Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

This page is already a list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• This page is a list .We have all the insignificant murders ,all groups which almost are all local nationalistic groups and even minor incidents from all over the world being listed here clearly fails WP:UNDUE ,WP:CHERRYPICKING and is these are disproportionate as this is about terrorism in the Christian religion of 2 Billion people.This page should be moved to List of Christian Terrorist incidents.Hutaree , the Crusaders (United States) incident ,Manmasi National Christian Army (India) ,Concerned Christians (Israel) ,Milícia Catalana,Dr. George Tiller's murder and James Kopp's murder are all undue.It would be like adding every suicide bombing killing and every massacre to Islamic Terrorism.Mediation Failed for this page as far as I can see and hence the term Christian terrorism is not defined.
• Isreal and Ariel Sharon were blamed for the Sabra and Shatila massacre and United nations resolution blames Isreal [ https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r123.htm UN] and does not even mention Christian groups yet it is mentioned as through they blamed them .Yet this has been mentioned here. Isreal takes greater blame in almost all WP:RS

• The Groups like Hutaree , the Crusaders (United States) incident ,Manmasi National Christian Army (India) ,Concerned Christians (Israel) ,Milícia Catalana ,Right-wing Catholic group (France) are very small local groups clearly WP:UNDUE ,WP:CHERRYPICKING and are clearly insignificant to be added in a page called Christian Terrorism and all of those have not been involved in a major or significant terrorist incident to be mentioned here, Saint-Michel cinema attack is not significant attack.
• Russian Orthodox Army is a Russian nationalist group that has taken part in the War in Donbass
• God's Army (Myanmar) is an insignificant group even in Internal conflict in Myanmar.

• Anders Behring Breivik did not target minority ,immigrants or Muslims in his massacre.Most sources do not say Christian terrorism
• Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder is a murder again insignificant to be added here.
• Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merelle a minor bank robbery is too insignificant to be added here and called Terrorism
• Robert Doggart incident also is too insignificant to be added here and called Terrorism
• The murder of John Lennon is not terrorism as almost 99% WP:RS

• In another page Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (link) Only add terrorist attacks described as such by official sources.Jonty rhodes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree entirely. In fact, the Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe instruction is to only add incidents where the same official reliable source describes an attack as both terrorist and Islamist. The same criteria should obviously apply here. Instead we have one or two minority writers used to justify inclusion against the vast majority of sources, and inclusion of "groups"/"incidents" such as Concerned Christians, who appear to have a) not committed any terrorist actions, and b) never been convicted of anything... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking the new title as read, I would say: do they claim (a significant) Christian religious motivation, are they called a terrorist or is it called terrorism (in many places), is it an incident; if yes to all three then it should be on the page, now it is a list we can be a little more laid-back. I mean this in the most literal and simplest of ways Christian and Islamic terror are not always the same thing and they are not always reported the same in the media. We can be informed by other pages, but should not copy them just because. I agree with the John and Concerned Christians removal. Please consider slowing down just a little (not a lot, I like where this is going), if the mediation failed there must be someone out there who disagrees with us. The link to this talk page's archives seems to be broken(?), I am new to such things and might make a hash of fixing it, can someone give it a try. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC))

• This move was made in violation of policy, and I have initiated the process of undoing it. And I'm a hair's breadth away from taking some editors to WP:ANI. The correct way to do this would have been via the process at WP:RM, because this is the kind of move that requires more discussion than what occurred here. One editor made a talk page comment about creating a new list page, and then another editor went ahead without any further discussion to make the move. First of all, no this page was not a list page. By a stretch, one could say that it included an embedded list. But claiming that because there are significant problems with the page – and I agree that there are problems – that means that the page should become a list page is WP:Pointy, and frankly, WP:POV-pushing. If anyone thinks that this page as it has existed is plagued by entries that are insufficiently sourced, a standalone list page will be vastly worse. Drive-by editors will be adding list entries that should never be there, and then other editors will make use of the opportunity to prune the list down to almost nothing and then propose the page for deletion. Nice try, but I will not let that happen. Dushan Jugum has started the process of fixing the page, and this move entirely disrupted that process. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. JimRenge (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The page has now been moved back by an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making a list page

I want to help rewrite the sections as an encyclopedia entry. To prevent the loss of good information I have also created a list page: Draft:List of Christian extremist terrorist attacks. The title is a problem but we can always move and redirect later. For the time being I will not be involved in removing any person or event from either page. Once this is done I want to collapse the group sections into 'motivation' or the like, as in the individual section currently and help to write them as an article, not a summary of each groups activities. I am being a little too bold just to get things done, I am very amenable to suggestions.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Please no duplication of content hence moved it to what it is a LIST of incidents as it is already one .Jonty rhodes (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jonty rhodes do you have any objection to me making a non list page on a similar topic. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Absolutely not this page is a list but if you wish you can write another page.This has been going on for years after the failed mediation.Jonty rhodes (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tryptofish, I have deleted my list page Draft, it was an attempt to placate others. But, it is slowly dawning on me what is going on. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)).

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is already a list, and an unsourced PoV one at that

Wait, what? I don't think anyone was claiming that the above section of the talk page was in any way a formal move request - as evidenced by Jonty rhodes just moving the page (which was, perhaps, ill-advised). As stated above, I agree entirely with most of the points Jonty made: minor incidents, nationalist (in)fighting, random murders (how in hell was Lennon's killing ever included here?!) and a mess of WP:OR, opinion and WP:SYNTH have all somehow crept into the page over the last while. And it is pretty much a listicle at this point, albeit an overly wordy one. I also agree, Tryptofish, a standalone list article would probably be worse - but that said, people are able to keep a close eye on Islamic terrorism in Europe and anything that doesn't have proper sourcing, with one official source stating an incident is Islamist and terrorist, gets removed. That clearly hasn't here, whatever the status of the article. (Tryptofish, you might want to AGF about editors' motivations, too. I will be pruning this article back, not in an attempt to have it deleted, but because large portions of it right now are, frankly, cobblers). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bastun. Pruning with the right motive sounds good to me. Try to follow the reviewed literature, if there is debate then that debate should be on the page in context. I feel in the end 90% of the list material should go and be replaced with titles like, motivation, funding, media portrayal and public opinion etc. which are all well studied. There should even be room to mention some Northern Irland groups, Anti-balaka etc. (but not as full sections) just to explain the difference between ethnic religious and religious terrorism in the literature. In context these things are important, as a list they give the wrong impression. In short the further we move from a semi-list the better. If you take something off and I find a few literature ref (not news sources) later that argues its inclution, I can put it back on, in context and mention it here.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)).

{u|Dushan Jugum}} Articles like this are always going to be problematic, as they depend on whose ox is being gored, and the human mind has an amazing facility for rationalization and obfuscating to justify any behavior to which they associate or find themselves in sympathy. As regards motive, like those of Mark Chapman, unless we hear it from their own mouths, we cannot know their true motives, and frankly and even where a public statement could be made, if it offends or jeopardizes a group or people who have large public influence, it is can be scrubbed clean, what gets reported in so called RS, are all too scrubbed and approved, by spokespersons, be they government or personal. The media self edits. Constantly and reporters and editors have their own beliefs, opinions and bias. Even facts reported in RS have subsequently proven to be untrue. The Boston Marathon Bombers motive is clear, they stated it so.Same with Scott Roeder, the killer of George Tiller he confessed it Here what is not mentioned is that he was motivated by his religious beliefs (which I admittedly impute). If one is steadfast on a demand for RS, when it comes to abhorrent and violent acts. The ability to find such is extremely limited for reasons already stated. If a Muslim commits murder because the victim burnt or deface the Q'Uran, is that an act of religious terrorism? George Tiller aborted babiesMurder of Farkhunda Malikzada and Terry Jones (pastor) was condemned to death by Islamic clerics for burning the Q'uran. “It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.”. Paine apparently was unfamiliar with the Q'uran, Seerah and SunnahOldperson (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason G

