Jump to content

Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Change name

It would disappoint a lot of people, but the main problem here is labeling. "Inclusionists" want to label more Christians as violence to "prove" a point. "Removalists" want to avoid labeling to avoid the point.

"Terrorism" is like "Nazi." If I don't like you or your pov, that makes you a "Nazi." The use is too broad. The article says there are 100 definitions. If all were used simultaneously, it might make us all terrorists!

Maybe we should name all articles in a similar fashion but call them something else. "Violence by Christians in support of their beliefs," or something less judgmental. It's easier to include a group bent on making people afraid over long periods of time (like Orissa). A bit harder for one incident or two. Student7 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the typology and terminology which is generally accepted and explained here. However Christian terrorism is extremely rare - no one has been able to provide any examples for this article. (I have looked myself.) But as Aubrey points out (p. 44) all religious terrorism was rare before the Iranian revolution. TFD (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
One can debate the term terrorism, but if we include the attacks on the local people by Zionists prior to/during the creation of the State of Israel I would not dare claim religious motives were "rare before the Iranian revolution." Surely, more examples exist, even from 2000 years ago. It all depends on what we include as terrorism.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 10:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
TFD - You don't think some of those examples in India are clear enough examples of "Christian Terrorism?" Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not know. However it is not up to us to examine their beliefs and actions and determine how to categorize them but to find sources that do so. Aubrey and the other writers on terrorism in general mention religious terrorism but provide no examples of Christian religious terrorism although they do for example provide examples of Islamic religious terrorism, e.g., al Qaeda. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I object to the initial characterization that editors want to include material to prove a point. I, for one, am here to help write an encyclopedia. If I see editors who are trying to prove a point, perhaps the point that Christians cannot possibly be terrorists, then I'm going to object, quite properly. But what matters to me on the bottom line is one thing, and one thing only: what the sources say. If the sources say that something is Christian terrorism, then we should reflect that. What the sources say is not terrorism, but instead is violence by Christians, should go instead in Christianity and violence, a page that already exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is tendentious editing to conduct a google search for "Christian terrorism" and then present all your findings without reading them yourself first. Your first hit says, "Most right-wing terrorism in the United States has a religious (Christian} component". No one questions that, but notice that the authors classify it as right-wing terrorism not as Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
...and the fact that the subchapter is titled, "Modern Christian Terrorism" certainly has no bearing whatsoever? The author is clearly calling it "Christian Terrorism." I mean, am I on an episode of "Punked" or something? Does the author have to use the phrase "Christian Terrorism" in every sentence, or what? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The names of sections cannot be used to support statements. TFD (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No WP guideline or policy makes that statement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You might want to consult a book on grammar which will explain to you how meaning is conveyed in language. TFD (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If a chapter was entitled "Islamic Terrorism," and then showed examples of how terrorist groups use Islamic beliefs as motivation and "justification," but never used the specific phrase "Islamic Terrorism" in the following sentences...we wouldn't be seeing this kind of opposition to the inclusion of the text as a source. Besides, as noted before, that's not the only source that uses the phrase in regards to the NLFT. For example: [1]. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It actually reads, "...has a religious (Christian} component". Indeed much Arab terrorism in the 1980s also had a religious component but they are not called Islamic terrorists. TFD (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
He goes a lot further than simply that cherry-picked statement...and we've gone over all of this before. For example: "Christian terrorists also deny that any kinds of victims resulted from their violence." (p.91) He also uses the phrases "Christian Terrorist" or "Christian Terrorism" multiple times throughout the book. Also, considering the amount of newspaper coverage discussing the term, it's not just reasonable...but required...that Wikipedia have a page devoted to it. That it doesn't conform to your standards is irrelevant, as it certainly conforms to Wikipedia standards. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You are pulling a partial quote from p. 91 of Religion and terrorism[2] that cannot be viewed and you have no idea what he is talking about. It's great that you can google search the term "Christian terrorist" but you really need to explain what the sources say not just that they use the term. (That by the way is what cherry-picking means.) TFD (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
When we had this discussion a long time ago, I checked the book out from a university library, and copied down some quotes that are not available online. That's why I have quotes from the book to which you do not have access online. You are, of course, free to do the same yourself. And moving the goalposts from the idea that, "scholars or authors do not use the term 'Christian Terrorism'" to, "It doesn't matter that they do...you have to show them defining it...then clearly assigning it to every specific group," which is a clear attempt to try and make the criteria for this page much more explicit than that of any other page dealing with terrorism...solely because of POV. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, your description of the the NLFT says that they are separatist/secessionist and groups this type of ideology under ethnic, ideological and religious. The authors accept the standard typology of terrorism, and are merely sub-dividing a major category. Some nationalist terrorists have a religious component, some right-wing terrorists have a religious component. We can say that, but we cannot put them together and form our own understanding of the subject. Incidentally, you used the google search ""christian terrorism" nlft". When you use this type of search that you are likely to find snippets that appear to support your view, rather than sources that explain how scholars see this group. TFD (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
As a general observation, the more I see how this page works, the more I appreciate that one does have to be careful about how a Google search is performed, so as not to be cherry-picking. If one searches for "Christian terrorism" along with a particular name, that can yield useful sources, but one also needs to search that particular name with other possible explanations, and be ready to present the various sources without violating WP:UNDUE. There's no reason to exclude sources that characterize something as Christian terrorism, but they also need to be placed in balance to the extent required by WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

thinking out loud

Perhaps the problem is whether any Gnarphist terrorism article should contain information on anyone who was part of a Gnarphist group and committed terrorism, or whether it should focus on terrorism made to advance the general cause of Gnarphism, or whether it should only deal with terrorism which is a fundamental tenet of Gnarphism.

The first choice would likely involve substantial inclusion of cases quite marginally related to Gnarphism, as well as debate as to whether the person was really a Gnarphist.

The second choice is likely more defensible on Wikipedia, as one can reasonably argue that terrorism to advance a particular cause is in effect thus connected to that cause, or belief, or whatever.

The third choice is the most restrictive - but exceedingly defensible as a position also. If the core writings of Gnarphists call for terrorism as a tool of any sort, one can hardly dispute calling such terrorism "Gnarphist terrorism."

I make no further argument as to which is best - just inviting other views on this more general issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is that (drum roll) we should go with what the sources say. If secondary sources, especially academic or scholarly ones, consider an example to be "Christian terrorism", then it fits here. If they don't, it doesn't. By and large, sources do not postulate that terrorism of any sort should arise from the core principles of any religion. Instead, terrorism tends to be an aberrant treatment of doctrine by extremists. I doubt that any mainstream sources would argue that terrorism is a manifestation of mainstream mores. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Then read the sources. Aubrey for example says that terrorism experts recognize six basic types of terrorism, of which "religious" is one type.[3] He then identifies al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas and other organizations as having engaged in religious terrorism. Please find a similar source that mentions Christian groups. TFD (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that Aubrey argues that terrorism is a manifestation of mainstream religious mores? In any case, thank you for the link. I've been asking for ages in this talk for someone to present a high quality source that argues against classification as Christian terrorism, and I appreciate it. I've bookmarked it, and after I've had enough time to read it thoughtfully, I'm going to edit the page to incorporate it and reflect it. (Which is something I find a lot more productive than most discussions in the talk, by the way.) While we're at it, can you point me to any sources that speak to whether Aubrey is considered more mainstream in academia than is, say, Jurgensmeyer? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You can find similar sources particularly in regards to Christian Terrorism in India, including those from peer-reviewed journals, all over the "Accusations Against Hmar" section of this talk page, as well as numerous newspaper reports using the phrase "Christian Terrorists" or "Christian Terrorism." I'd repost them all, but since one only needs to "scroll up," that would seem counterproductive. You also can find eminent scholars and terrorism experts using the phrase, including Juergensmeyer, though he's certainly taken a beating on this talk page. Regardless, to say that there are no sources, or that no sources "similar" to Aubrey exist, is to dismiss an awful lot of evidence to the contrary. Some of these sections certainly require some cleaning up, or even removal. But the concept itself of "Christian Terrorism" is well-documented by Wikipedia and scholarly standards, and any attempt to claim otherwise clearly smacks of an "agenda." And furthermore, this entire section is a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I scrolled up and there is not a single peer-reviewed source that supports your position. I agree this is not a forum and ask that you not advance views not supported by sources. TFD (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that you completely missed "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, in the peer-reviewed journal, "Studies in Conflict & Terrorism." And there are plenty of RS, in the form of books, reputable periodicals, and other sources, all over the India and US sections. Why do you continue to dismiss them? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You need a source that calls them Christian terrorists, rather than say Christianity is part of their motivation. The sources I have found using the non-tendentious Google seach ""National Liberation Front of Tripura" terrorism" describes their motivation as an independent (albeit Christian) state of Tripura. It traces the origins of the conflict to the influx of non-indigenous people. Putting on my OR hat, I could conclude that any terrorism carried out by them was ethnic/nationalist terrorism, which explains why they call themselves a "national liberation front". TFD (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources using the phrase "Christian Terrorist" to describe them, and I'm pretty sure many are cited in the section on them. A group that goes out and forces people to convert to Christianity at point of machine gun is certainly more than simply "ethnic/nationalist terrorism," and most religious terrorist groups are also very much "ethnic/nationalist terrorism" groups as well...including about 99% of all "Islamic Terrorist" groups. They are not mutually exclusive categories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter what our opinions are, but what sources say, and you have failed to provide any that support your views, other than that some scholars attribute some terrorist activity to Christianity. Do you believe that if the Tripura and their neighbors had the same religion that there would never have been any conflict? That is what the imperialists believed - convert the natives to Christianity and they will become loyal subjects. TFD (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this relevant? If scholars attribute terrorist activity to Christianity, we don't get to second-guess them and decide for ourselves that it should really be attributed to nationalism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right, but scholars attribute the actions of Breivik, McVeigh, Rudolph, etc. to right-wing ideology, rather than Christianity. A small minority however attribute their actions to their faith. Accordingly the overwhelming majority of scholars group their actions under right-wing terrorism, not religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've presented many sources backing up my positions, particularly in the India section. Most people here, even some of the Christians, do not have the same objections that you do to that section, which is very well-sourced for a WP article. And frankly, your comments regarding "conversion" show that you do not understand India in the slightest...which is made up of many different sects/religions that have peacefully coexisted much better than in anywhere else in the world...except with Christians and Muslims, because those two religions are based on Exclusivism, and are (at least in a purely orthodox fashion) theologically incompatible with pluralism. Jews, Parsees, and other religious minorities have fled persecution in Christian and Muslim countries and come to India for centuries, and these communities still thrive without conflict with their Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh neighbors. This is quite different from the people "converting" with deceit, fear, inducement, sword, AK-47, or strapped-on suicide bomb. You are obviously not well-educated in Indian culture or politics, and have no interest in reading the sources and seeing what is actually going on there. So please don't presume to WP:KNOW simply based on your ethnocentric weltanschauung. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, it is Xenophobia and not "political" or "religious" motivation behind terrorism. And xenophobia is found on both the left and right of the problematic "political spectrum." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bryanmorrigan, you may believe that Christianity and Islam are the drivers of violence in the world, which is fine, but it does not represent mainstream thinking and neutrality prevents us from treating it that way. Moslems btw were fairly tolerant of Jews and Christians in their midst for centuries. TFD (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we are going way off topic, though I would like to point out tolerance of people could be understood in a part considering that Hinduism is not even recognized as a religion on many European and Islamic countries. Perhaps a guy like Daniel Brannan, Chairman of the Kootenai County Constitution Party, could be exemplary in a USA town for his views(like 'host of Idolaters huddled about the feet of the bestial thing'), regardless of its affects on image of Hinduism. On the other hand, it is a too recent an example to show that an entire country Sudan was divided on the basis of nothing but religious lines using 'polling to divide country' as an acceptable behavior.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This section is frankly hopeless. To the casual reader (i.e. one that doesn't click on links to delve further), Christian terrorism in NI seems to consist of a clergyman being caught in possession of some weaponry in 1999. Really? Is this it? Regardless of the political persuasion of contributors is this all we can come up with as a brief summary of decades of hatred and bloodshed? danno 00:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps you were looking at a version that I just reverted. Way too much of this page, and not just in the NI section has been deleted in recent months. Please look at the talk archives, where you will see discussion of the recent delete-fest. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support but what you've reverted isn't really what I'm talking about (and to be honest I'm too lazy to dig through the talk archives to find out if we really are in agreeance, apologies). You've reinstated some opinions about the causes of the problems but if I weren't aware of what went on it would all be meaningless because there is literally nothing about what actually happened. I appreciate that it is an emotive issue, but there is no mention of any actual terrorist acts. Not even a vague time-frame. No mention of bombings, shootings, et al. This article is clearly not the place for a blow by blow account of things, but surely something the lines of "x years of civil conflict resulting in x deaths" and a note of a few of the most historically notable attacks carried out by either side would be sensible? I would actively support edits in that direction. danno 00:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The section seems to be POV. Most content is covered in the article The Troubles, the other article covers until 1998..after which the troubled ended. --Hemshaw (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
For starters, please see Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 7#Northern Ireland. My biggest concern about the reversions I made is that we should be relying more on secondary sources, not less, and a lot of those got deleted, especially those that speak to the definitions of terrorism as they apply to the cases cited. But I'm all in favor of adding more balance, as well as more detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
re:Hemshaw - the other article does cover things - things that should be summarised here. The fact that they are relayed in detail elsewhere doesn't mean that they should be obliterated from this article. As a result this article makes no sense. danno 01:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
We are supposed to describe minority views, not use them as a coatrack. If readers want to read about NI then there are articles for it, but here they want to understand why a minority of scholars have described it under CT. TFD (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Responding to earlier editor:

Main Article: Terrorist Acts In Great Britain

1939 January - 1940 February

  • A sustained campaign of bombing in London, Birmingham and other parts of the country, known as the S-Plan, organized by the IRA

1970s

  • 1971 12 January: Two bombs explode at the house of government minister Robert Carr. This attack was one of 25 carried out by the Angry Brigade between August 1970 and August 1971. The Bomb Squad was established at Scotland Yard in January 1971 to target the group, and they were apprehended in August of that year.[1][2]
  • 1971 31 October: A bomb explodes in the Post Office Tower in London causing extensive damage but no injuries. The "Kilburn Battalion" of the IRA claimed responsibility for the explosion.[3]
  • 1972 22 February: The Official Irish Republican Army kills seven civilians in the Aldershot bombing.
  • 1973 10 September: The Provisional IRA set off bombs at London's King's Cross Station and Euston Station injuring 21 people.[4]
  • 1974 4 February: Eight Soldiers and 4 civilians are killed by the Provisional IRA in the M62 Coach Bombing.
  • 1974 17 June: The Provisional IRA plant a bomb which explodes at the Houses of Parliament, causing extensive damage and injuring 11 people.[5]
  • 1974 5 October: Guildford pub bombing by the Provisional IRA leaves 4 off duty soldiers and a civilian dead and 44 injured.
  • 1974 22 October: A bomb planted by the Provisional IRA explodes in London injuring 3 people.[6]
  • 1974 18 December: Bomb planted by IRA in the run up to Christmas in one of Bristol's most popular shopping districts explodes injuring 17 people.[7]
  • 1975 November 27: IRA gunmen assassinate political activist and television personality Ross McWhirter.[8]
  • 1978 December 17: Another bomb planted by the IRA aimed at the Christmas shoppers in Bristol takes out the department store Maggs injuring seven people.[9]
  • 1979 30 March: Airey Neave killed when a car bomb exploded under his car as he drove out of the Palace of Westminster car park. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility for the killing.

1980s

1990s

  • 1990 16 May: Wembley IRA detonate a bomb underneath a minibus killing Sgt Charles Chapman (The Queen's Regiment) and injuring another soldier.
  • 1990 1 June: Lichfield City railway station 1 soldier is killed and 2 are injured in a shooting by the Provisional Irish Republican Army
  • 1990 20 July: The IRA detonate a bomb at the London Stock Exchange causing damage to the building. Nobody was injured in the blast.[10]
  • 1990 30 July: Ian Gow MP killed by a car bomb planted by the IRA while at his home in Sussex.
  • 1991 7 February: The IRA launched three mortar shells at the rear garden of 10 Downing Street.
  • 1992 25 August: The IRA plant three fire bombs in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Bombs were placed in Shoplatch, The Charles Darwin Centre and Shrewsbury Castle. The latter causing the most damage as the castle housed the Shropshire Regimental Museum and many priceless historical aritifacts were lost and damaged by fire and smoke. No fatalities or injuries were recorded.
  • 1992 16 November: IRA plants a bomb at the Canary Wharf, but is spotted by security guards. The bomb is deactivated safely.
  • 1992 3 December: The IRA exploded two bombs in central Manchester, injuring 65 people.[11]
  • 1993 20 March: Warrington bomb attacks. The first attack, on a gasworks, created a huge fireball but no casualties, but the second attack on Bridge Street killed two children and injured many other people. The attacks were conducted by the IRA.
  • 1993 24 April: IRA detonate a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, It killed journalist Ed Henty, injured over 40 people, and causing approximately £1 billion worth of damage,[12] including the destruction of St Ethelburga's church, and serious damage to Liverpool St. Tube Station. Police had received a coded warning, but were still evacuating the area at the time of the explosion. The insurance payments required were so enormous, that Lloyd's of London almost went bankrupt under the strain, and there was a crisis in the London insurance market. The area had already suffered damage from the Baltic Exchange bombing the year before. (see 1993 Bishopsgate bombing)
  • 1996 9 February 1996: The IRA bombs the South Quay area of London, killing two people. (see 1996 Docklands bombing)
  • 1996 15 June: The Manchester bombing when the IRA detonated a 1500 kg bomb which heavily damaged the Arndale shopping centre and injured 206 people.
  • 1996 15 February: A 5 lb bomb placed in a telephone box is disarmed by Police on the Charing Cross Road.
  • 1996 18 February: An improvised high explosive device detonates prematurely on a bus travelling along Aldwych in central London, killing Edward O'Brien, the IRA operative transporting the device and injuring eight others.
  • 1997 March: The IRA exploded two bombs in relay boxes near Wilmslow railway station, thereby causing great disruption to rail and road services, in Wilmslow and the surrounding area.
Refer also to the list of IRA terrorist incidents presented to Parliament between 1980 and 1994, listed halfway down the page here

2000-present

  • 2000 1 June: Real IRA bomb explodes on Hammersmith Bridge, London
  • 2000 20 September: Real IRA fired a RPG at the MI6 HQ in London SIS Building
  • 2001 4 March: The Real IRA detonate a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.[13] (See 4 March 2001 BBC bombing)
  • 2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA.
  • 2001 6 May: The Real IRA detonate a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.[14]
  • 2001 3 August: A Real IRA Bomb in Britain explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people.[15] (See 3 August 2001 Ealing bombing)
  • 2001 4 November: Real IRA car bomb explodes in Birmingham[16]

from other wikipedia article:

Neutrality?

The page is titled "Christian Terrorism", yet when it lists by country then it devolves into listing every single act of violence. An example is the UK listing "List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain", which has the Iranian embassy siege, animal rights activists, David Copeland and Islamic extremists. I'm removing the section until someone can explain how "Christian terrorism" becomes "Terrorism as a whole" and/or can fix it up so the July '05 London bombings aren't included under "Christian Terrorism". Chrissd21 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can show that there is a consensus in academic literature that these events were acts of Christian terrorism, then it is coatracking and POV to list them. TFD (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IRA

I'm arguing against the IRA being included for fairly simple reasons. Irish were predominantly Catholic, British were predominantly Protestant. British invaded, Irish rebelled but couldn't fight an all out war so the IRA was formed and guerilla warfare in their home country began. Terrorism started later, although even then a lot of the cases I've seen are para military being killed by the IRA which wouldn't count as terrorism since they were both combatants. A lot of the IRA bombings were in England and weren't aimed at people. The very definition of terrorism without any religious overtones. Now, it's true that they separated into Catholic and Protestant groups, but again, the Irish were predominantly Catholic and the British predominantly Protestant. That does not make it a religious war or religious terrorism. Attempted genocide by the British perhaps, but stretching it to Christian terrorism is far fetched. Wikipedia is supposed to report information, not change an ethnic cleansing/war into a religious war. Then there's the whole Catholics aren't Christians, but we'll get to that later. Chrissd21 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I fear that may be oversimplistic. Some of the major forces behind the republican movement were, in fact, Protestand and even Jewish. The issue I find more compelling is that the IRA violence was not based on religious theology at all - thus categorising it as "Christian terrorism" falls into the iffy area I noted abouve in "thinking out loud" as a minimum. Collect (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
See neutrality, which should guide us in how we categorize Irish terrorism. Most terrorism experts do not classify it as religious terrorism, but there is a minority that do. The challenge is to reflect this in the article. TFD (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"Attempted genocide by the British perhaps, but stretching it to Christian terrorism is far fetched." Thec only thing far fetched is this preposterously unhistorical and POV account of Ango-Irish history and wild accusation of attempted genocide. The claim that the terrorism is inspired by religion is hardly far-fetched, since it was specifically structured in terms of a Protestant/Catholic religious divide within Northern Ireland. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The IRA is not connected at this point to any theological purpose. As for the claim that the British were Protestant when they first "invaded Ireland" I suggest that the Treaty of Windsor antedates the Reformation <g>. Collect (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Irish Republican Army regarded bombing English targets as militarily and symbolic. They were responsible for attacks in England over decades, starting in 1939, and then a new campaign commenced after Bloody Sunday in 1972." There is no mention of Christian or any religious terrorism in these lines or the reference cited , as I have read over the archives I am going to be bold . The sentence itself states "militarily and symbolic" this is not enough for inclusive on "christian terrorism" .Murry1975 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on what was there (sourcing for "terrorism", but no sourcing for the terrorism being "Christian"), I think that's fine. But, as noted above, there are majority and minority views on the "Christian" aspects of it, and the door remains open to restoring some coverage of the topic to the page, with better sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If we just write about the crimes of the IRA, then it is a coatrack. What should be here is an explanation of why some scholars consider it CT and the degree to which most scholars accept their viewpoint. If people want to know what the IRA did, they can visit their article. TFD (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a really good point. In fact, that would be a good approach for the entire page, less about a dishonor roll of events and more about the way secondary sources deal with the concept. It may also be worth giving some coverage to the ways in which the rhetorical use of the phrase "Christian terrorism" has been used to make a point about groups as an argumentative device. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Kerala

I added the date to the article to give it persectve , another source and an outcome of the inquiry would make this a more solid source . If another source which isnt the sole acquisitions of an indidvidual and proof I suggest taking this paragraph out .Murry1975 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some further edits, noting that the source does not actually refer to any terrorism in Kerala itself, but only to funneling funds to a very distant region. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that , it makes it more neat . Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Catholic terrorism in Madrid

"A Mexican student was arrested in Madrid on Tuesday after posting his intention to attack anti-papal protestors with toxic gases, including sarin, on the internet."

