Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Wisconsin Sikh Shooting

I'm not going to add anything to the page about it, but I just noticed some stuff in the news about Juergensmeyer calling it "Christian Terrorism." As yet, I've seen no specific evidence that religion played a part in it, as opposed to his white supremacism and likely "Anti-Muslim" beliefs...but I figure we ought to have a thread to discuss anything that comes up, rather than fighting it out on the page itself. In one of the articles about his band, "End Apathy," there's a mention that the lyrics dealt with religion (among other things), so we'll have to wait and see. Some of his language (Like "Racial Holy War"...) makes it sound like he might have been an adherent of Creativity (religion), which would rule out "Christian Terrorism." Here's a couple articles, both featuring Juergensmeyer: [1][ht::tp://www.accuracy.org/release/29307/]. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are articles calling him a "white supremacist" but nothing that indicates the acts were designed to promote Chritianity in any way AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying it's better that a place exist on the talk page for a few days, rather than having random editors see "Christian Terrorism" in the articles and start an edit war over it (like what happened with Breivik, IIRC). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt random editors would try it - and I would quite likely find such an addition violative of WP:BLP myself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I got up this morning, heard news on the radio, and wondered to myself if someone was going to try to add this to this page. We shouldn't. At this time, the preponderance of sourcing that I've seen frames it as racial much more than religious. It's interesting that we have one source, and a mirror of it, in which Juergensmeyer uses the appellation, but it strikes me as an outlier. If some further sourcing comes along calling it Christian terrorism, then we can discuss it. For now, it isn't even worth discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Resolution

The NPOV tag has been sitting on the section about Breivik/Norway since December of last year. Is the dispute still live, or can we remove the tag? 198.204.141.208 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support removal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream view is not that Breivik was a Christian terrorist and therefore I will remove information about him unrelated to that claim. TFD (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish you had seen and discussed this matter before I removed the tag. Anyway, I noted that the single sentence you retained named two sources that support the "Christian terrorist" label and one source that disputes it, yet your rationale for removing the rest of the section, including all of the context, was that the majority of sources go the other way. I restored only part of the material, omitting most of the courtroom issues, but leaving enough information to introduce the context, and to explain where the "Christian terrorist" arguments come from. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is only a minority opinion that actions are Christian terrorism, then the article becomes a coatrack if we depart from explaining why they are seen that way, and go into their actions at length. The article then becomes a polemic, attempting to persuade the reader to a minority opinion. While you appear persuaded that the motivation for many acts of terrorism normally beleived to be ideology, nationalism, racism, single issues, etc., are in fact the Christian religion, we cannot promote that view unless you can demonstrate that that is the mainstream view. TFD (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that we keep having the same discussion over and over again. On the evidence, the material that you, yourself, supported said that there were two sources explicitly applying the term, and one source explicitly disputing it. The portion of the material that I restored makes very clear that the majority of sources see his motivations as complex, rather than monolithic. Having complex motivations is not the same thing as not having the motivation at all, and that's what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really not that clear for this article. His article says "Breivik described his far-right[11] militant ideology in a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, which he distributed electronically on the day of the attacks.[11][12][13][14] In it he lays out his worldview, which includes Islamophobia, support of Zionism[11] and opposition to feminism.[15][16] It also expresses support for far-right groups such as the English Defence League[17] and paramilitaries such as the Scorpions.[18] It regards Islam and "cultural Marxism" as "the enemy", and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the Beneš decrees.[19][20] Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto.[21] Breivik had been active on several Islamophobic and nationalist blogs, including document.no,[22] and was a regular reader of Gates of Vienna, the Brussels Journal and Jihad Watch." So maybe "Zionist terrorism" would be more appropriate?

It seems more right-wing, Islamophobic, than "Christian" to any great degree. This is hardly (say) Jonestown or Waco, where religious motives predominated. Maybe he flew "Air Norway" and shopped at Wal-Mart, but neither of these were predominate motives for his actions. Either. Student7 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got some tough pages on my watchlist, but this one may be hardest of all to really reach agreement about. Per WP:CIRCULAR, I could argue that his BLP under-emphasizes the sources that characterize his motivations as Christian. We've got sourcing here, and at least I think we can all agree that the sources describe his motivations as complicated. In my opinion, the page accurately represents the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the difficulty.