I think that Dushan Jugum and Oldperson make some very good points, thanks. I agree with the basic principle that something should be described here as "Christian terrorism" when one or more reliable sources describe it as such – and it is insufficient to have one source calling it "Christian" and another source calling it "terrorism". (That latter caveat comes out of a lot of past discussions that have looked at this in the context of WP:SYNTH.) And for events that satisfy those criteria, it is also necessary to provide alternative views from other reliable sources that disagree with calling it "Christian terrorism". (And there will almost always be such other reliable sources. But the existence of those sources does not, by itself, justify removal from this page.) Anyway, I have come to the conclusion over time that we should move this page away from being what I have called a "wall of shame" – that is, away from having multiple page sections, each of which asserts that modern era event X is Christian terrorism. Instead, I'd love to see the emphasis changed to how academic authorities have variously discussed the concept of Christian terrorism. Example: Don't have a section that asserts that The Troubles were CT. Do have a section about how experts have compared and contrasted Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. In that, include how Prof. Steve Bruce has written that some Protestant splinter groups were Christian terrorists, but has analyzed how they differ from Hezbollah.

As for the ill-advised page move, I'll just refer now to the closing statement by an administrator, above. And nobody needs to lecture me about WP:AGF; I'm already quite familiar with it. Instead, editors may be interested to read how AGF is not a suicide pact. As long as editors work to improve the page, there's no problem. (I've noticed over time that this page goes through long periods of quiet, but then someone makes a talk page comment and there's an instant eruption of urgent criticism of the page, that had not been so urgent the day before.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve Bruce does what academics do best, "split hairs" there is no difference to the dead and grieving between a Christian Terrorist and Hezbollah or the IDF, or Iranian Republican guard or your choice of religious or ideological fanaticOldperson (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson was arguing that we should treat all terrorists the same way, regardless of motivation. That would mean that we would not treat The Troubles as just involving a few splinter groups, but rather, treat all of those groups as Christian terrorists, the IRA and all the rest. I was replying that to do so would be going against the source material, and that we should not do that. Perhaps you have significantly changed your opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree Oldperson, the academic literature covers a lot of what you are saying and can be included, in context with opposing arguments. Also we will never know someones motivation, but that does not stop people studying it and we can bring it all together here. While we can still disagree on what it means, do you like the general idea of moving the page more towards an article as in Tryptofish's comment? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)). 

Dushan JugumI thought that this was an article. An article that lists groups, and that is just one of many of the same ilk. It does need fleshing out to make it better, not sure if I am the one to work on it though. I admit up front that I am abhorred and repulsed by ALL religions, ideologies and schools of thought that proclaim themselves "the truth" and all who oppose or act in a manner contrary to their truth,and classify them as kufr, infidels, unbelievers or whatever euphemism for perceived worldly existential threat the "other" represents The word protestant was once a slur, then protestants claimed it as their own and capitalized it..Oldperson (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"There should even be room to mention some Northern Irland groups" - why? The vast majority of reliable sources describe the NI conflict as ethno-nationalist, with many explicitly stating that it wasn't religious in nature. There are a tiny handful who characterise it as a religious conflict. It was WP:UNDUE to ever have included it here and it should not be re-added. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Bastun, I was a bit vague, Northern Ireland is a good example of terrorism between groups with different religions, that has next to nothing to do with religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushan Jugum (talk • contribs) 10:04, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

Well - the nature of the list is changing, it appears - from geographical categorisation, to interpretation of the motives of the perpetrators. But it's still a list. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What about the list part of the page do people want to keep? My ideal would be a slow change, just gauging opinion. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)).

Myself, I would be entirely happy to see the entire part of the page that is about relatively recent events, arranged geographically, be removed. All of it gone, and what I described earlier in its place. (Don't worry about "preserving" old edits, because they remain in the page history. That's how WP works.) But WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So - the bit where you said "my ideal would be a slow change" - how about doing that, Dushan Jugum? Sloooow. You've made a huge amount of changes to the article in a very short time, with very terse edit summaries (if any). It's really hard to follow what you're doing, and some of it is, unfortunately, questionable. hellogiggles.com (?!) might be a reliable source for beauty and makeup tips, but an opinion piece from one of its contributors on the nomenclature of CT versus Islamist terrorism? I think not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed some material with poor/no sourcing; some where no terrorist acts had been committed; some where nobody was convicted of terrorism charges or attacks; and so on. A google search result of a book for "Christian" is not a RS. I have to say, it really looks like someone has a thesis, and is determined to write an essay supporting that thesis, with references shoehorned to fit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Bastun I will go slower and spend more time on checking reference formatting etc. Please feel free to remove any references you don't like and replace with 'citation needed'. It is very much a work in progress, feel free to help. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)).

Been cleaning up refs after comments by Bastun, I don't think we completely agree, but there was nothing I couldn't compromise on. I have highly edited and returned some of the delete material (see start of terminology section). If its a problem let me know a better first sentence or just improve it on the page. Sorry for mentioning Northern Island, the world is full of other examples equally well studied which can be used. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

Please Explain

Dushan JugumPlease explain the reasoning behind your changing of headings Anti Abortion and Anti minority to the unwildy and very usual Against Abortion and against Minority, especially since a search engine might show up this article if it uses the words anti minority and anti aobtion and skip over it using the novel terms against abortion and against minorities. I forewarn you it is my intention to revert as it appears to totally unnecessary and extremely unique invention.Oldperson (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

All good Oldperson it was purely aesthetic on my part, your points are valid. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Some references on Christian terrorism

If any editor has an understanding of the literature, I would encourage them to get started in the terminology section, which is a dog's breakfast at the moment. Here are the references from the mediation. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)).

These are just a good place to start (some links are a little out of date):

1. Koller (link)
2. Hoffman (link[1])
3. Aghai (link)
4. Purpura (link)
5. Dyson (link)
6. Schbley (link)
7. Heather S. Gregg. Defining and Distinguishing Secular and Religious Terrorism Perspectives on Terrorism Vol 8 No 2
8. Duyvesteyn (link, Chapter 2, pages 27–40)
9. Martin (link, Chapter 7, pages 137–157)
10. Jenkins (link)
11. Price (link)
12. Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, and Mitchell (link, page 112)
13. Juergensmeyer (link). Includes commentary on Juergensmeyer by McAllister and Schmid (link, pages 232–233)
14. Stern (link)
15. The Routledge Survey (link, pages 23–27)
16. The 2005 Madrid Conference (link, page 274)
17. Jones (link, Chapter 23)
18. Matusitz (link, pages 157–158)

• I had referred to it earlier in the discussion, so here is the link to the source by Steve Bruce: [2]. I would particularly point to how he contrasts what happened in Northern Ireland with Islamic groups. I think the point isn't so much about who were or were not Christian terrorists, but how complicated it is to define it and to differentiate it from non-religious terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to add that this is an awful lot of source material to take in, in a short period of time. But WP:There is no deadline, so there's no hurry. If one starts from the perspective that this stuff is not going to be black-and-white, and consequently one looks for how the experts indicate how defining CT involves a lot of gray areas, then it becomes easier to sort through it. As I said earlier, two aspects that are worth examining in the Terminology section are (1) differentiating between CT and non-religious terrorism, and (2) comparing CT with Islamic terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Expected objection

