesised with somebody's definition of "religious terrorism" for it to be called "religious terrorism". The mediation case seems to be about whose definition you choose. My case is that it doesn't matter whose definition you choose, putting it together with a fact to produce a conclusion is still synthesis. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why we cannot say that some writers view the Northern Ireland conflict as motivated by religion. What I object to is presenting it as a fact that it is a religious conflict, then describing the terrorism, rather than explaining why some writers view the motivation as religious. TFD (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To "say that some writers view the Northern Ireland conflict as motivated by religion" does not justify it being included in an article on "Christian terrorism". To justify its conclusion we need (a) a proper academic study that concludes it falls under that heading, or (b) a synthesis of those writers' views with some other writer's definition of "Christian terrorism". Since (b) fails policy, it should be removed unless and until (a) is sourced and cited. Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Replying, first, to Scolaire, we have: Some scholars, such as Steve Bruce, a sociology professor at the University of Aberdeen, argue that the conflict in Northern Ireland is primarily a religious conflict, its economic and social considerations notwithstanding. I think that meets your definition of "a proper academic study that concludes it falls under that heading", written by a university professor and published by Oxford University Press, and there are other sources beyond just that one.

The source cited.

Replying next to TFD, what you said there is definitely something I can work with. Thank you. I would be receptive to rewriting the section according to that ordering, as opposed to simply deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a group of scholars including Mark Juergensmeyer, author of Terror in the Mind of God (3rd edition, 2003, pp. 36-44) who use the standard defintion for Christian terrorism (terrorism motivated by religion) and include Northern Ireland. See also Jessica Stern's book of the same name.[17] You can read Juergensmeyer's book, Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State, from Christian Militias to Al Qaeda, here (2008, a revision of his 1993 book).

Tryptofish, in order for this article to be neutral we cannot define the topic then describe the NI conflict. If we do, we are implying that it is an example of Christian terrorism, when in fact that is merely an opinion, and probably a minority one. We need to explain why some writers view if as religious terrorism. Also, in presenting opinions, it is best to use third-party sources.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what you are saying now is definitely an approach that I can happily work with. (Note: Stern's book is actually called "Terror in the Name of God", rather than "mind".) I think the mediation discussion will prove to be a good way to go about sorting this out, but I am definitely friendly to that approach. Indeed, I think that the effort to rewrite the opening material, begun before the mediation was requested, was motivated by a desire to reframe the page, away from being a litany of examples, and towards a discussion of how scholars conceive of the concept. You'll find me very receptive to this approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in long discussions in the article United States and state terrorism. Most writers do not accept the concept, because by definition terrorism is carried out by non-state actors. There was a lot of conflict between editors who wanted the article to indict the U.S. and others who thought the great republic was beyond reproach and the article should be deleted. But in the end the lead and the first section were re-written in what approaches neutral terms. Notice that most of the text is sourced to writers writing about writers on state terrorism, rather than the original writers. Works by Chomsky and Herman, for example, who are the foremost writers on the subject, are not used at all. TFD (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to quit now. People are not even registering what I'm saying. Good luck with your mediation, and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Our problem here, is not that most terrorism is secular. It is, but WP:RS and human's need to classify everything, forces sources into naming some terrorism as religious. All these organizations (take the Klu Klux Klan, for example) mainly want to think they are better than the people they are persecuting. They need some intellectual support for this, which may be primarily based on general surliness or jealousy. The KKK has trappings of a fraternity, but "fraternal terrorism" sounds more like an oxymoron. It almost literally wraps itself in the American flag, but again, "patriotic terrorism" sounds stupid; "nationalistic terrorism" would be an alternative. So they pick on "Christian", since they burn crosses, a vivid symbol of their presence (besides the hoods).