One of the problems is these guys (generically) don't really have all their oars in the water. When caught, they may try to say things to justify (in their own mind) what they have done. He could hardly have said "global warming" in view of his online blogs, but it may have crossed his mind. He doesn't seem particularly religious IMO. I'd like to see a religious terrorist attend church or contribute to a religious blog, or something to indicate that "religion" was either a main motivation (doubtful, BTW) or a contributing one (possibly). Student7 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And I, in turn, appreciate the constructive way you said that, which is so much better than the adversarial tone that often emerges, in both directions, on this talk page. Yes indeed, this page would be a lot easier to write if terrorists were thoughtful, rational, articulate people. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reading the article and i have to agree, NPOV is somewhat bent here. Rewording is needed in some text and better references -- testable references -- could probably be found. It was suggested to be a couple years back that I look at this article since it was lacking neutrality, among other issues. Now I see that some of the old issues have not been addressed still. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Lambs of Christ

The link on the Lambs of Christ sends you in a circle to this article (Christian Terrorism). Can someone either correct or delete the link? Thank you. 69.42.34.171 (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking further into the history, I see that the page was an actual article before being turned into a redirect. I don't think that there was ever a deletion discussion. Instead, the old talk page indicates that someone apparently revised it to be an NPOV-violating defense of the group. It might, perhaps, be appropriate to recreate the page in an NPOV-compliant manner, and restore the link from here. I'm not going to do it myself, unless there is consensus to do so, and one should also make sure that doing so does not violate any restrictions about abortion-related material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples are too narrow

Why doesnt organizations like Greece independence movement(Tens of thousands of Muslims were killed, hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed), Armenian and Assyrian uprisings count as Christian terrorism? When Muslims do exactly same thing(Palestine, Al Qaida) they are labeled as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean why does the media not label it that way or why doesn't Wikipedia? If you mean the media then I don't know the answer. If you mean WP then the answer is: because other media doesn't do it. We use terminology from reliable sources, so if there's no source calling it terrorism then we don't call it terrorism. N^oformation ^Talk 06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious terrorism is terrorism which has a religious motivation. Before al Qaeda, most terrorism in the Middle East was motivated by nationalism, and the Abu Nidal group etc. are not called Muslim terrorists. In fact, many of their leaders were Christians. TFD (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the article even begins with the text, Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions which includes the motivations for military State-sanctioned terrorists, whether Islamic, Israli, Christanic, or any other religion-motivated acts of terrorism. I also find the WP article to be greatly lacking in legitimate scope. Damotclese (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of other cases, though I'm not sure if the Greek independence movement would count, given that it was also a national independence movement. There should certinaly be something about the break-up of Yugoslavia, which was as much a religious conflict as an ethnic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solri (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be a section about Christian terrorism in Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police kidnapped native children throughout the country and put them in death camps called "residential schools". These were run by Catholic, Anglican and United churches. If the children were caught laughing, reading, hugging, talking of their Native heritage or speaking their own indigenous language they were severely punished by priests and nuns. These so-called "schools" were designed for genocide and had a 50% death rate. More than 50,000 children were killed from beatings, starvation, rape and torture. The church mass murdered children who refused to convert to Christianity and then stole their land. Volcanoguy 22:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems more like a general cultural issue than a religious issue - looking into likely sources on Questia suggests you are interested more in "righting great wrongs" than in making this an NPOV encyclopedic article, alas. Collect (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You would need a source that describes this as Christian terrorism. Most writers do not describe overt government actions as terrorism, but include it under crimes against humanity. Also, terrorism is usually classified by primary intention. In this case the policy was persued in the interests of the state - to develop a population that would contribute to the economy and defend the provinces - rather than promotion of religion. Note also that it involved more than one church, while religious terrorism tends to be carried out by individual sects. The schools btw were not "designed for genocide." TFD (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually they were "designed for genocide". Go look for a source yourself that says they were not designed for genocide. They killed the natives in those buildings on purpose to depopulate them and destroy their culture. I don't know if you two are Christians or not but I know Christians like to hide the facts so they don't get in trouble for it, such as what happened in these so-called "residential schools". How is this not a religious issue if the abuse came from Christian churches and using religion to kill the people? Christianity is an abusive religion and I maintain that. Volcanoguy 02:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We now know that you simply "know" Christianity is evil, and that you would like Wikipedia to make it clear to everyone. That is, however, not what Wikipedia does - we do not "right great wrongs" and we do not "show people the 'truth'", we are, as Johnson said, "harmless drudges" of a sort and try to act within the policies and guidelines of the project. Collect (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I think Christianity was the single worst development in the history of Civilization...but the stuff you're describing doesn't belong HERE. I'm sure it belongs SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia (Canadian Indian residential school system), as do all of the vicious Christian attempts to destroy Native religion and culture, but THIS page deals with a fairly specific, and yes, "narrow" definition of Christian Terrorism. If we expand it beyond those very specific and narrow confines, I guarantee you that this page will be destroyed within days. The Christian WPers are ALWAYS looking for reasons to eliminate this page, and we don't need people giving them the "excuse" to do that. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