Given that the dominant religion in the United States and the west is Christianity, it is expected that this article will incur objections and demands for deletion. This is quoted from islamic Terrorism "Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.". The same is true of Christian terrorists. The Ft Hood shooter was a "lone wolf", but all acts of Christian terrorism are portrayed as "lone wolf's", because of a national bias (a country in which a major portion of the population considers themself Christian)Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Bldg in OK, supposedly claiming it was in revenge for Waco, or at least that is what we were told, but he was a member of Michigan Militia or at least attended meetings.According to the SPLC [[3]] There are 20 Christian Identity Groups, but there is a nexus between such groups, militias and the likes of Aryan Nations. When it comes to "lone wolf" acts we only know what the media tells us as regards motivation and the media gets its information from the authorities. To wit: Mark David Chapman. The real reason he shotJohn Lennon is unknown, it is known he had strong Christian beliefs, and John Lennon wrote an anti religious song Imagine. In a predominantly Christian nation it can be expected that government and media would obfuscate motives, not willing to risk alienating or arousing anger in the population and readers. The same motivation in a Muslim nation. The same in Israel. The same in India, where anti Muslim action is particularly violent

Further information: Violence against Muslims in India

.Religion appears to be the prime motivator, and the problem not the solution, thus articles such as these are notable and worthy of their own spaceOldperson (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The prime motivation for terrorism by Christians in the United States appears to be right-wing ideology rather than religion. Before the rise of religious terrorism in the Middle East, most of the terrorism, such as by the Abu Nidal Organization was motivated by Arab nationalism, although most of the perpetrators were Muslim. Yet sources never refer to it as Muslim terrorism. Both far right American and Arab nationalist terrorist groups accepted members with different religious views, while religious terrorist groups do not. TFD (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS. If Chapman was a "Christian terrorist", there'd be some reliable sources we could cite. There aren't any. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course there are no RS for reasons as I stated above, In fact as I stated above, there is no RS as to his motives. What is reported are imputations by pundits, reporters, pundits each with their own agenda or concern. Point is Chapman's motive has been hypothesized in all reporting. One is left to impute their own motives, and that depends on their predlictions. Oldperson (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mea Culpa tried editing wiki with friends .Back in base in Malaysia after trip to Thailand ,India ,[[Malaysia]. @TompaDompa:,@E.M.Gregory:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards: of the previous discussions to take a look.Thank you very much @Bastun: Jonty rhodes (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost as to why I was pinged. Would you care to enlighten me? TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

JimRenge Did you not read my reasons for reverting the edit. Yes I know it is about Christian Terrorism, and that is exactly what the Huttarees do and per the article I reverted, were planning on an act of terrorism, assassinating police etc. I plan to revert your revert, unless you have a clear discussion and we can resolve this issue. There is a problem in America, where media and authorities are afraid (perhaps because of their own beliefs) to call out Terrorism when the authors are Christian, but jump on the chance of calling out Islamic Terrorism. Am I seeing that here? Is Terrorism in the eye of the beholder? It is starting to look like that.Oldperson (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, which source calls the | event (Christian) terrorism? JimRenge (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@JimRenge: I don't like doing this, but I need to answer your question with a question. When was the last time you saw any RS describe anything as Christian Terrorism? I do not think you can find an example, and the reason is simple. We live in a nation in which the majority religion is Christian, and there are very few if any RS willing to step forth and call something Christian Terrorism, as opposed to labeling any act perpetuated by a Muslim as Islamic Terrorism. But Terrorism is terrorism, an act perpetuated by a believer in pursuit of a goal, or in revenge for a perceived slight. In this case the Hutteran community has a goal, a religiously motivated goal. But that is not the only case of religiously motivated act of terrorism, when they are carried out by a lone wolf (e.g. The Ft Hood Shooter.Let's put it this way. We live in a nation in which Christians are the majority (and possibly even on WP) and so called RS are loathe to call anything Christian Terrorism. In fact I have never seen that phrase or heard it on a socalled RS, contrasted to Islamic Terrorism. Result one gets the impression that only Muslims are terrorists. When in fact more acts of terror are committed by Christians in the U.S. than by Muslims. The opposite is the case in Europe, but then save for Spain and Portugal, and Mediterranean countries, Russia and Poland, Europeans are by and large secular.Oldperson (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you in large part, but us agreeing does not do away with the requirement to follow WP policies, including those mandating that we avoid WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. None of that cult were convicted of terrorist offences. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, your thoughts are interesting but Wikipedia content should be verifiable, based on reliable secondary sources. Wp does not publish original research. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (WP:BURDEN) If you can´t provide independent, reliable sources which identify the Hutaree as a Christian terrorist group, they cannot be included in this article. JimRenge (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

JimRenge Thank you but I am very familiar with orginal research concept. Unfortunately we(at least Amerians) live in a society which "covers up"(that is loathe to mention even the words Terrorist or Terrorism in respect to a person or group that is Christian and is motivated by their religious beliefs, thus there is a dearth of so called RS. Identifying a person or group who acts out of religous convictions is not OR by any stretch of imagination. It is simply this.

person or group A is motivated by their beliefs (based on their actions and statements) and they committed or planned to commit actions on the basis of their beliefs.

By the same token, there is a dearth of Islamic acts of terrorism, since very few acts were committed by people who left notes or admitted that Islam was their motivation. Acts of Islamic terrorism are almost always inferred, sans blatant advertisement by the perps. Drift over to an Islamic country and find any reference to acts by Islamic terrorists in their papers. You will find none. Only in the west. What yo are basically saying is that you are promoting self censorship using RS as a cover. I will take it further. I have yet to see the word Terrorism and Christian together in the MSM, except as panel guests on the likes MSNBC, or on Free Speech TV. Which I wonder. Will WP editors and admins accept Free Speech TV or ny TV source as a RS? Here is a great article that explains what I mean Racial and religious privilige intersect as to why Anthony Conditt isn't considered a terrorist.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/mark-anthony-conditt-terrorism-christianity. I fully expect, and said so previously, that any white Christian editor will seriously object and use RS as an excuse not to point out any act of Christian Terrorism, and am being proved correct. Quote: "since 9/11 white Christian terrorists have killed more Americans in the U.S. than any other terrorist groups." source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/babak-rahimi/the-religious-sources-of-christian-terrorism_b_9066868.html. Ah but I can "hear" it now. Huff post is not an RS. If an opinion emanates from say the WSJ or NYT then such is a reliable source, However if the same author speaks from Huff Post, then that is not a RS. How convenient to hide behind RS. Just as you won't find a Muslim based RS calling out Islamic Terrorism, you will be hard pressed to find an American Source calling out Christian Terrorism. Est ce-pas?Oldperson (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Bastun I do not want to be accused of starting an edit war, but I am inclined to revert your last edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=880419740&oldid=880412777 here, for reasons stated above. By your criteria, and this specious resort to RS, or making an accusation of OR, virtually no Christian Terrorist group can be named, at least in the USA, simply because the MSM, who relies on Christian income for survival and profitability will not call it out when it occurs. Thus you and your co-religionists will escape scrutiny, meanwhile the poor innocent Muslim must pay for the crimes of his fanatic co-religionists. How great is it to hide behind RS in a majority Christian country, where editors are loathe to call a spade a spade. I live in a senior community and my neighbor, an elderly Muslim convert, was crying. I asked her what happened. She said she went to eheck the mail, and another senior lady started screaming, terrified that she would be blown up. Tis time to call a dog a dog. It is not OR to point out that my neighbors pet is a dog, or that I own two cats. So lets' stop hiding behind RS.Oldperson (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not "a specious resort to RS" - verifiability it is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. It is also the basis for me removing many spurious "Islamist attacks" from various different articles. I agree that finding reliable sources talking about Christian terrorism and Christian terrorists are rare and yes, it's a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

With regard to the specific edit, there were only two references in that section. One is about the group's name. The other details their arrest for "alleged" plots. No attack actually happened and there is nothing about their conviction. Reading further elsewhere, Hutaree#Trial tells us 7 of the 9 people arrested were actually acquited - so they weren't terrorists, Christian or otherwise; and 2 were sentenced to time-served on "weapons related charges", evidently not serious enough to be terrorism related.