Almost none of today's religious terrorism have any great foundation in their religion. There are Buddhist groups that are terrorists, for example. My point is, that we have to accept common WP:RS on naming. Objectivity is admirable in an encyclopedia, but sometimes can't be achieved because there is just too much out there using opposite terminology. The Northern Irish situation was born out of an era when the kings all thought that their subjects had to have the same religion as themselves and, in England, particularly, they were trying to avoid any outsider interference from Rome. So we kind of got stuck with "Christian terrorism" or even "Protestant or Catholic terrorism" where neither group could point to credible support for their activities in a church.

Catholics can feel fortunate that the Mafia isn't described as a Catholic Mob! Fortunately, there were some Jews involved early on! So not taking the naming personally is important IMO. It often has no meaning. Though followers of Islam are concerned about Western perceptions of them. Student7 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting essay, thanks. Would you care to state your views on any of the questions under discussion here, or make any proposals for bringing the discussion forward? Scolaire (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Student7, it completely slipped my memory to invite you to the mediation discussion, and I apologize for that. You would be most welcome, if you would like to join. I won't surprise anyone by saying that the principal solution that I see to the issues you raise is to rely on scholarly secondary sources. Even if such sources make their classifications on the basis of that human need to classify, we should go by what they say, rather by what editors believe personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I concede that I probably could not do the process justice since I lag my watchlist by many days deliberately to avoid problems/discussions/vandalism. I guess it hasn't started yet, so there is no announcement on this page? Since I would presume that "secondary source reliance" will prevail, my comments won't be necessary! Student7 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's actually underway at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism. I can't predict the outcome, but personally, I'm also advocating for secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Steve Bruce essay

I happened across this 2003 essay by Steve Bruce for the Irish Association. In it he argues that Protestant fundamentalism is not a motivating factor in Northern Ireland violence. What struck me most was this paragraph, which might have been a direct response to the characterisation of him in the NI section of this article:

Sadly often, I have been caricatured as arguing that the Northern Ireland conflict is 'about' religion (McGarry and O'Leary 1995). My argument is importantly different. What I have said, and it seems so obvious it barely merits repetition, is that evangelicalism is important as: (a) a marker of social divisions; (b) a source of social identity; (c) a source of claims to social virtue; (d) legitimation for political attitudes and actions; and (e) a source of motives in political action.

Note: political attitudes and actions, not paramilitary. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, now that I have become aware of this. If nothing else, WP:BLP means that we should not quote living persons as saying things that they actually did not intend that way. I have just deleted everything about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now read Bruce's piece, and I thank you for providing the link. It's very clear to me that, here, he repudiates the views that we had been attributing to him, so it's right to delete that material. At the same time, I think that he does clearly talk about the roles of preachers in inciting violence by loyalist splinter groups, and he says that, even while NI is very different than Hezbollah, "despite denouncing individual acts of violence, Paisley has twice given public support to the main loyalist terror organizations." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Twice in a career of sixty years, spanning the whole of the Troubles and long periods either side. And both times, as far as I can make out, it involved nothing more than sitting down with people he knew to be paramilitaries in joint committees for political action. A more complete quote would be, "He and other evangelicals have been very clear in repeatedly denouncing sectarian murder. However, despite denouncing individual acts of violence, Paisley has twice given public support to the main loyalist terror organizations", which gives the second sentence considerably less force than just quoting it out of context. To emphasise that one sentence in what is a painstaking analysis of Paisley and Paisleyism would be to grossly misrepresent what Bruce said, and to imply a stance that is the opposite of the conclusion he did come to, which is that (a) for Paisley, religion and politics are separate spheres, although the one informs the other, and (b) that "he does not share Hezbollah's conviction that his cause is so divinely-blessed as to justify any act committed in its name." The same is true of the statement that "the use of Christian imagery has been used by Ulster preachers to incite violence by the Orange Volunteers and other small Loyalist splinter groups", and its slimmed-down version: they selectively extract arguments in favour of "Christian terrorism" from a well-written and admirably-balanced article which concludes that loyalist violence in the Troubles was no such thing. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you make very good points about "He and other evangelicals have been very clear in repeatedly denouncing sectarian murder", and about expanding on the difference with Hezbollah. I'd also be receptive to leaving the part about Paisley out, and instead just covering what Bruce says about the splinter groups. I'm very friendly to rewriting the material to fix that sort of thing, and I think the sequence of edits indicates some willingness to do so by at least one other editor. The fact remains that Bruce very clearly writes that the splinter groups did engage in terrorism, and that they were motivated by what he called "Christian imagery" used by preachers. What I don't see is why it had to be completely deleted, instead of revising it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I oppose the selective use of any content from the essay that gives an impression the opposite of which he meant to convey. The whole thrust of the essay is that the conflict was not "about" religion and that loyalist violence was not "Christian terrorism", while at the same time showing a couple of cases, over the course of a thirty-year conflict, that could be said to fit the mold. If the essay is to be cited, there must be a clear and fair reflection of what was written, giving due weight to all arguments. That means putting him firmly on the "anti-Christian terrorism" side. If an editor wishes to do that, I would have no problem with it, but I am not offering to do it, and I will continue to say that any reference to it that misrepresents it must be removed. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think our approach is wrong. We should start with texts on terrorism then drill down into books about religious terrorism. Instead we are starting with a biography of Ian Paisley, who btw was not a terrorist as far as we know then looking for stuff we can add, by drilling up to the conflict, then Christian terrorism. That leads to all kinds of problems with original research and undue weight.