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Student/detained/for/anti-papal/gas-attack/plan/elpepueng/20110816elpeng_8/Ten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.109.179 (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait to see if he's just a troll first, or if he actually had any noxious or poisonous gasses.
Ion Zone (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES

Set WP:TROUBLES for the possibility of sanctions (1RR) on articles which deal with Northern Ireland in any contentious manner (such as asserting the Irish are "reclaiming" NI which is being "kept" by the British.) We surely can deal with the issues in that section without having the sanctions invoked, I trust. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain the relevance to your recent edit which you summarize with "see WP:TROUBLES which seem to relate to the new edits abut the Irish simply "reclaiming" Northern Ireland". TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Read the ArbCom decision thereon - and which would clearly be invoked were this article to delve into "reclaiming of Northern Ireland" as a claim. IIRC, it was a sufficiently major case for old-timers to recall. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how the text you removed met the criteria. It did not for example use the term "reclaiming" which for some reason you decided to put in quotation marks. Frankly I have not seen any partisan disagreement over the conflict in this article, only differences over whether it was a national or religious dispute. TFD (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You missed: Culture and constitutional status of Northern Ireland as being reclaimed by Ireland or kept by the United Kingdom is the heart of the matter which does rather seem to use the word "reclaim" directly and precisely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I would presume "reclamation" would be a suitable wording covered, and that Collect's use of quotations was to indicate "reclaiming" in a general context and not as a direct quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMfromLI (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 November 2011
Collect, thank you for putting your comments in large type, which makes them easier to read. However, my understanding of the warning is that we should not use the term "re-claim" when speaking factually about NI, but that we may use the term in direct quotes or when paraphrasing people that use the term. TFD (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You had averred that I erred in using the word "reclaim" (Your claim was: It did not for example use the term "reclaiming" ) - it seemed to me that pointing out the precise usage in the edits would help you. Meanwhile read the WP:TROUBLES decision - it shows why using any such edits would, indeed, place this article under those sanctions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits - "No True Scotsman"

Some recent edits promoted the idea that Christianity generally opposes terrorism and murder, and then those edits were reverted for being POV. But I think we need to have this discussion, in relation to the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Essentially, all forms of anything bad, whether murder, terrorism, child abuse, etc., that is conducted through religious motivation, can be "dismissed" with the NTS fallacy. For those unfamiliar with it, it's like saying, "No true Christian would commit a terrorist act...therefore, the terrorist/terrorism was not Christian." If we allow it to stand as is, then the same kinds of statements can be used on all forms of religious misdeeds. (Osama bin Laden wasn't a "true" Muslim...Pedophile priest aren't "true" Catholics...Adolph Hitler wasn't a "true" Christian...etc.) Now, I did look at the page for Islamic terrorism, and noted that there is significant discussion of Muslim theological views on the subject, pro and con. I think, if we are to allow some sort of discussion regarding mainstream Christian opposition to terrorism, that it must therefore also be contrasted with the "justifications" used by those groups that do engage in those kinds of actions. Christianity (like all secondary religions; See: Jan Assmann) has had a long history of being connected to murder, death, and violence, from the beginnings of recorded Christian history in the Roman Empire, the Christian "Just War" doctrine, forced conversions, the Crusades, the execution/stoning/burnings of "heretics" and "witches," etc. Are all of these instances to be referred to as "not really Christian?" I think some kind of POV-neutral section on this should exist...but certainly not just an "apologetic" one based on the NTR fallacy. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Conceptually, there is nothing that prevents the use of the term "Christian terrorism". The problem is in finding examples. In recent years Islamic religious terrorism has become a major force, but note that we do not confuse that with Arab nationalist terrorism (e.g., the Abu Nidal group) which was carried out largely by Muslims. TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think there are some great examples on this page, particularly in reference to India and the USA. (I'm not really convinced about this Northern Ireland stuff, though...) I'm just saying that maybe a section discussing the theological/ideological "justifications" similar to how they are treated on the Islamic Terrorism page, might be a good idea. I doubt that we will find anything very easily from India, given the fact that most of the areas in question are fairly poor and not well-connected to the Internet...but I'm sure that we could collect sources from Christian scholars and religious figures denouncing it...and contrast those with the words of Christians advocating Christian Terrorism, or making apologies for it. (In particular, this would probably be pretty easy with the USA, particularly in reference to anti-abortion-related terrorism.) --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note I regard removal of my sourced content for act of vandalism. It is extremely contra-productive to blame something sourced for POV, by applying the same logic the whole article here should be then removed. The wikipedian rules state: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." There is nothing wrong with balancing articles in other direction if they are biased in one, and I very much recommend you do do the same. I'd like to ask you whether you see any room for my add-on after some adjustment or whether you prefer to continue areour dispute by means of higher standard dispute resolution methods, such as involving 3rd party mediator. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored your edit with all it's faults. I don't have the energy to argue.Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No, this edit does indeed have numerous issues, and should be discussed before being reintroduced. Right now, the most glaring issue is that the information was presented in the lead, despite not being reflected anywhere in the article. We certainly can't give POV commentary such as this equal weight to the entirety of the rest of the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you (Stephfo) do not understand the concept of "vandalism" or NPOV. You really should look at No true Scotsman. Saying, "It's contrary to the Ten Commandments, therefore it's 'Anti-Christian,' and not really 'Christian,' at all." is pretty much one of the best examples of this kind of logical fallacy in effect. This article is only "biased" or "inaccurate" if you disbelieve in the concept of "Christian Terrorism," because your weltanschauung is based on the idea that Christians can do no wrong (and if they do...they suddenly cease to "be" Christians...LOL). What you added was extremely POV, so the editor was correct in removing it. In such instances, it's best to then arrive at a consensus on the talk-page, as I have attempted to start here as a dialogue, rather than edit-warring. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but do not use quotation marks if the given sentence atributed to me is not mine, I did not write sentence of yours. I'm not edit warring, but if someone removes content based on wrong assumption (namely "information was presented in the lead, despite not being reflected anywhere in the article"), I feel free to correct it. I doubt you read edit summaries, if you would, you would find that there is a section named "Christian attitude to terrorism", it cannot be overlooked although I'm admitting it can be misunderstood. What I believe is unimportant, what matters is what scholars have written in sources. From my perspective your article parts are highly POV, so do I have the same right to remove it and say it should be discussed first in here? Pls. advise. --Stephfo (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I paraphrased much of your edit to create that sentence. I shouldn't have used quotation marks. Anyways, my "article parts" have gone through a LOT of discussion on the talk page, where I had to repeatedly present a ridiculous amount of sources to justify their inclusion, often after they were deleted (just like yours), and many of my sentences have been "adjusted" or edited quite a bit. (I haven't added anything to this page in a LONG time...) I haven't deleted or edited anything of yours, nor directly accused you of edit-warring...I've just stated that, before adding a lot of stuff like that, on a page of such a hotly-contested and controversial subject, it's probably best to circumvent the inevitable edit-warring that will certainly occur if it continues like this. Like I said, it's probably best for everyone involved to just try to find a reasonable consensus on the talk page. As I stated above, I'm not even saying that the information shouldn't be there...I'm just saying that there needs to be a less POV, and more even-handed, way of doing it...than by invoking a logical fallacy. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of Breivik section