By the way, not that it matters, but I am neither American nor Christian. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

BastunI am well aware of the importance of RSon WP.But finding RS on Christian Terrorism and Christian Terrorists on so called RS is indeed an insurmountable problem, due to to a built in cultural, financial, social and even a religious bias in our supposed RS. There is information but per WP rules it would be ruled out. For instance our VP is a Christian Supremacist, and our President though not a Christian is beholden to them and especially the fringe elements. Here is an example: Google Trump and GOP blood on hands synaguge shooting. The only sources that come up are non main stream, what WP would dismiss as not RS. And the one RS (per WP) is the Washington Post and it skirts the subject and focuses on the divide in the Jewish Community.. Here is a source which I resort to for undiluted information, but I doubt that WP would consider it RS:https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/mike_pompeo_christian_crusader_koch_brothers

Focusing on one case that of Dylann Roof, who incidentally stated, and this is in his article, that WP cleared his mind as to who to target. That aside the https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134689/Dylann-Roof-devout-Christian-baptized-Lutheran-faith-went-church-camp-regularly-attended-Mass-reveals-pastor-family-attend-church-services-pray-massacre-victims.html does mention his Christianity, but not as a prime motivator. Then again anyone familiar with Christian Identity which is a neo NAZI group, knows that it is not only racist but claims to be Christian, and believes their Jesus was an aryan.

In the interest of mutual self disclosure I am an American, but I am also a non believer, kufr in Islamic terms, and 100% of European genetic ancestry. Mostly British Isles and French/German, with a dollop of Sephardim. Never the less, google your heart out and you will not find one RS calling out Christian Terrorism at least not in America, but a plethora calling out Islamic Terrorism.Oldperson (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the absence of the use of the "Christian terrorist/terrorism" in western media is a problem. It is, at least, being discussed. And if this article (or a complementary "List of Christian terrorist attacks") is to include a list of attacks, we will need to address that bias. I am very open to discussing how me might do that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also [4], [5]. A subsection on 'Media Portrayal' or some such, could be a way to start. We would need to watch our balance. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)). next two ideas much better. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a fish. But seriously, I feel very strongly that we need to require reliable secondary sources and strictly avoid original research. Either there is a reliable source that says it's "Christian terrorism" (and not one source saying "Christian" and another saying "terrorism"), or we don't say it on this page. I think there's a nice explanation for doing things that way at WP:RGW. That's the way Wikipedia works, and if anyone wants to write content in a different way than that, they need to find another website. And by the way, it is manifestly untrue that there are no US sources on the topic. If one looks at the old mediation page (ignoring the arguments among editors, just looking at the sources listed there), there are plenty to look into. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish a euphemism for a Christian, is it not? I will restate again my valid objection. That given the self censorship of our media, you will find a dearth of RS labelling anything Christian Terrorism even when the individual like Dylann Roof basically makes that claim. There is a "Christian" claim for slavery, and it was used by the slavers in the south to justify slavery. Calling out the obvious is not original research, when a media with it's own agenda refuses to do so. Just as patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel, so is calling for RS or OR the last resort of a partisan. Given a hard stand for RS for Christian Terrorism, then there is no such thing in the United States, just as there is no such thing as Islamaic Terrorism in the Kingdom of the Saud's or UAE or Hindu Terrorism in India, but plenty of Islamic Terrorism. Any Indian sources calling out the massacre of Gujarat as Hindu Terrorism?.Oldperson (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So now I'm a pro-Christian POV-pusher? Priceless! Maybe "Oldperson" is a euphemism for someone with dementia, but of course I would never say that. Wikipedia has policies about content and sourcing, take it or leave it. I am no longer interested in your opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

TryprtofishYou never were interested in my opinions,lets be honest here and yes quite apparently you have been pushing a POV. And who doesn'thave a POV on a subject such as this. There really isn't any neutral ground,if one is a believer. Of course atheists are neutral when it comes to religion, to the degree that all leave a bitter taste in the mouth. I can live with a dementia accusation. I will also admit to Sometimers disease. I forget sometimes.Oldperson (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved amicably at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest expanding the Terminology section. There could be a subsection on how experts try to define CT and to differentiate it from other non-religious forms of terrorism, and another subsection on how experts compare and contrast CT with Islamic terrorism. Trust me, there is no shortage of source material (again, see the mediation). And those sections would be a very good location to discuss many of the incidents that I recently removed from the page – but discuss them in terms of how experts have various views about it, rather than in terms that such-and-such is CT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the sources cited in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism look promising. Articles should be based on the best sources available. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Newspaper articles should be used with caution, journalists are rarely experts. JimRenge (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oldperson. The suggestions by JimRenge and Tryptofish will address your concerns. 1: prioritize academic research 2: has to be Christain and terrorism in the same source (I am a recent convert to this idea). There is some very detailed work out there. Lets at least see what it looks like, we can always debate it later. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Thanks, both of you. Sounds good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dushan Jugum Sounds reasonable, but it it? Have you not read my complaints. Given that we live in a majority Christian country (the USA) you will be hard pressed to find any act defined as Christiand AND Terrorist. Not going to happen. Prove me wrong Please provide me at least three RS that contradict me. As I said. There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist, not that I believe that, I don't, but because of self censorship. And who was it that said journalists aren't RS? They have to be kidding. Who is that writes the articles thatare used as RS? Journalists. There is a big difference from writing a peer reviewed scientific article and ruminating on political, social and even historical subjects.00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

General note

I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, but I want to make sure that all editors remain aware of WP:EW (and WP:3RR). Better to discuss stuff slowly on this talk page than to keep reverting one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFNAME

C'mon, folks - WP:REFNAME exists for a reason. As it says:

• Names must not be purely numeric; they should have semantic value so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors.
• Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals.
• The actual name used can be almost anything, but it is recommended that it have a connection to the citation or note. A common practice is to use the author-year or publisher-year for the reference name. This helps editors remember the name, by associating it with the information that is visible to the reader.

":7", ":9" and ":11" as a reference name might make perfect sense to you as you make dozens of consecutive edits. The rest of us are left scratching our heads... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that such refnames are annoying, and I never use them myself, I do want to point out that I've seen some automated processes generate refnames like that on other pages, so it isn't always a deliberate naming by an editor. But anyway, I see that they have been corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

terrorism or political violence

The articles about Christian, Left-Wing, Communist, Right-Wing and Islam, etc. are named "terrorism" while for Zionist "political violence" is used. All describe terrorist attacks as defined as in the Wikipedia article about terrorism ("Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. , see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism). We either have to change all to terrorism or all to political violence, everything else would not be neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.226.214 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quite correct, IP. As it would be a controversial move, you should start a requested move process on the Zionist political violence page. It would be entirely in order to link to the requested move discussion on this and other terrorism-related pages. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism redirects to Zionist political violence; Palestinian terrorism redirects to Palestinian political violence. Both articles come under the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. I would not be inclined to advise a newbie to jump into shark-infested waters. Scolaire (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire, and I would add that we have to be careful about making unsourced equivalencies between different kinds of religious violence. There is no a priori reason why all these pages should be titled in the same way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes - there is. WP:NPOV. Palestinian terrorism is terrorism. Christian terrorism is terrorism. Islamist terrorism is terrorism. Zionist terrorism is terrorism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If the sources call all of them (religious) terrorism, then yes. But if the sources characterize them differently, then no. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? Where does religion come into it? "Palestinians in Ramallah were attacked by Zionist politically violent people today..."/"An Israeli west-bank settlement was attacked by Palestinian politically violent people today..." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

And if sources call some of them religious violence and some of them other kinds of violence, then.... --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources about Zionist terrorism all seem to have stopped reporting after the late 1940s - at least judging by the WP article. Odd, that... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Zionist and Palestinian terrorism is generally grouped under nationalist rather than religious terrorism. AFAIK, no articles about nationalist terrorism, except the main article, use the word terrorism in their titles. TFD (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark David Chapman Christian Terrorist

@Tryptofish, Bastun, and Dushan Jugum:See the articles here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=john+lennon+christian+terrorism+mark+chapman

I will repeat what has become a mantra. In the United States of America which considers itself a "Christian country" in which the majority of the persons, not to mention reporters and editors are Christians (and of course publication owners who at least have an eye on the advertising dollar). You will be hard pressed to find any so called RS calling out Christian Terrorism, Just as you would be hard pressed to find, in an Islamic Country, any act being referred to as Islamic Terrorism.So the demand for RS is a very, very, very high bar, and one must resort to sources that aren't themelves terrified of offending their readership.