The editors who have come over from the NI pages have been helpful in pointing out the conflict was not based on religion, but we should not have strayed so far from directly relevant sources. And btw, most writers on religious terrorism do not challenge mainstream historical views on it, in fact they rely on those views, since they are writing about a narrow field.

TFD (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And simply changing section headings does not go any way towards that. What is needed is to get rid of the current sections, having first distilled from them what the actual writers on terrorism actually say, and reassemble that into a world view. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My principal concern has been that we present what the new source from Bruce says, rather than to leave it out entirely. My reading of the source, and I have read it carefully, is that he says that the three small Loyalist splinter groups, the Orange Volunteers and two others, that split off from the principal Loyalist groups, differ from the principal groups in that the splinter groups are, in Bruce's opinion, terrorists, and are, in Bruce's opinion, driven by what he calls "Christian imagery" promulgated by evangelical pastors. I'm fine with leaving Paisley out of it entirely, and I'm fine with making it very clear that Bruce is saying that only and specifically about the three splinter groups, and that he draws a clear line between even them, and the Islamic groups such as Hezbollah.

As for the overall approach of the page, I actually think that pretty much everyone, including me, wants to see the page move towards that new kind of organization. I never intended the renaming of the sections to accomplish that in its entirety. It was just an obvious first step and I figured it would be helpful to go ahead and do it now. I see the better approach to the page (overall) much as TFD does, and I believe that the mediation is the best process to work out exactly how it should ultimately be implemented. As such, it has been awkward to have the sudden interest in edits about Ireland going on at the same time, but separately from, the mediation. (And it becomes more awkward when some editors insist that others make the edits to the page, except for completely reverting what they object to instead of fixing it, and then complain when I try to fix it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If that last is referring to me, it misses the mark. I do not insist that anybody make any edits to the page. Other than deletion of some, or preferably all, of that section, I do not see that any edit would improve it. What I said was that I would not have a problem with somebody editing it to say what Bruce said, not just the bit that suits the editor's purpose. If bits of that article were taken out of context then I would wish to see that reverted. If the section was expanded to give the whole gist of the article, to my mind it would make an unnecessary section unnecessarily longer, but at least it would not be misrepresentation, and I would not say that it should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the year of the source. The page now calls it "a 2003 essay", but I can find nothing in the source to indicate that the year was 2003. It looks like it was either 2013 or 2014. Should that be changed on the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it just occurred to me to simplify the sentence in question, making that question moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The archive page on the site gives the date of the essay as 11 October 2003. Also, the url of the essay itself is "www.irish-association.org/papers/stevebruce11_oct03". At any rate, I don't have a problem with the date being taken out. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)