Just a note: I reverted Nug's recent addition to this section, and subsequently cleaned up the rest of the content, including the removal of a few bad or duplicate sources and some irrelevant information, and the addition of a note on his declaration of insanity, sourced to the BBC. I'm happy to discuss the changes if anyone finds them controversial. However, my primary motivation was that the sources don't explicitly back up many of the connections being drawn. For instance, we were saying "[He was a Christian terrorist, however, his writings indicate he wasn't religious]", sourced here. The source doesn't say that; indeed, that's almost a cut-and-paste example from WP:SYNTH. Lastly, I'm not convinced the "insanity" bit I introduced belongs in this article. It has coverage, but really, what does it have to do with "Christian terrorism" generally? If anyone feels it doesn't belong, feel free to remove it without consulting me... In fact, I'm still considering reverting myself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the insanity part, and I've reverted myself. It seems the people calling Breivik a Christian terrorist are relevant, and the people disputing the label are relevant if notable, but the finer details of his case are not, at least for this article. That info can go in his article, but doesn't seem to belong in this one. For referemce. here's the content I wrote and removed.
  — Jess· Δ♥ 07:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that User:Mann_jess' revert of my edit with the comment "Please discuss your proposal on the talk page first. Edit warring over this section isn't helpful" is entirely inappropriate and somewhat dis-WP:HONEST, given that I had added new content not reverted any content. Not withstanding the apparent WP:OWN issues, I find this pattern of behaviour somewhat disruptive (he had previously removed a comment[4] on this talk page which I restored[5]). Mention of Breivik's sanity is entirely relevant given that much of the debate revolves around whether Breivik was a terrorist or a lone schizophrenic mass-murderer, but removal of this aspect effectively WP:CENSORs a viewpoint thus rendering this section WP:POV. Thus I have tagged the section. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Nug, you are correct that you added information instead of removing it. However, you have changed (or blanked) that section multiple times now, and have been reverted each time. You've also made proposals regarding that content which were largely rejected by consensus above. Consequently, editing in controversial new information once again is edit warring. You are, however, apparently correct that I removed your comment on talk. Sorry about that, it probably happened during an edit conflict. Thank you for restoring it. Lastly, POV tags are intended to direct editors to an ongoing discussion regarding neutrality on the talk page, not as a scarlet letter for articles you find disagreeable. Thus far, consensus appears fairly set that there isn't a POV problem, and there isn't an ongoing discussion, therefore I will remove the tag. My suggestion to make your proposal on the talk page and attempt to gain consensus, I believe, is a good one. Please do so. If you're able to convince others that the insanity bit is important to this article (an opinion I'm open to, obviously), we can include it, but I've already presented a few reasons above that I don't believe it qualifies. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is clearly ongoing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Mann_jess (talk · contribs), please don't lie. I have not "changed (or blanked) that section multiple times now" as you claim, I blanked the section exactly once then discussed it on talk when it was reverted per BRD. That discussion was about why Breivik should be removed from this article, there was no previous discussion about POV. Misrepresenting what other people say is disruptive and if you continue you may well end up being banned. Clearly, purposely omitting mention of the evaluation of two psychiatrists, appointed by the courts specifically related to the alleged terrorist acts, is POV. Until some cogent argument is presented on why we should ignore WP:NPOV policy, the tag remains. --Nug (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to edit war over a POV tag, but you've made two edits (1, 2), the second of which was after clear consensus that drawing conclusions from that information was synthesis. It's a far cry from dishonest to ask you to discuss your proposal before implementing it given the discussion above. If, as you assert, the discussion is ongoing... then by all means feel free to discuss it. I opened this section for just that reason, after all... but right now the only discussion taking place is an argument over whether there's a discussion taking place.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Again you are wilfully mis-repesenting my edit[6] and the previous discussion. That edit was strictly sourced and attributed without drawing any conclusion what so ever. You have yet to explain how omission of the assessment of two psychiatrists appointed by the courts in direct relation to the alleged terrorist acts complies with NPOV. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, the section in that edit that states a "complex interplay" of religious and non-religious motivation is not present in the source given. The only time that "right-wing" appears in that source is "Now here we have a right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and many people don't know how to react," and nothing concrete regarding the "non-religious" aspect. Someone should double check that source and remove that statement if my reading is correct. Noformation Talk 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Nug, I directly linked to a diff, so I'm certainly not aiming to misrepresent anything. As I stated above, I do not believe the insanity is relevant to this article, especially when the finding hasn't yet been reviewed. I don't see any way it could possibly be relevant, unless it was added in order to make a point about his motivations and speak to the validity of the Christian terrorist label. Indeed, the quote you added at the end seems to be doing just that. If so, we don't have a source for the connection. If not, then why is his insanity more relevant than, say, the content of his manifesto damning Islam and Marxism, or his stated worldview espousing Zionism and support for paramilitary groups? The insanity is very much relevant to his article, and to the attacks, but what does it have to do with "Christian terrorism"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Noformation, I noticed that. I only left it in because the sources we have sort of alluded to it, and because I had to remove one dead link which supposedly backed it up. I did remove the "non-religious" label, since that was unambiguously lacking in our remaining sources, leaving it as "[commentators noted Christian terrorist and right wing ideology]". I think I could justify that with our sources, but you're right that it could be rephrased to better reflect them. If you have an idea, please jump in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue here might be that Nug is assuming the premise that if Anders is insane then he isn't motivated by Christianity, and is arguing as though that premise is accepted prima facie. If one accepts that premise then those edits were fine, but obviously not all of us accept that premise. Noformation Talk 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll type this slowly so that you may be able to comprehend this. The issue in this thread is that we have reliable sources that report the findings of two psychiatrists appointed by the Norwegian courts in direct relation to the alleged acts of terrorism perpetrated by Breivik. Please explain how ommission of that fact does not tendentiously violate WP:NPOV policy. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Condescending language aside, consensus appears to disagree that there is a sourced relation between his insanity and Christian terrorism. This article is about Christian terrorism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. Making a connection where none exists in reliable sources is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. His insanity is basically irrelevant to the topic of the article. We report what relaible independent secondary sources say, not what WP editors infer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless, of course, a source in the future specifically says that his terrorism is unrelated to christianity - it is not enough to say he is insane, the source must also specifically state that he is insane, and because he is insane his terrorism is not christian in nature. That source does not currently exist as far as I can tell. @Jess: No, no big ideas here, I think it's fine now. I didn't notice it was changed. Noformation Talk 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are still ignoring the question of POV. You need to show that the view that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist" is a mainstream viewpoint rather than the minority viewpoint held a handful of pundits. Note that any talk page concensus you claim exists cannot overide Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. Current sources variously describe him an "anti-immigration extremist"[7], "mass murderer"[8] or "confessed killer"[9]. In fact searching google news with the terms: Breivik "mass murderer" gets 75 hits[10]; Breivik + "criminally insane" get 195 hits[11]; Beivik + "christian terrorist" gets only 2 hits[12]; and Breivik + "christian extremist" gets 5 hits[13]. --Nug (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm fine with having a POV-section tag stay there while the discussion continues, although I'm not convinced that anything new is being brought to the discussion, and fine with revising the section to incorporate new information. I don't see anything wrong with including sourced information about the insanity finding, so long as there isn't any SYNTH growing out of it. However, I think that it violates WP:UNDUE to devote a sentence to the one source that argues that he was Christian and a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist, while shortchanging the several other sources before it. I'm fine with including that source (in fact it was me who added it originally), but I object to presenting it as though it were the only correct commentary, which I think the current version of the section does. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No one is ignoring your assertion, most of us disagree with it. (ii) Of course consensus determines if the article is violating NPOV or not - everything on WP is determined by consensus. It is fine to disagree with consensus, but it has clearly formed on this page and in your opinion it is incorrect. Jess mentioned WP:DR and this is the next step if this topic continues because clearly no one is being convinced by your arguments. (iii) While "Beivik 'christian terrorist'" may only get 2 results, if you spell the name right "Breivik 'christian terrorist'" gets 174,000 results. I searched google, not news. But this is irrelevant either way. Also, if you search without quotes, you find quite a few sources that don't use that phrase verbatim but still label him as such (e.g. christian terrorism, christian fascist, etc) (iiii) The statements themselves are sourced, if you have a problem with the sourcing then you need to introduce sources that, as I wrote above, specifically state that Breivik is not a Christian terrorist. You cannot claim that because he is insane he is not a Christian terrorist as that would be OR without a source specifically refuting older sources. Noformation Talk 00:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Do I have to prove that Breivik is not a camel too? Your response with regard to Synth is not relevant to this thread which is about POV. You need to show that the view that Brevik is a "Christian terrorist" is mainstream POV in order for it to present it as fact, and how the ommission of the fact that Breivik has been diagnosed as criminally insane loner complies with WP:NPOV. --Nug (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@Nug, I think I'm about ready to duck out of this discussion. Consensus disagrees with you. Feel free to pursue WP:DR if you'd like.
@Tryptofish, I agree there's more work we could do on the section, but I'm not sure I understand what specific problem you're identifying. Are you saying there's too much weight placed on Brad Hirschfield's opinion, or too little? It seems to me the former. Should we remove the source altogether, or perhaps you have an idea for how to rephrase the paragraph?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a relative thing. I think it's too much emphasis in relation to the lack of emphasis on those sources that do consider him to be a Christian terrorist. We definitely should not remove the Hirschfield source entirely. Rather, we should balance him proportionately with, for example, Juergensmeyer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(i)If we had sources saying that he was a camel then of course you'd need sources stating that he is not a camel for us to change the article. The sources now are not stating he is not a camel (christian terrorist), they are saying that he is a camel and he is thirsty (insane). But they do not say that because he is thirsty he is not a camel, this is what you are claiming. (ii) Correct, to label him a christian terrorist it needs to be shown to be mainstream, we do this by sourcing and the claim is sourced. The second part is incorrect; now that we have sources stating X, we need sources stating that he is not-X in order to strike it. It's not enough to say that he is Y and therefore cannot be X unless the sources say that he is Y and therefore not X. That is not what the sources are saying, that is what you are saying, and that is why it's OR (iii) Obviously there is a big difference in opinion regarding policy here, with you and Collect (I think) on one end of the interpretation, and with me, Jess, Trypto and Dueces on the other end. If you really think that the consensus we've found is wrong then you are free to seek WP:DR, as Jess and I have pointed out multiple times, but at this point you're just arguing needlessly as it's not changing any of our opinions and likely will not. There's not much more to say here, so like Jess, I am ducking out. If you'd like to change the article, seek dispute resolution and I'll gladly discuss there. Noformation Talk 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Alas - it seems you misapprehend the rationale here.
  1. . The argument appears to be that if a person is a Christian and a terrorist, that it is proper to call him a "Christian terrorist". The weakness there is whether the sources ascribe the terrorism to a specific attempt to promote some Christian tenet at all -- and in the case at hand, it is clear that the current sources attribute the terrorism not to any Christian tenet, but to a severe delusional state.
  2. . If the article is about "Christian terrorism" as including terrorism (typo fixed - per "sic" comment made by another) made to advance Christian tenets or beliefs, then such delusions clearly do not make this person belong in this article - it is absurd to say that we need to find sources specifically saying he is "not Christian" in order to make te dichotomy. Requiring "negative sources" is something which has been a problem in the past on BLPs, and it has uniformly been found that Catch-22s do not work on articles which fall under WP:BLP.
  3. . I assert that the Breivik material here does properly fall under WP:BLP. Which of these points do you find meritless? And
  4. . WP:BLP can not be abrogated by any consensus of editors on any article. I trust that is understood? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood and disagree. This is why I recommended going to DR. All of us think we're right, all of us have laid out arguments, what else is there to do besides restate them 50 million ways or simply elevate this to DR? Noformation Talk 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well no, you haven't laid out all your arguments. I am still waiting for you to explain the basis of you belief that the claim Breivik is a "Christian terrorist" is anything more than a minority POV held by a handful of commentators. Given the WP:BLP issues involved, you will need to demonstrate conclusively that it is generally accepted as mainstream the view that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist". Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, particularly for BLPs. --Nug (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy to do so when you take it to DR. I'm under not obligation to explain things until you're satisfied as I do not think that we can come to an accord here. Noformation Talk 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup (break)