This line from Islamic Terrorism applies just as well to Mark David Chapman. "One of the Kouachi brothers responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shooting called a French journalist, saying, "We are the defenders of Prophet Mohammed." rephrased Mark David Chapman, responsible for killing John Lennon, said that he was he defender of Christianity

I awoke this morning thinking that for the sake of intellectual honesty. There should be one article: Religious Extremism, and under it separate headings with explanations or examples for each religion. There is after all Jewish and Hindu religious extremeism as well, and apologists for all examples. For instance playing the role of a Muslim I can make a good case that the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, or in fact in violent act in Europe is not religiously motivated but acts of revenge for actions taken against an ethnic group with which I identify. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder and that is a fact, not only is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter (or hero), but even the classification of a violent act is subjective, and he who holds the pen has he power of classification. Lets look at the lead paragraph on Islamic Terrorism: "Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.[1] Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through the interpretation of Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions.[2][3] The motivation for Islamic terrorism in part comes from the idea of Islamic supremacy which is encapsulated in the formula, "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it."[4] " ' Then take a look at the citations as to who is doing the definining, and ask what is their background, motivation and agenda. We are humans and we have one, and the subject is not as objective as science which is subject to peer review. There really is no peer review in the press my friend.

Now let us take a look at the lead paragraphy for Christian Terrorism: If intellectually honest it would read the same as that of Islamic Terrorism: "Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who profess Christian motivations or goals.[1] Christian terrorists justify their violent tactics through their interpretation of the Bible, in accordance with their own objectives and world view.[2][3][4] These interpretations are typically different from those of established Christian denominations.[2][5] "

And let's discuss Hindu Terrorism; Ahbut we can't because there is no such article, just an obfuscatory article Saffron Terror with a puny lead paragraph " Saffron terror is a neologism used to describe acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism, usually perpetrated by members, or alleged members, of Hindu nationalist organisations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or Abhinav Bharat.[1][2][3] The term comes from the symbolic use of the saffron colour by many Hindu nationalist organisations.[4][5][6][7] " In this case the subjects are clearly defined and narrow, and even this challenged with a neutrality template. And then we have Jewish religious terrorism with an even more concise lead in paragraph; "Jewish religious terrorism is religious terrorism committed by extremists within Judaism motivated by religious rather than ethnic or nationalistic beliefs.[citation needed][1][2] "

If WP was concerned with it's reputation for neutrality and intellectual honesty (then again WP is not a person, but a thing, with a collective conscience, like the Borg of Startrek fame, all articles of religious extremism would have the same name and lead paragraphs, but the lead paragraphs of all of the above are really not RS, despite their many citations, but are simply restatements of opinions from authors eachof whom have their own identities and motivations, including the motivations to condemn or excuse.

Role playing a muslim. I can justify the attack on Charlie Hebdo, not in terms of religious terrorism, but as revenge for blaspheming the prophet "(saw)", just as I, playing the role of Mark David Chapman, shot and killed John Lennon, not as an act religious terrorism but as revenge for blaspheming the Christ. But both were acts of terror, acts designed to not only enact revenge but to instill terror in the hearts and minds of others who would consider treading the same path. Terror is fear, and fear works.So either all acts carried out by religiously motivated people are religious terrorism or none are.

There are Muslim apologists who argue that the Muslims who commandeered airplanes on September 11, were not true Muslims because they had been out drinking and carousing, and true Muslims don't drink, but they are obfuscating, because these men were about to commit an act of shahada (martyrdom, witnessing) for the faith and in their minds and in the theology of Wahhabbiyyah Islam, their sins were Holy Sins and forgiven for the acts of martyrdom that they committed)Oldperson (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I got your argument the first time you wrote it here Oldperson. I am sympathetic. If we were writing a blog or even a social science journal paper I would be right there with you. I believe that there is media bias on this issue in America. They will talk about Right Wing Terroir on occasion, but very rarely Christian Terrorism (cf. Islamic Terrorism). Now what would happen if everyone here just wrote what they believe. No one person can make an unbiased page, but with a set of loose rules and a little good will, an Atheist, Muslim, Christian and fish can work together to represent what the most reliable sources have to say on the issue.

Rolling Stone: I feel pedantic in saying this, but the source needs to use the words Christian and terror/terrorism in reference to the same event. Otherwise the dictionary becomes a perfect reference for any argument. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).

(edit conflict) I agree with everything that Dushan Jugum just said. At the top of this talk thread is a link to a Google search; it would have been much more helpful to link to one or more specific sources, rather than asking the rest of us to look for the sources within the search result. If someone can show me a reliable source that calls him a CT, I'm open to changing my mind, and I would suggest a look through the sources that were part of the mediation. And if Chapman really called himself "a defender of Christianity", there might well be a source that analyzes that, without us engaging in WP:SYNTH about what someone said about Charlie Hebdo. As I have said earlier, I'm going to insist that we stick to policies and guidelines. And as I have done earlier, I will point to WP:RGW. We actually do have pages on religious terrorism and religious fanaticism (religious extremism redirects to the latter), but I see no reason to do away with pages about terrorism from individual religions, nor to treat all of them the same way unless sources tell us to. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with another article you must discuss the issue there. Per WP:POINT, the solution to the misuse of the term Islamic terrorism is not to misuse the term Christian terrorism. In any case, articles must be based on reliable sources, not editor speculation. There is an academic consensus that religiously motivated terrorism came to prominence in the middle East in the 1980s, while there are few examples of non-Muslim religious terrorism in that period. Before then, the motivation for middle Eastern terrorism had been primarily Arab nationalism. Motivation is important to understanding terrorism because it helps to determine the level of intelligence and mental stability of terrorists, their religion and ethnicity, the targets they attack, the size of their organizations, the level of damage and degree of international affiliation. Compare for example the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which detonated at 12:37 PM and the 1996 Docklands bombing, which detonated at 7:01 PM. The difference in timing and the number of victims allowed police to determine that the first was carried out by religious terrorists while the second was carried out by nationalist terrorists. It also helped to determine the degree of help each had from outside nations and which nations. It does not imply that Muslims are more likely to carry out terrorist attacks and in fact the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. are carried out by nominal Christians. TFD (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, the comment immediately above is a perfect example of what would happen if one could write articles based on opinion, balance of probabilities, "it's obvious that..." or "the vast majority of sources agree but I found this one opposing opinion to which I'm going to give undue prominence..." The nationalist terrorists responsible for the 1996 Docklands bombing that apparently altruistically wanted to minimise casualties by detonating at 7:01 were exactly the same nationalist terrorists responsible for such attacks as setting off a bomb at a parade attended by hundreds of civilians, and hundreds of other attacks that either directly targeted civilians, or didn't care that they were collatoral damage. That is why WP's core policy is verifiability; I would suggest reading the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth essay, too.

I do honestly get and understand where you're coming from, Oldperson (so as others have mentioned, no need to state your position again), and the issue of the lack of attribution of terrorist attacks to Christian terrorists is most certainly a problem. That issue itself should be addressed front and centre in this article. With attribution to reliable sources. The issue is being talked about. See, e.g., here, here, here, here for starters. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No sources call terrorists altruistic, so we can drop that straw man argument. As the article about the "setting off a bomb at a parade attended by hundreds of civilians" explains, the intended target was not the people attending the parade but the British soldiers attending. The death and injury of civilians actually reduced support for the IRA, they publicly apologized and disbanded the cell responsible. That is because terror attacks to bring about political independence need to have public support of the affected minority, while attacks brought about to please God do not.

The opinion I present is the basic view of terrorism experts. See for example "Typologies of Terrorism" which defines six major types of terrorism by motivation: "nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist."

As one of your sources correctly points out, Muslims are less likely to commit acts of terrorism than Christians. But both Muslims and Christians carry out terrorist attacks for reasons unconnected with religion. In fact very little if any terrorism in the middle East before the 1980s was religiously motivated. Very few terrorist attacks carried out by Christians are religiously motivated.

TFD (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

TFD By your definition then there is very little religiously motivated terrorism. Given that then any such pages on the subject cannot be justified, and they should all be submitted for deletion, and instances subsumed under an article named Religiously Motivated Terrorism. Other than that what I see in reading the responses are blah, blah, blah RS blah, blah, blah OR. The problem is that what is and is not RS or OR is subjective, and easily invoked by someone with an affiliation or POV or wishes to surpress information inimical to their affiliation or POV By the way here is a list of Top Ten Christian Terrorists, included Mark David Chapman, of course it will be dismissed as NoRS https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2018/08/top-10-christian-terrorists/, or how about When John Lennon is more popular than Jesus Controversy turns ugly. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/when-john-lennons-more-popular-than-jesus-controversy-turned-ugly-106430/.Oldperson (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the shrapnel from the 40-pound bomb timed to explode at the Remembrance Day parade was going to magically - sorry, miraculously - tell civilian apart from soldier. Obviously. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oldperson. The top 10 list is a blog post, the Rollingstone article does not call it terrorism. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).

Also Keith may have copied us, Violation Possible 71.3% [6]. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).

I think the consensus here is pretty clear. One thing that occurred to me, although I haven't looked into the sources, is that there have been some recent attacks in the US that were directed against synagogues. It might be useful to look at whether there are reliable sources that deal with the motivations and characterization of those attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been in fact a lot of religiously motivated terrorism since the 1980s as I mentioned. The most obvious example was the 911 attacks carried out by al Qaeda. This is not a blog and if you want to argue that al Qaeda is not religously motivated then this is not the forum to do so. TFD (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of straw men... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In reply to your sarcastic posting of 10:44, 5 February 2019, I am just relaying what reliable sources say. Implicit in your postings is an impression that I am grading terrorists by degrees of evil. I am not. I am just referring to the conclusions in reliable sources that the goals of terrorists influence the types of attacks they carry out. TFD (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Well clearly, then, the sources are wrong, at least in relation to republican and loyalist terrorists, because sometimes they gave reasonable warnings and other times the same organisations blew the shit out of civilians. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong about what? Republican terrorist attacks were designed to bring Northern Ireland into the Republic. Loyalist terrorist attacks were designed to keep Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. I do not know of any cases where Irish terrorists gave reasonable warnings of attacks. They were usually too vague to be useful, but specific enough that they could plausibly claim responsibility after the attacks. TFD (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

There are valid reasons for including the Gunpowder Plot in the History section. However, the excessive detail and general wordiness of the paragraph give the impression that it is off-topic and used more or less as a filler. The use of a self-published source, tagged since 2017, that has as its dedication "This book is dedicated to those whose voices have been silenced by heinous acts of terrorism", does not inspire confidence in the objectivity of the paragraph. The use of the "Main" template is not necessary, since this is not an account of the Gunpowder Plot per se, and the article is linked within the paragraph. This again gives the impression that it's somebody's hobby-horse, rather than relevant content. I am trimming the paragraph down to its essential points. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

it sounds like we are on the same page. The 'Terrorism in Perspective' ref looks better (not that I have read it yet), but maybe not enough to hang a subsection on. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)).

For transparency, let me say that I'm not a fan of the subsection at all. To me, the Gunpowder Plot was a revolutionary act, i.e. it aimed directly at regime change, rather than "indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people", per the Terrorism article. If it was reduced to a single sentence in the History section, or taken out altogether, I would shed no tears. My only reason for this edit was to at least have it make some sense. Scolaire (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

as you have written it, it works well as a precursor to Christian terrorism (if not the real thing). Maybe just a word saying a 'minority' of academics have called it religious terrorism, if that is true. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)).

I'm fine with removing self-published sources, and fine with removing the template. However, there is a substantial literature about the Plot being one of the earliest examples of, or precursors to, Christian terrorism, per Rapoport, Mahan & Griset, and Steinfels. I would strongly oppose removing the entire section. I also am not satisfied that the removal of the first sentence (The early modern period in Britain saw religious conflict resulting from the Reformation and the introduction of Protestant state churches.) was justified, and I would prefer to see it restored (maybe with a different source). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the trimming of the section. It is important to keep it however since terrorism experts see the plot as an early example of Christian religious terrorism. Scolaire, I don't think that definition is correct. See Definitions of terrorism - most of them say it is the use of violence to further political, religious or social objectives. I don't think many terrorists have as their sole objective to create fear, but may want to create fear in order to achieve other objectives. TFD (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't argue seriously with anyone who says that a terrorist act is not an act that is intended to create terror. The "Definitions" article is long and complicated, because the problem of definition is complicated, but it does use phrases such as "acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror" and "terror-inspiring violence as means of accomplishing a given goal." Note, by the way, that Gunpowder Plot is a Featured Article of over 10,000 words, and the word "terror", "terrorist" or "terrorism" doesn't appear once!

The sentence that Tryptofish added back doesn't add anything to the paragraph. There's no need to explain to the reader that there was such a thing as the Reformation in Britain "in the early modern period" (and what about the rest of Europe? Was there no conflict anywhere else?). There's no explanation of "rival Christian beliefs" in the previous paragraph, or "Orthodox Christian-influenced movements in Romania" in the next. Why does the History section not start by saying "Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem c. 4BC"?

I think I'm going to unwatch this again. I thought that with the removal of all the controversial sections on "modern Christian terrorism" in various parts of the world, that there could be a fresh discussion on the "historical Christian terrorism" sections that suffer from exactly the same problems. But it seems "not an inch" is still the order of the day. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll just comment on the sentence that I wrote. It wasn't exactly a matter of adding it back, because I also revised it and provided a better source than had been there originally. It may well be self-evident to readers in some locations what the English Reformation was, but I rather doubt that many readers in the US are particularly familiar with it (sad though that may be). It's simply a matter of providing some context, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with giving inches. I don't want to look at this as being a battle between editors, but revision and discussion is simply how the editing process works. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Gun Powder plot Section is better (not perfect, but better), than it has been for years?, the system works. Meanwhile the pogroms section explains the relationship between Christianity and fascism in one sentence. The tactics section is a list of events and the introduction, motivations and terminology section is mostly written by someone who has never read a book on the topic in their life (that's me, sometimes subtext does not come through). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).