The issue as I see it is that saying that Breivik's actions were not "terrirsm [sic] made to advance Christian tenets or beliefs" is highly questionable, since any of the arguments put forth thusfar could be applied just as equally to any form of ideological terrorism. Breivik clearly believed that he was attempting to advance his own vision of Christianity - that his vision was based entirely on his own insanity does not mean that he committing terrorism in the name of his ideology. I also don't particularly understand how this is a BLP issue. The suggestions that you find a negative source are not out of a desire to create an inappropriate "prove a negative" situation, but because the section as it stands is already sourced, so an overriding source would need to be found to justify removing that information. eldamorie (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And I and others demur. The claim as sourced would apply equally that every single person who is a "Christian" who commits terrorism is thus a "Christian terrorist" which becomes absurd. See also the Northern Ireland claims for "Christian terrorism" when both sides are "Christian." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's you and "other", singular. But I would actually be in agreement with you if that were what was going on. I would reject the claim that someone is a Christian terrorist if we had sourcing only that the were terrorists and they just happened to be Christians. But when, as here, we have secondary sources that characterize Breivik as a Christian terrorist, I support reporting those sources, along with other sources that disagree. And, yes, we have sources who say that Breivik was a "Christian terrorist". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are sources that claim "Christian terrorist", but other sources claim he is not[14]. By the mere fact of inclusion into this article, you are attributing more weight to one viewpoint over the other. These sources supporting inclusion in this article could well have been cherry-picked and undue weight is being attributed to what may well be a minority viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
With that comment, you have come a long way from claiming that the insanity finding means he couldn't have been a Christian, and, for the first time in this discussion, you are making a substantive argument based on policy instead of opinion. I don't think the other sources were cherry-picked. Rather, we have a situation where the events are very recent, and yes, there are different sources saying different things. The question as to whether the "Christian terrorist" label is a minority one is a very serious question for us to address, per WP:UNDUE. It seems to me that a fair reading of the available sources indicates that there really isn't a "consensus" amongst the available sources as to exactly what Breivik's motivations were. There is a scattering of views, with some substantive ones saying that he is a Christian terrorist, others saying that it's complicated and he might be one, and yet others still disputing that he is one. I don't see it as something where we are taking a fringe minority of sources and giving them undue weight. I do support, and always have supported, including sources from both "sides" of the question. To write the section without acknowledging the sources that argue against him being a Christian terrorist would indeed be giving undue weight, by omission, to a minority of sources. To remove the section from the page would, however, be giving undue weight to a minority of sources, by omitting those that do conclude he was a Christian terrorist. It seems to me that the right thing to do is to retain the section, to be sure that it is balanced, and to recognize that things may change in the future. For us to conclude that the "Christian terrorist" label was a fringe view in this case would require either an historian or someone of comparable stature reviewing the sources that we have so far, and concluding that the "Christian terrorist" characterization was something that happened transiently during this time in history, but was subsequently disproven. Maybe that will happen in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that given that there isn't concensus amongst the available sources (which currently are opinion pieces in any case), just the mere fact of having an entry in this article intrinsically reinforces and gives undue advantage of one POV over the other, no matter how much you think you may "balance" it. The proper place for such speculation is in Breveik's article, not here. Rather than requiring some historian to prove the negative and assert that Breivik is not a "christian terrorist" before you would remove it, the more encyclopedic approach would be to move this section to Breivik's biography and only move it back when some scholar has appraised the sources and asserts he is a christian terrorist in a monograph or peer-reviewed paper. --Nug (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Where you call it "such speculation", it isn't speculation by Wikipedia, but rather reporting what the sources say. And if it were against policy or guidelines to say it on this page, then it would be just as wrong to say it on the BIO page. What you are really arguing is that Wikipedia cannot report, in a balanced manner, what the available sources say, until the sources are unanimous. We don't require what I said about an historian etc. simply to include information in Wikipedia. Rather, I was saying that we would need such a source in order to take it upon ourselves to focus only on the subset of sources that say Breivik is not a Christian terrorist, while excluding those sources that say that he is one.
Let's get specific. One of the sources we have is this one, [15], by Brad Hirschfield. You made an edit giving the argument he makes special prominence. You are arguing here that, in effect, he is correct and therefore we should remove the section from the page. Directly before that citation is another source, [16], by Mark Juergensmeyer. You appear to be arguing that we should not give as much prominence to that source, and that we should actually remove from this page any reporting of the view Juergensmeyer expresses. Can you explain, within policy and without resorting to your personal opinions or synthesis, why the first source is so much more reliable than the second? I doubt it. I, on the other hand, argue that the best we can do is to recognize that these are both secondary sources that are explicitly about Christian terrorism, and therefore they both belong on this page (and as long as we present them both, we are not taking a position simply by including Breivik on this page), and that we should afford them approximately equal prominence until such time as the preponderance of available sources indicates otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You want to refactor your assertion that "You made an edit giving the argument he (Brad Hirschfield) makes special prominence"? Anyone can easily check my one and only edit does no such thing[17], only to be reverted[18] with a bogus edit comment "Edit warring over this section isn't helpful". If we could just abide by WP:HONESTY, we may make some progress here.
When I say "such speculation", I mean speculation within the reported sources, not by Wikipedia. Have you noticed that Mark Juergensmeyer has a question mark in the title of his piece: "Is Norway’s Suspected Murderer Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?" as does the other source cited "Norway's shooter: Delusional loner or far-right conspirator?" by Robert Sheppard. Most of this speculation in these early sources was related to whether he was a terrorist versus whether he was just psychotic. But when I add confirmation by two court appointed psychartrists that he was in fact psychotic during the attacks, it gets promptly removed[19]. So much for you claim "I support reporting those sources, along with other sources that disagree". Hence the POV tag. --Nug (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Nug, I need to strongly apologize to you for a mistake that I made. I attributed this edit, [20], to you, when it was actually made by Mann jess. I continue to maintain that Mann jess' edit was WP:UNDUE, but I was obviously wrong to attribute it to you.
But, as for the substance of the rest of this issue, Juergensmeyer has a question as his title, but he answers the question in the affirmative in the text. It's just as much a secondary source as the one that Mann jess gave such prominence to. On the other hand, the court psychiatrists never said that they disagreed with Juergensmeyer or any other commentator about the "Christian terrorism" characterization. They only said that Breivik's mental capacity is such that he cannot participate effectively in his own defense. To go from that to the conclusion that they said that he wasn't a Christian terrorist is WP:SYNTH, and unfortunately we are back where we started in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well no, it is widely reported that the psychiatrists specifically assessed Breivik's state of mind at the time of the attack[21], it is misleading to claim otherwise. The diagnosis reduces the "political madness" that all terrorists share into just a "personal madness" of a lone psychotic killer: "This diagnosis may be the one thing that puts the terror of Oslo in the category of school massacres and Charles Manson"[22], and nobody claims Charles Manson is a terrorist. The psychiatrists report and the subsequent reassessment is missing from the article --Nug (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the sentence you quote from The Guardian goes on from the words you selected: "This diagnosis may be the one thing that puts the terror of Oslo in the category of school massacres and Charles Manson, instead of placing it where it belongs..." The author, who I should note treats the events as primarily right-wing terrorism instead of Christian terrorism, is rejecting the very argument that you are trying to make. Anyway, you will see that I added the psychiatrists back to the page, but minus the WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what about my edit was undue? Most of that edit was just removing content not backed up by sources, and rephrasing the remaining text to better reflect the sources. If the result was undue, then it was probably undue to begin with, just with bad sourcing as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you got some of it wrong. Please look above, at what I said about Hirshfield and Jeurgensmeyer to Nug, but should have said to you. Then please look at the edits I've made to the page, which I'm pretty sure get the sources right. If you still think I'm wrong, we can talk about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits are here. I don't see any WP:DUE issues being fixed there... just wording changes. The only change I can see regarding Hirshfield and Jeurgensmeyer is between attributing Hirshfield's claim, or saying "other commentators" instead. I think the latter is weasel wording, and since we only have one source for the claim, "other commentators" is giving more prominence to Hirshfield's views than attributing it directly. But again, I don't see what in my edit you've identified as undue weight, so I don't see the connection to this discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's the difference between saying "Brad Hirschfield has rejected the Christian terrorist label, claiming that Breivik is a Christian and a terrorist, but was not motivated by his Christianity" and saying "Some commentators have stated that the events were Christian terrorism, whereas others have rejected the Christian terrorist label." The first version (yours) focuses only on one commenter. I see your point, though, about weasel words, and I'll fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
All I was attempting to do is fix the weasel wording. The "some commentators have said it was Christian terrorism" part seemed unnecessary, given we've basically stated it already, so all that was left was to attribute the remaining comment by Hirschfield. Then, it was a small step to using his words directly, rather than just saying "rejected". Given its small mention relative to the rest of the section, I don't think that posed an undue issue, but it doesn't seem relevant now anyway; the current version still needs work, but it seems fine for now. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Good. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland (Continued)

--Hemshaw (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the problem is, almost all those attacks are attributed to groups with the stated aim of gaining political concessions, for want of a better word, in Northern Ireland. I'd narrow it down to targets that are definitely sectarian, such as Protestant or Catholic centres where the motive of the perpetrator is known to be religious. --Rowboatcop (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hemshaw, the material on England that you added most recently looks good to me on first reading. Thanks, and thanks also for taking this to the talk page. Expanding on Rowboatcop's comments, it is very important at this page to have secondary sources that establish that a specific event was "Christian terrorism", not political terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. Editors here tend to want to argue every jot, more so than at the typical Wikipedia page, because the material is inherently controversial. Some editors have partisan inclinations, while others take offense at any suggestion that a terrorist could possibly be Christian. The only way to put such disagreements to (something approaching) rest is to have high quality secondary sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Terrorism in Northern Ireland is normally seen as ethnic/nationalist between people of mostly Scottish and English ancestry who are loyal to the United Kingdom and people of Irish ancestry who are loyal to the Irish Republic. If there are incidents of religious terrorism, you would need to show that that is how they are normally described. TFD (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
TFD quote your sources in the discussion and avoid OR, as in doing ad hoc metastudies of the issue. Also you are not the filter of what is and what is not in this article, the community is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevakiPaladin (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I have presented multiple sources above but here we go again. See Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism, Chapter Five "Typologies of Terrorism" (p. 43): "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, lef-wing, right-wing, and anarchist.... 5.1 Nationalist Terrorism.... Some well known current nationalist terrorist groups are the Irish Republican Army...."[23] However it is up to people who consider it "religious terrorism" to provide a source. TFD (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with TFD here that this is primarily an ethnic/nationalist dispute. While those of Scottish/English ancestry happen to be predominately Protestant, and those of Irish ancestry happen to be predominantly Catholic, religion isn't the underlaying cause of the dispute like it was during the English Reformation. "Protestant/Catholic" is just basically a derogatory tag interchangeable with "Loyalist/Republican", as the dispute has more to do with British rule and unification with Ireland. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Either way, there could be many people who are of any of the religions, of any/mixed ancestry settled anyplace. Suggesting that it is better to go by reliable sources than some other understanding without consensus. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
After several months away I am really disappointed to come back and find that the section on Northern Ireland is still pretty-much all opinion. It's much better than it was at the beginning, but I notice that it is actually beginning to get worse again and some stuff which I seem to remember being deleted has crept back since I left. Overall, it doesn't really do any more than try to create casual links between Christianity and terrorism in Ireland. It is also still completely at odds with the main articles (including the one referenced as the 'Main Article'!) on the subject and doesn't attempt to weigh the issue or discuss it at all. I still don't see any real expert opinions or evidence for the subject. Given that the conflict in Ireland dates back around seven hundred years I would expect rather more evidence for this being a primarily (or even secondarily) religious conflict. I would like to repeat that there is a big difference between Christians who commit acts of terrorism and acts of terrorism committed in the name of Christianity. While both are lamentable, only the latter belongs on this page. As such, I have cut down one of the paragraphs and have also removed the following until someone can confirm or deny that the motivation for such was actually religious and that the use of the phrase "Roman Catholic" is not just the usual outsider-slang for Irish Republicans:
"Other notable individuals convicted for terrorism offences include Pastor Kenny McClinton, a convicted murderer who once advocated beheading Roman Catholics and impaling their heads on railings, and Billy Wright, a Born again Christian preacher who became one of the most feared paramilitary figures in Northern Ireland before being assassinated whilst incarcerated in prison.[18]"
I think we also need to clarify whether the Orange Order bombed Catholic churches because they were Catholic, or because they were assured of killing a lot of nationalists and none of their own side, which seems an like a much more logical and likely conclusion considering the fact that churches are sacred to all Christians regardless of denomination.
Ion Zone (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes that needs to clarified , however your recent edit contains no proof and the references contain no mention of the Orange Volunteers . Very bad addition to the article . Maybe a POV statement ?Murry1975 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

These political conflicts have no place in this article without proper citation to religious relevance. I vote complete removal of the Northern Ireland section. - chancet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.8.170 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They show citattion to religion being a motive , they should stay.Murry1975 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Breivik insane