Scolaire, it's hard to argue seriously with someone who thinks that terrorists do not carry out attacks in order to achieve political ends but solely to terrorize people. They terrorize people in order to achieve political ends. It does not matter that Wikipedia editors don't mention terrorism in the Gunpowder Plot article. Terrorism itself is a fairly recent concept not generally used until the 1970s. Anarchist terrorism for example was not called that at the time. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand was not called an act of terrorism although the murder of Lord Mountbatten was. TFD (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I think we were talking at cross-purposes, and I apologise for my dismissive reply (and to Tryptofish too). To me, terrorism has three elements: (1) an act, or acts, of violence, (2) an immediate objective (to cause terror), and (3) a longer-term objective (which the terrorists hope a climate of terror will help to achieve). I think you misread my original post as cutting out (3). i.e. as saying that causing terror was an end in itself, and I misread your reply as cutting out (2), i.e. as saying that any act of violence in pursuit of an objective is terrorism, even if causing terror is not its immediate objective. My point about the Gunpowder Plot was that its immediate objective was to kill the king and replace him with Princess Elizabeth. Whether or not the explosion caused fear was not a factor in their plans. But anyway, that's just my own personal opinion; it has no direct bearing on the article. The problem I have is with having a 150-word section, with an introductory sentence to explain about the Reformation in Britain, which gives the impression that it was one of three pivotal moments in the history of Christian terrorism, along with Romanian Pogroms and the Ku Klux Klan. I still think it could and should be mentioned in the article, in the way that the infamous Northern Ireland paramilitaries section of four years ago is now distilled into a single, factual sentence that is placed in its proper context. I don't see any appetite for discussion of the "History" section at the moment, so I'm bowing out from the talk page for now. I may come back with definitive proposals at a later date. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ScolaireThe Gunpowder Plot was a failed attempt to blow up England’s King James I (1566-1625) and the Parliament on November 5, 1605. The plot was organized by Robert Catesby (c.1572-1605) in an effort to end the persecution of Roman Catholics by the English government. Not to place a Princess Elizabeth on the throne ([7]) Charles II had not daughter named Elizabeth and the only Princess Elizabeth I know of became Queen 72 years before Charles II was bornOldperson (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

From Gunpowder Plot (a Featured Article}: The plan was to blow up the House of Lords...as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Charles II was not king of England in 1605. The source for all this is Antonia Fraser, not History Channel. Anyway, as I said, what its immediate objective was is a side-issue. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And can you please learn to indent? It's as simple as putting colons at the beginning of your post (and again at the beginning of any new paragraphs), one colon more than the person who posted before you. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That type of operation was later known as "propaganda of the deed...specific political action meant to be exemplary to others and serve as a catalyst for revolution." TFD (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Circularity

@Scolaire:I bowed out of this conversation because it is circular and goes nowhere. There is definitely at least one POV pusher in this discussion and editing. I can detect defensive arguments, which accounts for not only it’s circularity, but the extraordinary amount of edits, reversions and discussions on this stalk page. One major problem here is the definition of terrorism. A self avowed Christian knee jerks at any mention of terrorism in association with his blessed belief, just as a Muslim, Jew or Hindu would. I said before Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. What one man or woman perceives as an act of terror, another perceives as justifiable revenge. And the ability of the human mind to justify and rationalize anything, including what is and is not a reliable source, is awesome. Reminds me of what Stalin said about voting. It Is not who votes that counts but who counts the votes. The same is true of definitions, be it what is a reliable source or what is terrorism.. And so long as there are believers or those wedded to a POV (about anything) the argument goes on forever and becomes circular, and is eventually “won” by he who has the most power. True in every human endeavorOldperson (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Not Scolaire, but evidently, you're in large part correct, Oldperson. I have Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on my watchlist, for whatever reason. I read the article again when it underwent a recent change, and then googled it with the terms +Christian +terrorism. When the article talks about one of the shooter's online profiles thus: "... the account's description was: "Jews are the children of Satan (John 8:44). The Lord Jesus Christ [has] come in the flesh." reflecting Christian Identity beliefs" and yet the closest anyone gets to calling him a "Christian terrorist" or the incident "Chritian terrorism" is "domestic terrorism" or a debate about the definition of terrorism, but nobody appears to use the actual term "Christian terrorism" - well then, yes, there's an obvious problem. What the solution is, I don't know. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for pinging me, but I opted out of this talk page for a reason, and it was nothing to do with circularity. This edit did away the all the little mini-histories of Africa, Asia etc. "Let's put in a sub-article on Anti-balaka, Eastern Lightning, Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland, Russian Orthodox Army." Now the article can concentrate on the subject in the round. There's still plenty of room for disagreement, but at least the article focuses on what the disagreements are, and individual incidents are framed in terms of where they fit in relation to motivation, tactics or whatever. But instead of having a follow-up discussion on how the Background section can be written to better introduce the article that follows, people are still saying "let's hang on to those sub-articles on the Gunpowder Plot, pogroms in Romania and the Ku Klux Klan." And the arguments for not changing it have not changed: "This is necessary", "Mahan & Griset called it terrorism."

If and when people get around to thinking about how the "History" section can be made fit for purpose, please ping me. If you want to air your own personal gripes, please don't. Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Also fair points, and well made. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bastun, Scolaire, and Tryptofish:WP has a serious problem, and I don't know how or where to address it much loss offer a solution.I have been visiting many conflict articles. That is articles concerning nations, religions, ethnicities in conflict where there is violence or threat of violence. And what I see is POV pushers from both sides.Example Serbia-Croatia, Iran,Israel-Palestine and of course we have oil and money rich countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who have set up actual troll farms with paid editors, POV pushers, and then there are the Russian troll farms, who knows maybe every nation in the world has their own troll farm, not to mention, religions or so called religions like Scientology, even that one has it's own "editors" pushing their POV and covering their tushes.

With a nation like the USA which is majority Christian, you will naturally find dedicated "trolls" defending the faith, not to mention a complete dearth of RS calling out Christian terrorism where it obviously exists (Thanks Bastun). What we are left with are inevitable edit wars, which will be won by whichever "side" has the most influential guardian (admin, editors). This is a real problem for WP, and can't be solved, unless they step back and review policies and procedures and I don't have an answer. I would like to know the reason that Tryptofish deleted whole paragraphs.Oldperson (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, I specifically asked you not to ping me. Do not ping me again. I don't know what your beef is, and I don't care. Did you understand me this time? Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Scolaire Technicaally this was not a ping. However I will call you out, since you lost your cool publicly. First you did not ask ME to not ping you. You asked generally not to be pinged. Hint: I did not read your rant. It is obvious I have no beef, since you can't identify one. Think twice before you post. But now I have a "beef: it is out of control editors. You could have and should have commented to me on my or your user page, instead of an article talk page. CheersOldperson (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, I don't mean to be at all sarcastic when I say that, for me, the circularity is that you seem to keep asking the rest of us the same questions after we have already answered them. (Wikipedia calls that WP:IDHT.) You ask me why I removed that large section of the page. Well, I already said why, multiple times in this talk. Please read what I already said, and don't ask me to keep saying the same thing. (If there's something specific that I said, that needs clarification, I'll be happy to respond to that.) Wikipedia is here only to record what is going on, not to be a force for change. If you want somewhere to discuss changing the way that Wikipedia addresses conflict topics, you should feel free to start a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). That's where you can explore possible solutions. But don't expect editors there to tell you very much that is different than what we have been saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TryptofishExcuse me but you have not addressed that issue on this talk page, not once, not numerous times. If so then show me where I am wrong.