Breivik has been declared insane[24], thus I have removed the section on Norway for obvious reasons. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted you. Nothing wrong with adding the new information to the page, instead of blanking the section, but being sane is not a requirement for something to be terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not being convicted under Norway's terrorism laws, upon what basis do you consider Breivik a terrorist, the writings of a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic? --Nug (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The short answer is the sources with which the section has been sourced. It isn't based upon his own writings, but rather, what secondary sources have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
All those secondary sources were written back in July, and were based upon Breivik's self description of "Christian crusader". We now know Breivik's writings are a result of a diagnosed mental illness. --Nug (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So? TFD (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact, most of the sources were not merely based upon his writings, but also upon reporting of a great deal of other information, observed independently, such as what happened during the attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And they knew back then that he wasn't necessarily sane. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I imagine most religious terrorists have something wrong with their brain. Noformation Talk 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A person found to be legally insane lacks the competence to have him labelled as a "religious terrorist" as far as I can tell. I note that so far it is only the doctors who have found him insane - but I did not find any Norwegian case where a court rejected the findings of the court-appointed psychiatrists. If there is no rejection of the doctors' findings, I suggest that he be removed from this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't been found to be legally insane yet -- the doctors assigned to evaluate him have released their report. The next step is for the court to decide what this means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think we're deep enough into WP:BRD that I hope everyone will refrain from blanking the section until there has been more discussion and consensus. If I understand correctly, what we have is the news that he was evaluated and found by a clinician to be insane. I'm not aware of any finding declaring that the attacks were not terrorism. Going from the clinical finding to a conclusion about either Christianity or terrorism, independently of any sources, risks being WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: my understanding of the Norwegian penal system is that one is still charged with and convicted of a crime regardless of their mental state; the difference arises in how that person is punished as opposed to how their actions are evaluated. So at the end of this, he'll either be guilty or not of the crime but may also be deemed mentally incompetent. Obviously sources will tell the story later and my opinion is just my opinion, but just wanted to point this out. Noformation Talk 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist" is based solely upon the interpretion of his writings by these commentators. Tryptofish's claim that these writers also used other information such as what happened during the attacks has no merit. All that can be observed from these attacks is that Breivik had an intense dislike of left-wing youth groups. The connection to "Christian terrorist" is based solely upon Breivik's delusional writings, where he also claimed to be a future regent of Norway pending a takeover by a non-existing templar organisation. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, those sources provide considerable sourcing for his actions being terrorism, and nothing about his competency to participate in his own defense at trial changes that fact. Beyond that, you are simply arguing that a delusional person cannot be Christian. No one is claiming the converse, that Christians in general resemble Breivik. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No -- and this article is not about "every terrorist who is Christian" - it requires that the religion itself be part of the reason for the terrorism (else it is utter nonsense as a topic). If the cause of the terrorism is unrelated to Christianity, then it does not belong here. I trust this is clear. Otherwise we could add every single terrorist who is Christian to this article, everyone who is atheist to "Atheist terrorism" and every Mormon terrirust to "Morom terrorism" etc. Which I rather suggest is contrary to Wikipedia policy ab initio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that religion (Christianity) should be part of the reason for the terrorism, for an incident to be included here. The sources say that, in this case, it was. The fact that the reasoning behind using Christianity as a justification was nutty does not negate that the justification took place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And as soon as you find some RS stating that he's insane and that the RS citing his religious motivations have been found to be incorrect, then you might have a case. Everything else is you making conclusions, and therefore OR. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So far, there is precious little to connect him to "Christian terrorism." If he is deemed insane, that precisous little evaporates. OR is not involved, I suggest you read what WP:OR is before tossing out that acronym <g>. Collect (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is the claim that Breivik is Christian, his own delusional writings? Many schizophrenic people believe they are Jesus Christ, Breivik happened to believe he is a "Christian crusader" who is part of a Templar organisation, soon to be Regent of Norway. Seriously guys. He may have committed acts of terror, but the link to Christianity is ultimately sourced to his schizophrenic mind. --Nug (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The same criteria used for ALL Christians: Their own personal statements of affiliation are enough to determine such a thing, and RS has determined that he certainly views himself as such. You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a pointless discussion. We report what reliable sources say, being sure to explain the degree of support opinions have. The contention that a person who has been deemed to be legally insane cannot be a terrorist or a Christian is an exercise in original research. TFD (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
A person who is a Christian but whose terrorism has zilch to do with Christianity is not an example of "Christian terrorism" by any logical process. In fact, it is "original research" to assert that an insane person has any motives not part of his insanity, much less asserting that his religion was the cause of his terrorism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
All terrorists can be asserted to be insane, so therefore there's no such thing as radical Islamic terrorism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sanity can be proven or disproven . Religion cant . In all logic anybody whose beliefs cant be proven are therefore insane .Murry1975 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Murray1975, insanity, in the lawful sense of the word, is determined by psychiatrists with skilled knowledge and set criteria. Here's one reason; with your proposal, all those living would be insane, because they believe the universe either had a beginning, or has existed perpetually, both explanations which follow no human logic. Are you proposing a wider criteria for insanity diagnosis? I would ask then for your basis for that. Moral imperative would not work to your advantage, for on the majority, terrorism is carried out by those with non-religious affiliation (extreme leftist groups). -chancet January 8, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.8.170 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted that was my point, other than that I was the only editor that responded to you above and now you reply only to a post over a month old. End of my specific conversation with you.Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, most terrorism in the world is conducted by Right-Wing/Conservative Islamist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, LeT, and what-not. Where would you get such a preposterous idea that most terrorism is by "extreme Leftists?" Like who? The Red Army Faction? ELF? Jeez. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Collect, you should read WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." In other words we may report what sources say but cannot develop our own definitions. TFD (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And you should avoid talking down to people who actually understand the policy. Or is that too much of a truth? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You obviously do not understand the policy. We report what reliable sources say and do not question whether they are correct in calling people who have been adjudicated to insane terrorists or Christians. TFD (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
@Collect, there's clearly some mishap in communicating here, but I'm not sure what it is. It appears that we have sources saying explicitly "he's a Christian terrorist". We have no sources saying explicitly "he's not a Christian terrorist", which is what we would need to invalidate our other sources. If you can provide such a source, we can evaluate it, but short of that, no argument or commentary can or should change how we report what sources we have. We just need a link, that's it. You're welcome to ask at the village pump, or a noticeboard, or RSN, or somewhere listed in WP:DR if you want clarification on WP:OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) IOW you assert that any terrorist who is a Christian should be part of an article on "Christian terrorism"? I find that an incomprehnsible assertion. Unless the driving force for the terrorism is religion, it seems that we would open the door to hundreds of people who have been terrorists being added here, and every Muslim who has been involved in any terrorist acts should then automatically be in "Islamic terrorism" ad every atheist in "Atheistic terrorism" etc. It makes a lot more sense to say there should be some reasonable nexus between the religion and the terrorism rather than require the "must prove it is not Christian terrorism" fallacious argument. Note that we have alrready determined for this article that the mere fact that IRA members and British soldiers are "Christian" does not mean we call all the terroriat acts in Northern Ireland "Christian terrorism." Nor ought we here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There are references given stating that his actions were based on views from from his personal relegious beliefs as a christian , whether or not these views are corect and of coherent thaught process is not the question , it is the fact that he based his actions around these thaught that define him as a religious ,and in this case christian , terrorist .Murry1975 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And I want to make it clear that no one is arguing that "any terrorist who is Christian should be part of" this article. What we are arguing is that inclusion is justified when the sources state that Christianity was part of the motivation for the terrorism (regardless of whether that motivation was rational). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Breivik's acts were motivated by a clinically diagnosed mental illness, not a political platform. Hence that disqualifies him from this article. Breivik is no more a "Christian terrorist" than Martin Bryant. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You need a reliable source that supports your opinion, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Under that "reasoning," I guess we should conclude that Hitler had no ideology either. Illogical argument is illogical. Either way, you lack RS. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The reliable source will be the psychiatrists' report when it is released. BTW, Hitler never was diagnosed by a court appointed psychiatrist, he was bad, not mad. --Nug (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless the psychiatrists explicitly discuss his ideological motives, it would be OR to make any conclusions based upon them. If a psychiatrist had concluded that Osama bin Laden was insane...it would not have suddenly "negated" his religious and ideological beliefs. It would not have been reasonable to then conclude, "Oh! I guess he really wasn't a Muslim! Or even an Islamic Terrorist! He was just crazy!" Your arguments have no validity according to WP standards. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it the psychiatrists make no mention of his alleged ideological motives, then there aren't any that were relevant to his actions. I don't know how you can invoke OR, when you yourself continue to make up hypothetical cases of Hitler's or Bin Laden's sanity. --Nug (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The "psychiatrists make no mention of his alleged ideological motives." Exactly!! Therefore, to use the psychiatrists' report to discount other sources, that categorized him as a Christian terrorist, is WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, a court appointed psychiatrist would mention any factor relevant to Breivik's motivation. No? --Nug (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I would expect they would be evaluating his medical competence to participate in his own defense at trial. But if you are saying that they addressed all of his motivations, then I would expect you to provide a direct quote in which they say that he was not motivated by Christian beliefs as he perceived them. Not a quote that he was insane. A quote explicitly speaking to his Christianity or the lack thereof, as a medical matter. All you are doing is making your own WP:SYNTH that, because they said he was insane, he could not really have had Christian motivations. The sources say he was deemed insane; what you conclude from that is WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then WP:CRYSTAL ends the discussion. Feel free to reopen it when you have a source which explicitly says he was not a Christian terrorist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing WP:CRYSTAL about it. There is already extensive reporting in the media about the findings of these psychiatrists which will be soon formally released. Then it will a case of a peer-reviewed medical report versus the personal opinions of politically motivated media pundits. --Nug (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there's an interesting commentary from ABC News in Australia, [25], stating that people who want to argue that Breivik wasn't a Christian terrorist are misusing the medical report to try to support their claim, and that this misuse is attracting criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, interesting that Tad Tietze should make that claim, given that he seems to be misusing a tragic event in Norway to advance his political agenda on his left-wing blog called "Left-flank". I guess it is a case of perceiving others through knowledge of one self. --Nug (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
When I used the word "misusing", I was basing it on what the source said, not on my personal opinion. You are doing the opposite. The take-home lesson: there is clearly a lot of spinning the news here, and Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources reliably report, and not to go beyond the sources based on editors' personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This source sums it up: "The truth about Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is bound to disappoint anyone on either end of the political spectrum who might have hoped to exploit his actions for propaganda purposes: he really was just a lone nut."[26]. If anyone hadn't noticed, all other terrorists mentioned in this article are a part of some organisation. It has been reasoned here on talk that Hitler and Bin Laden could be deemed "insane" too, but the difference is that these people were a part of real organisations, Breivik was a deluded loner who was a member of an organisation that only existed in his head. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are other examples on the page where there was a lone individual. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Under Nug's reasoning, were a Norway to tribunal to find that Bin Laden had been insane, then al Qaeda would not be a terrorist group. TFD (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A better analogy would be if the Norwegian authorities discovered that al Qaeda didn't actually exist but was a part of Bin Laden's "own delusional universe where all his thoughts and acts are guided by his delusions", then yes he would likely be declared insane. --Nug (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Nug, consensus appears to have formed. Your newest source still does not say "he was not a Christian terrorist". It's time to move on. If this continues, I'm afraid we're going to end up in WP:SHUN territory, which is no good for anyone. If you disagree, there's always WP:DR. Short of that, let's start doing something productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems to me that editors really have listened to the arguments for blanking the section, but those who continue to argue for blanking it are getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What About USA?