You did make a comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=880536769&oldid=880419740 where you said " I have no objection if someone reverts me. But I'd like editors to think hard about what I've said on the talk page, about changing the entire approach to this page. Please think about how you can cover the essential parts of this, without labeling groups in WP's voice.)Next edit →". You may think that statement is self explanatory, but it comes across imperious. Are you imperious, do you have that kind of authority. Actually you have not answered the questions nor addressed the issues. But I should bow out as the issue is indeed circular and fraught with POV pushers.Oldperson (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not imperious, but there is a limit to my patience. And while I generally try to be understanding and responsive to other editors, I don't take orders from anybody here. The Village Pump is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The motivation of the Pittsburgh attack appears to be far right ideology rather than Christian belief, hence it would more likely be right-wing terrorism. The accused held racist and anti-Semitic views and shared beliefs with neo-Nazis and others on the far right, subscribed to the New World Order conspiracy theory and admired Hitler. Again, a lot of Arab nationalist terrorist attacks were made against Jews, yet we don't label them religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Christian terrorist groups in each countries was removed/vandalized

Any reason why the Christian terrorist groups against each countries were removed from this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpnair (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To summarise a few discussions (above). It was felt that this page should be about Christian Terrorism and not a list of groups that have been called Christian Terrorists. There is a wealth of references on this topic in general and they are listed on this talk page. It was felt if editors wanted to make the page better, they should but their energy there and not on arguing what group or person is and is not Christian Terrorism. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).

Agree with Dushan Jugum. Also not there is still unnecessary detail about activities of KKK and anti-abortion terrorism, rather than discussion about why some researchers consider them Christian terrorists. TFD (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory Breivik Info

A third or more of the anti-minority violence section is focused on Breivik however that article states that while initially described by the media as a 'Christian terrorist' this is quite untrue. Breivik himself has not only consistently denied being Christian and claimed to worship Odin, but has said there are few things more pathetic than the Jesus figure and his message. I'm not disputing Breivik sought to make a Christian link for his actions - speaking of defending Christian Europe, or claiming to be 100% Christian but not particularly religious, but the substance of his claims is lacking. This article defines Christian terrorists as justifying their violence through unique interpretations of the Bible which are typically (radically) different to those of Christian denominations, however the Breivik section fails to even suggest there was such a basis. In light of this contradiction perhaps remove this section from the page? 2001:44B8:21A9:ED00:3830:D869:3B15:A90F (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack January 6

We ,ight consider mentioning the Christian Republican terrorist attack against the United States capitol. The terrorist attack is considered to be a Christian Republican terrorist attack against the United States. We might see felony indictments against the Christian terrorists once the United States takes back the Department of Justice. SoftwareThing (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The source you cite clearly describes it as "domestic terrorism", so that gets us to "terrorism", but it doesn't give us a religious motivation as the primary motivation. It looks as though the motivation was primarily a political one, to give power to one political party and not the other, as opposed to giving power to Christians and not to other religious groups. This kind of distinction has been a perennial question on this talk page, and the consensus has been that the sources have to say directly that it was "Christian terrorism", and not just call it terrorism and then note separately that some of the terrorists had connections of some sort to Christianity (and this source does not even do that). (I corrected your section header from June to January.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Another source has appeared, that I think is worth taking a look at, although I am not in favor, yet, of changing the page because of it. The New York Times has an article that says that, for a significant portion of the violent people, Christian motivations were explicitly the primary reason for their violent actions: [8]. They don't call it "Christian terrorism" (and it would be WP:SYNTH to combine this source with the Washington Post source linked above, for this purpose), but I think this source is noteworthy because of what it concludes were, and were not, the motivating factors. If more sources come out that actually make the connection between "Christian" and "terrorism", the importance of the events in the US may be a good reason for inclusion on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it says Christian motivation was the primary reason for their actions. It's more like their version of Christianity is part of their identity, which is already discussed in the article. Also their religion justifies their political views rather than vice versa. I am not sure either that any academic sources would consider this terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that something where we agree is that it would be premature to put this on the page now, and that we need to wait and see whether or not further sourcing emerges. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I again want to emphasize – so that this does not get misunderstood – that I personally do not feel that it is yet time to put anything about this onto the page. But I do think that it is useful to keep track of sources here on the talk page, as sources become available, in case they might be useful later on.

In The New York Times there is an interview with Kelly J. Baker about what she sees as a direct connection from the historic KKK to the present-day Capitol rioters: [9]. In my reading, it sounds like a discussion of research that is ongoing, rather than research that is completed and ready for content here. But she says that she thinks that there is a direct connection, in which she believes that certain aspects of Christianity are centrally motivating and not just incidentally part of the identity. She also comments about similarities with Islamic violence, while saying that it is still something "we have to figure out". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article. Certainly the attackers were in the tradition of the radical right. But Protestantism was part of the identity of the radical right, at least until recent decades, rather than a motivation. The Klan didn't hate Irish, Italians and Poles because they were Catholics, but because they didn't see them as white. TFD (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They cut off article access for nonsubscribers after some number of article views. If you clear your browser history and cookies you can read it if you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to call 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as Terrorism as per this RFC.Hence until community consensus changes we will not add it here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it is important to distinguish between two types of terrorism. One is led by members of either majority dominant or minority oppressed groups who seek either domination or equality. Their identity includes ethnicity and religion. For example, Irish Catholics, who spoke Gaelic, were second class citizens under British rule and many lost their land. Britain replaced them with English and Scottish Protestants, who spoke English and were loyal to Britain. It was an ethnic nationalist conflict, with religion as part of ethnic identity. The Irish nationalist side included people who were not Irish ethnicity or Catholic religion. Al Qaeda OTOH is purely about religion. They have no Christian members, they don't negotiate, etc. TFD (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand what both of you are saying, and I want to assure you that I have no intention to push for anything that is contrary to consensus or contrary to what sources are telling us. And it's what the predominance of reliable sources say, that will determine what will or will not be put on the page. But there's nothing wrong with keeping track of what sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding: I read the RfC, and I see that it was "no consensus", as opposed to "consensus against", and had a sizeable portion of wanting to wait and see what future sourcing will conclude as time goes on. As I've been saying here, the sourcing at this time does not support such a label here, but the sourcing appears to be developing over time, and it is entirely appropriate to continue to watch what new sources say, as they emerge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Atlanta spa shootings

I think we’re missing that one. Also, wasn’t there that one gay club shooting in 2000? 2601:408:8001:120:7D93:9AE1:5D10:82B0 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Should John Brown be included on here?

He attacked a federal armory and he was motivated by his sect of Christianity. 73.73.127.102 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You ask an interesting question, but my inclination is not to do so. For one thing, editors here are trying to avoid having this page become a list of examples, and instead focus on the concept. At a more basic level, we would need secondary sourcing that identifies him specifically as a Christian terrorist. I'm guessing that would be unlikely because, although he used violent means, he did not do so with the primary purpose of inciting terror. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Just skimming the article John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry does not turn up any significant discussion or mention of Christian/religious motivations for the raid. I did find two instances of the word, "terror", however this article on Christian terrorism suffers from recentism because "terrorism" is a recently-coined neologism that will necessarily not be found in historical records of, for instance, Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot. So to actually find WP:RS that place historical attacks in context of specifically "Christian terrorism" is a difficult task and fraught with the dangers of retconning. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not the topic asked about in this talk section, but since you mentioned Fawkes, modern scholarly sources often refer to the plot as having been an early example of Christian terrorism, even if the term was not in use in Fawkes' day. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As with many concepts, examples occurred before the term was coined, since it was the existence of the phenomenon that led to the creation of a term to describe it. However, it's often problematic to use a modern term to describe historical events, although terrorism studies often describe Guy Fawkes and turn of the century anarchist criminals as terrorists.

We cannot however classify someone as a Christian terrorist unless that is consensus in reliable sources, otherwise it is synthesis.

I do not however agree that with your analysis. The objective of the attack was to end slavery, while a religious terrorist would have a religious objective, such as triggering Armageddon. It doesn't matter what motivated him to want that objective. This distinction is particularly important with groups, where people of different motivations may work toward the same objective. TFD (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)