I think that everyone out there is gonna call me racist but USA is the biggest christian terrorism country. Why don't add to the article? They are bombing all muslims everyday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.2.141.121 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion notwithstanding, we would need reliable sources painting the US wars in the Mid East as acts of Christian terrorism. Noformation Talk 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know Americans were a race69.165.140.240 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed plenty of anti-Islam and pro-violence attitudes among American Christians, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out that many Christians in the US think of the wars in Southwest and Central Asia as a sort of righteous crusade. I'm not sure what would constitute reliable sources, though...could somebody give a hypothetical example or two?
(BTW, what did the originator of this section mean by "everyone out there is gonna call me racist?" As the poster above (69.165.140.240) notes, Americans don't constitute a race. Did you mean something different?) Mia229 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Assam

While it may be different in nearby parts of India, the Insurgency in Northeast India so dwarfs everything else (media says "hundreds of thousands"), that mention of Christian terrorism in Assam seems out of place (WP:UNDUE). Sort of like saying that the rights of Buddhists are being trampled in Somalia. But since the rights of everybody are being trampled in Somalia, it's a bit hard to notice! Student7 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

India is not in Somalia. However, none of the sources relate the Assam terrorists to Christian terrorism and therefore I will remove it. Remember that many of the Arab terrorists in the 1980s were Christians, but we do not call them Christian terrorists. TFD (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't read the sources then... This was all battled out in the Talk section a year ago, and your deletion of the entire section, obviously without due diligence, seems way beyond "bold." I'm amazed, because usually you don't act so recklessly. Furthermore, the articles (including ones from the BBC) explicitly describe the group's use of forced conversions to Christianity as a key tactic. They are the most explicitly Christian Terrorist organization on the planet, next to the KKK. What more do you want? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see this issue come up suddenly. A recurrent theme through all of the source material is forced conversion to Christianity. Over and over again, the sources seem to characterize the motivations as being explicitly about Christianity. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) Sources describe the NLFT as a a nationalist terrorist groups rather than a religious terrorist group.

  • The NLFT "is a separatist insurgent group...." (The Politics of Terrorism, Taylor & Francis, 2006, p. 191)[27]
  • "Nationalist terrorist group...." (Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, M.E. Sharpe, 2008, p. 378)[28]

TFD (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

One can be both. The NLFT has specific goals regarding the creation of a Christian State, and they forcibly convert people at gunpoint. If an "Nationalist" group, composed of Muslims, did this...we'd have no problem calling them "Islamic Terrorists," but because of Pro-Christian partisans at WP, we have a higher standard of proof for Christian Terrorists...even when plenty of people refer to them as such. [29] --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Your are showing a clear case of "knowing" the "truth" and it appears that reliable sources do not agree with what you know. As a result, you are edit warring to re-insert material which does not have a consensus for inclusion here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COLLECT:I'm not "edit warring," and you damned well know it. The India section is extremely well cited, and the RS clearly DOES agree with me. Like I said, this was already settled a year ago, and neither you, nor any of the other Pro-Christian POV Warriors has shown anything to the contrary. And deleting articles that explicitly state that these groups are Christian Terrorists does not mean that they are not. [30] There was already a consensus a year ago. No one has presented ANY information that ANY of the cites are incorrect. You are clearly injecting your "Christians can do no wrong!" POV on this subject, just as you always do. Clearly well-cited information, deleted without good reason, should be kept until consensus is reached. THAT is how the WP policy works. We don't let people wipe out huge swaths of information without cause, and then say, "Well, you can't re-add it until everyone reaches a consensus!" That's absurd, and you know it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
They are distinct categories. One aims to separate from a state, while the other aims to carry out God's will. On the previous page of your source it says, "The separatist/secessionist ideologies in the North-East are of the following type: (i) Ethnic, (ii) Ideological/leftist/Communist, and (iii) Religious. Many insurgent outfits combine the above-mentioned ethnic traits." Notice that the title of the book is Problems of Ethnicity in the North-East India. Clearly the author groups the NLFT under nationalist terrorism. There are of course religious terrorist groups, the most well-known is al Qaeda. Of course if one googles ""christian terrorist"+[name group here]" one will get hits. But that is the wrong way to conduct research. One should instead first identify sources for articles, then report what they say.
From your writing, I imagine you see religion as the cause of many of the world's conflicts. While that is an acceptable view, most sources, including the one you present, see conflicts as rooted in differences over control of land or other resources. While there are terrorist groups whose primary motivation is religion, they are relatively rare.
TFD (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone has a POV. And for the record, I'm a very religous person (just not a Christian). The information is well-cited, and this issue was already settled a year ago. Obviously, you are one of those people that don't believe Christian Terrorism exists, but that is not what the sources say. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly then this issue was not settled if only you make such an assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you are picking a fight, and nothing but intervention from moderators is going to fix it. You just, again, reverted the page to TFD's deletion, claiming that it's only me that is opposed to your "consensus," even though there are only FOUR editors who have commented on it, and TWO on each "side." (Take a look again.) This "consensus" was reached in a couple of hours??? Are you trying to be funny? This is not even CLOSE to the proper way to edit pages, and I'm going to be reporting this stuff to the appropriate venue. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The content in question sat here without controversy for many months before today's disagreement materialized. I've reverted it to the stable version, since neither "side" in this discussion is in a position to claim consensus, not that it hasn't stopped some people from doing so. If edit warring continues, I'm going to request full protection of the page.

And I have a question: Why did this issue suddenly spring up now? Has there been discussion of it elsewhere than here? It fails the smell test that a bunch of editors would only discover today that they don't like the sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Assam violence was recently in the news. Shrigley (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Shrigley! OK, that's an explanation of the interest popping up now. It doesn't, however, justify a revert war over violence that predates 2012, nor content that has been here since before then. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Current sources belie the claims made in this article - which means that the claims fail. BM, however, fails to accept what current sources state - and he accuses me at ANI of being "extremely pro-Christian" which means I somehow doubt that he is sans POV on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have current sources, that's very helpful. Do please bring them here, and discuss them in a manner that can lead to consensus. That's much better than summarily deleting the sources that already exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not having seen those "current sources", I'll ask about them again. But I'm guessing that those sources refer to current events, as opposed to the events discussed on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This absurd deletion nonsense has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts:[31] --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Absurd deletion nonsense" is rather an attack on your part -- the fact is that there is doubt as to the strength of the claims made, and thus we must use best sourcing, and not wjay you personally know to be the truth here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a rehash of a comment I made in April 2011:

How about the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism? In the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, it begins with this paragraph:
"Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." (p. 963)
Here is another line from the article: "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." (p. 967) The only way to conclude that this group does NOT fit into the definition of "Christian Terrorism," is if one has an agenda to deny the existence of "Christian Terrorism." In light of the many sources that have presented here, no other conclusion can be drawn. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You have provided a source attacking the prevailing academic consensus. Notice that the textbook Chronologies of Modern Terrorism that was published the following year still classifies it as a "Nationalist terrorist group...." You need to show that this alternative view has gained acceptance. Has it never occured to you this group may be in dispute with others because they want land to support their population and do not like the central government telling them how to live? Or is resistance always the result of an irrational belief system? TFD (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another BBC article about the NLFT. [32] Note what it says here:
"The NLFT is larger and better armed. It says it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian. The NLFT has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda."
Like I said, they can have more than one agenda...and they clearly belong on this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that only 90% of the NLFT's top cadres are Christian.[33] Certainly one would expect that 100% of al Qaeda'a top cadres are Muslims. Does al Qaeda encourage non-Muslims to join? How many al Qaeda terrorists are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist? On the other hand, I expect that 100% of NLFTs agree with the organizations stated objective to "to establish an ‘independent’ Tripura through an armed struggle". TFD (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Highpoint cites (given on the ANI/ page) make clear that the "conversion" was mainly from the 1840s, that while there has been terrorism in the past, even the Hindustan Times does not link religion to terrorism there - the areas in question are, in fact, heavily Christian to begin with per the Encyclopedia of India. Collect (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of edits ago, I was asking what I thought was a routine question about Assam, since it was in international news about the upheaval there. Tracking an incident there within the context of an overall uprising seemed WP:UNDUE to me. I would give an analogy, but not all editors understand analogies. Generally, though smaller incidents within the context of a much larger problem seem better off ignored. We have enough trouble getting accurate information as it is. Let's focus on a state where Christian terrorism is notable enough to produce sufficient headlines for analysis. Not a place where it is merely another incident within much greater turmoil that the police cannot investigate (having disappeared, along with the rest of the population, and BTW, along with valid reporters, as well). Student7 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's a pity that your good faith question got caught up in what followed it. Here's the way I see it. The recent headlines occurred after the events that are currently cited on this page. These things were not continuous. Rather, they occurred at separate points in time. Therefore, the events on this page weren't being swallowed up in the recent events, at the time that they took place. Although UNDUE is always a subjective matter, it seems to me that the section is sufficiently well-sourced to satisfy any concerns about page-section notability. Perhaps what would make the best sense to me would be to add something briefly indicating that the events recounted on this page were followed later by the larger-scale recent upheavals that were more nationalistic than religious. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern Baptists?

I see some talk on this talk page about the article supposedly saying that the Southern Baptists are supporting terrorism in India. Really? I see mention on the page of the "Baptist Church of Tripura". Is there something also about churchgoers in the US? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from, either. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Mentioned in at least two of the sources cited -- but indicative of how some appear to view it see [34]

Just a year before the NLFT started all these atrocities in India, the Southern Baptist Church of the United States of America had given a clarion call to bring the light of the gospel to “millions of Hindus and Jews lost in the darkness” of their religions

[35]

Since the foundation of the NLFT, the Southern Baptist Church has been supporting this violent campaign by providing funding and arms for the group.

One of the sources currently used in the WP article for calling the Christians "Christian terrorists" says, in fact:

Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions

Which means we should ascribe the claim of "forced conversions" per that source to "Radical Hindu religious groups" and not assert it was a fact. Collect (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC analysis is entitled "Tripura's tribal strife" and calls the NLFT one of "the two main separatist rebel groups". Certainly nationalist terrorists expect citizens to unite based on ethnic, religious or ideological lines, but they are distinct from religious terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, that have religion as their guiding influence. TFD (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
...and yet the BBC article specifically states, "The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura," and the one I just added to the talk page states that, "It says it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian." Also, you put a lot of credence in the articles which mention that X% of the members are Christian...but those articles never state whether that means the others are non-Christian, or whether they are simply not available for classification. Given the nature of the tribal areas of NE India, and the politics involved, it might simply be a trick of language. Either way, none of the RS says that X% of the NLFT are "Muslims," "Hindus," or whatever... You give all this credence to this minor percentage issue...but absolutely nothing to all of the RS describing them as Christian Terrorists, engaged in forcible conversions to Christianity, picking targets based on religious faith, and working to create a Christian State? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And you ignore what one of the sources in the article clearly states - that the claims are by "radical Hindu[s]" and not "fact, and you seem to think the Encyclopedia of India and the Hindustan Times are also wrong becasue you "know" that the evil Christians rape and murder Hindus there. Sorry -- your POV is showing far too clearly here. Collect (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles, both on the page and all over the Internet, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NLFT (and other Christian Terrorist organizations in the region) engages in forced conversions and the forced opposition to all non-Christian religions. Saying that they don't, in spite of news articles from the BBC [36] and elsewhere [37][38][39], is no different than Holocaust Denial, and done for the same reason: Apologetics for murderers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
REDACT that attack on me as a "Holocaust denier" post haste please. It is not funny, it is grotresquely objectionable, and is contrary to all Wikipedia policies on its face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You are suggesting that acts of murder and atrocity were just made up by "Hindu radicals," and didn't happen, even though they are reported in the media. And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No -- I cited the Hindustan Times for what it explicitly says. Yor continuing personal attacks are egregious at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah...and here's what that peer-reviewed journal article says about the NLFT's use of forcible conversions. (Note also that some members of the group left over disgust with these tactics...):
"Although the group’s advertised goals are the establishment of an independent Tripura, liberation from “Indian neo-colonialism,” curbing “exploitation” and the promotion of the indigenous languages and culture, its agenda and choice of targets seem increasingly influenced by militant Christianity. The latter factor gained prominence since 1998, after a series of incidents and raids where NLFT fighters targeted Hindu temples and families of Hindu priests to intimidate local tribals into conversion to Christianity. At the same time, internal splits and defections of cadres and fighters indicate increasing unease with the NLFT’s leadership’s militant-Christian course." (p. 965)
"To what extent its ideology and agenda are influenced by militant Christianity—and Baptism in particular—is a question that gained prominence since 1998. That year saw a series of raids where NLFT fighters specifically targeted Hindu temples and families of Hindu priests to intimidate local tribals into conversion to Christianity. Later, in early 2001, nearly 125 NLFT fighters and cadres left the group because of what they claimed to be pervasive corruption among the senior NLFT-leadership and the latter’s forcible conversion of NLFT cadres and tribal civilians to Christianity." (p. 966)
"According to Subir Bhaumik, one of the few scholars who closely monitors the situation in his home state Tripura since the beginning of the insurgency, “contrary to older tribal opposition groups the NLFT increasingly has a more overt evangelical-Christian angle in its discourse. NLFT leaders repeatedly stated that village leaders should convert. Forced conversion of non-Christian tribals by NLFT fighters using rape as a means of intimidation, have become an increasing concern.”" (p. 967)
"One observes an increasing number of forced conversions preceded by warnings that those who do not will be considered “traitors” and “servants of the Bengali and the Delhi government” and “bear the consequences."" (p. 967)
"The Tripura Baptist Christian Union also officially distances itself from the NLFT and its actions. On the other hand, it cannot prevent that part of the NLFT leadership highjacked Baptism and uses it as an ideological framework for a separatist agenda and ethnic cleansing. It could also not prevent that a number of individual members and preachers have sympathies for the group and even participate in forced conversions, or that NLFT fighters escorted Baptist preachers to villagers on proselitizing stints." (p. 968)
Is there now any question that this group conducts forcible conversions? Or are these academics, and the peer-reviewed publication that printed their paper, part of some evil, Anti-Christian "conspiracy," hatched by Bryon Morrigan himself, for the sole purpose of smearing the "good name" of Christianity, which has never done anything wrong or evil, in the history of Humanity? /sarcasm --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


OK, so all of that argument is about something that is stated in some of the source material, but that is not repeated here on the page. In other words, because one can find controversial claims in some of the sources, it's not good enough to leave the controversial claims off the page, in deference to the preponderance of sourcing per WP:UNDUE, but we have to delete the entire section for fear that our readers might actually go and look at some of the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Nagaland and Assam claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion that there was no consensus either way, so the request to remove the selection on Tripura and Assam defaults to the preexisting revision which included the content (in the stable version.) If you still feel the content needs changing/removing, start a new RFC on what needs to be changed. Regards, — Moe ε 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The artucle currenly asserts that "liberation groups" in Nagaland and in Assam are "Christian terrorists." Do reliable sources allow using the Wikipedia voice to make such claims? The claims include assertions that Hindus are forcibly converted, that they are supported as terrorists by Southern Baptists, etc. Current events noted in reliable sources do not support the charges of "Christian terrorism" nor does the "SATP,ORG" used as the reference for some of the claims make any claim of "Christian terrorism." 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I found the current sourcing to be insufficient for the claims made about political organizations, and note that prior discussions have been fairly evenly split thereon. Collect (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Note the reading I have of the SATP.ORG page is insufficient to warrant the claims made. (That one group is 90% Christian in leadership, but not in membership != "Christian terrorism", nor is the claim that the Southern Baptists are a terrorist organization.) Collect (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment from involved editor. The characterization as "fairly evenly split" is a bit, um, imprecise. There are numerous sources documenting forced conversion to Christianity, and the word "Christ" in the self-given names of the terrorist groups. I hope that uninvolved editors will simply read what the page says and look at the sources cited, and not be misled by what's on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
IOW, any organization with "Christ" in its name is "Christian terrorist" by your standards, whether or not the "terrorism" is related to the Christianity of its leaders? Collect (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And I'd bet that if the organization had the words "Muslim," "Pagan," "Hindu," or "Atheist" in their name, he'd have no issue with referring to them as "XXX Terrorist." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That has to rank with the most asinine posts on any topic in the history of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nor was that response particularly helpful. As I already said, I hope that uninvolved editors will look past the unpleasantness of this talk page, and look directly at the page content and the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any need to make that bet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment from involved editor. There are numerous news reports, from local Indian entities, as well as outside ones like the BBC, noting the various organizations' Christian objectives (forced conversions, establishing a Christian State, prohibiting non-Christian activities, assassination of non-Christian figures, etc.). This is nothing more than a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh yeah, and the SATP article clearly states that the NSCN manifesto includes the goal of a "Nagaland for Christ." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The NLFT's main objective is to "to establish an ‘independent’ Tripura through an armed struggle". There is no restriction on non-Christians joining and 10% of its top cadres are not Christian. Sources describe it as a nationalist or separatist group. TFD (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Similarly the "National Socialist Council of Nagaland" has as its objective, "to establish a ‘Greater Nagaland’ (‘Nagalim’ or the People’s Republic of Nagaland) based on Mao Tse Tung’s ideology. Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a spiritual outlook – ‘Nagaland for Christ’."[40] Since Nagaland is 90% Christian, it makes sense that the group accepts Christianity but their main objective is independence. TFD (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Request for Comment Agartala_City_Baptist_Church Response: This particular article is from only one point of view, and both Hindus and "Christians" have committed what could be construed as "terrorism". In this state, Hinduism is the majority religion, with 85.6% of the population following the religion, with Christians making 3.2% of the population Tripura. Also, there is no mention of Hindu mobs attacking the Krishnanagar Baptist Church, and "fundamentalist Hindus are adamant that they will not allow anyone to worship in the Krishnanagar Baptist Church." [19] Also, Religion has always been a source of tension in this state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agartala_City_Baptist_Church so if this article is included in the Wikipedia, there really should be mentions of all the attacks and oppression the Hindus have had on the Christian minorities. As such I will place a neutrality flag on this article. This is really an internal state struggle and the entire article should be moved from "terrorism" to the Tripura page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripuraTripura under a heading called something to the effect of "Groups seeking independance" If you would note - the KKK is listed here and were not seeking an independant state, they were terrorizing another race. Patriot1010 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing that you posted is proof of POV. The citation you referenced is not RS (It's a Christian, POV news site. If I used one of the many Hindu news sites (like this one: [41]) to "prove" something on this page, there's no way that it would survive vetting.). Also, the church you referenced...on the WP site itself...is accused of being involved with the NLFT. The only thing "POV" here is your attempts to whitewash the issue. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems to me that your concerns are different than those for which this RfC was posted. However, this page is about Christian terrorism, not Hindu terrorism, and therefore the fact that there may have been terrorism in both directions, however relevant it is to the real-world conflict, is not relevant to the editing decisions we have to make here. Nowhere does the page say that what happened in Tripura is identical to what the KKK has done, only that they are each facets of this subject. As for the extent to which it is "an internal state struggle" unconnected to Christian terrorism, what matters is how the sources treat that question, not what editors believe. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just stating the obvious, do what you want then Patriot1010 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is biased because it departs from mainstream scholarship that identifies the violence as resulting from ethnic, nationalist and separatist tension rather than religion. The KKK and most of the other groups in the article should be deleted as well. The article should be about Christian equivalents of al Qaeda. TFD (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment from involved editor. The problem that we have had with this article, which has seemed solved until recently, is lack of reliable sources. We have one report from an unbiased source that there is Christian terrorism in the region. Specifics are a bit hard to come by. The media doing the reporting is biased. So are the authors of the articles, most of whom are getting reports second or third hand, and are Hindu, writing for a Hindu audience. We would not accept this in a first world country. We have tried to separate out exaggeration as best we could. The media reps are apparently afraid of actually visiting the area for first-hand reports. But there is all sorts of violence, having nothing to do with religion, per se. So I am not volunteering, even for money, to collect the reports first hand myself! But the reports need to be handled with objectivity. Even in the best of WP:RS, we generally have to skip something that sneaked in there that is pov. In the reports we are getting from Hindu media, we have to skip a good deal more than that, unfortunately. So we will not be able to present a totally accurate picture of what is happening. We have to submit every sentence to the "smell" test? Does this truly make sense, or is the media simply playing to its audience? And the "other side" (Christians) aren't really reporting anything. So the problem is: are they not responding because they are guilty as charged or because they have no idea that the reports are circulating and anyone is believing them? It's the toughest article for screening reports that I am working on. Up until recently, I thought things were going pretty well, considering the obstacles involved. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
TFD may have a point on the KKK, which I probably supported as an entry originally. The KKK was anti-black in its last two incarnations. But anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic, as well. Pro-Christian was more of a pose to solicit support (most blacks and Catholics were at least as "Christian" as most KKK members!). The article on KKK does not support the "Christian terrorism" as it had in the past, I don't think. It tended to be "ethnic" rather than religious.
A lot of violence in past ages was laid at religion's door, when it was actually much more national and political. While it is "neater" to lump Europe's "religious wars" into one fault, the motivation was often greed amongst the nobles. Religion was merely a "good excuse" to enlist public support. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion and OR regarding the issue is irrelevant. There was a lot of heated discussion on many of these issues (such as the KKK) about a year ago. Go back and re-read those discussions, rather than making us fight them out all over again, rehashing the same arguments (pro and con) for no apparent reason. That's what started the most recent "war" over Tripura and Assam, and messing with sourced material without good reason will just create another firestorm. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:05, 24 August 2012 (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.
  1. ^ "1971: British minister's home bombed". BBC News. 12 January 1971. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
  2. ^ Bright, Martin (3 February 2002). "Look back in anger". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
  3. ^ Bomb explodes in Post Office tower On this day report by the BBC
  4. ^ Bomb blasts rock central London On this Day report by the BBC
  5. ^ IRA bombs parliament On this day report by the BBC
  6. ^ Bomb blast in London club On this Day report by the BBC
  7. ^ [42] Report
  8. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_2528000/2528787.stm
  9. ^ Picture and brief report.
  10. ^ IRA bombs Stock Exchange On this Day report by the BBC.
  11. ^ IRA bombs Manchester On this Day report by the BBC.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference De Baróid 2000 325 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Bomb blast outside BBC". BBC News. 2001-03-04. Retrieved 2006-09-22.
  14. ^ "Second blast at London post office". BBC News. 2001-05-06. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  15. ^ "Car bombers rock west London". BBC News. 2001-08-03. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  16. ^ "Bomb blast in Birmingham". BBC News. 2001-11-04. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  17. ^ "Norway massacre: Breivik declared insane". Retrieved December 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  18. ^ Martin Dillon. God and the Gun: The Church and Irish Terrorism. Routledge. ISBN 0415923638.
  19. ^ "Mob Attacks Church In Tripura, India". Compass Direct News Service. March 18, 2001.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_terrorism/Archive_9&oldid=1160912557"