India is also experiencing a major problem with Christian terrorism. The problem is that most editors are reluctant to admit that there even is such a thing as Christian terrorism, and those who do admit it exists are loath to accept that a great many acts of Christian terrorism is Christian terrorism. Bias trumps dispassionate reporting, coupled to the endless effort to fighting to retain and restoring text covering Christian terrorism as editor after editor comes in and removes text merely because they don't agree that various incident acts are in fact Christian terrorism.

It's the same with Islamic and Israeli terrorism, there's just too much bias to make an inclusive, well-rounded Wikipedia article covering such phenomena. After all, none of the editors are paid to edit copy whereas everyone has bias. It's not worth the effort to defend text that encompases the whole of religion-predicated terrorism, so the articles covering the phenomena (including the extant one) remain skelital and weak. Damotclese (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "major" violence in India by Christians. For starters, they are not sufficiently numerous to cause many problems even if they were all violent! Anyway, there is Religious violence in Odisha, and National Liberation Front of Tripura, in areas that are remote and where there are "other issues" (tribal, for example) as well as religious. There may be a few others. Student7 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism in India committed by Christians is usually classified as ethnic or nationalist terrorism. Tipura nationalist terrorists for example are mostly Christian but a good number belong to other religions or no religion as well, while al Qaeda does not include Christians, Jews and atheists. Similarly we do not classify Palestinian terrorism as Islamic terrorism, which has mostly been carried out by Muslims, but by Christians and atheists as well. TFD (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's true, [[[ethnic clensing]]] often utilizes religious differences as an excuse, so it becomes a question of motivation, further muddying the classification of what is Christian/Islamic/Israli terrorism and what is not. Economics often drives slaughters, war crimes, and atrocities as much as minor and major religious ideologies differences and yet the religious aspects of economics-motivated terrorism often leap to the forefront of mainstream news coverage, the economic and ethnic realities that are the driving force often get downplayed.

The issue here is complex enough that no Wikipedia article can cover things accuratly and well, entire history books -- indeed entire shelves of history books -- discussing religious/economic/ethnic inhumanity has not been enough to fully encompass the whole of the ugly phenomena. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian section about India

It's getting too big, actually I got a lot more to add, so how about if we create a whole new page called Christian terrorism in India? Kindly share your opinions. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a POV fork as it seems a trifle reliant on less-than-RS sourcing etc. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Describe some more, this is not enough, find me one non-reliable source in whole Indian-section? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In Collect's Christian-Supremacist world, anything that criticizes Christianity, especially if written by brown people, is "Less-Than-RS". TFD's complaining about the India section has apparently emboldened him to conduct another "Crusade". They happen every so often, and this talk page is full of examples, going back years. Congratulations, TFD! Keep on empowering the Right-Wingers and their attempts to whitewash the record of atrocity! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Sheesh -- how many poor sources will you need pointed out to stop this? Rajeev Srinivasan is not a scholar in the field. He works in "sales and marketing" and is not an authority on the subject by a few kilometers. His blog in "DNA" starts off with

There is a motivated campaign going on about alleged Hindu terrorism; its a Goebbelsian kind of truth created by repeated assertions in the media.

He then goes on about "Jewish terrorism in Palestine" etc. in a long screed which fails WP:RS by a great distance.

"South Asian Terrorism Portal" also appears to fail WP:RS. And even it ascribes "socialism" as the primary goal of the "National Socialist Council of Nagaland." The SATP ascribes the terrorism support to such Christian nations as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma. In some strange quirk, the SATP has a multitude of articles blaiming everything on "Islamic terrorists" as well. That both of your main sources so outrageously fail WP policies is interesting. Cheers. I suggest both sources be removed and excised from this article as failing to meet the required standards. Collect (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@B< -- your personal attack is unwarranted. Your tone is unwarranted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Holding up the recent addition of Rajeev Srinivasan as an example to show how "non-RS" the India section is, is clearly a strawman. And from where do you get the idea that SATP fails RS? Did you look at who created that site? [2] I know it's a bunch of non-Christian "brown people" with PhDs and all, and you don't like that, but apart from that, where's the objection? Also, everything sourced to SATP can be easily found all over the Internet. (Seriously: Just Google "Nagalim for Christ".) This is just another of your attempts to "chip away" at this section, and if you have no new arguments that haven't already been discussed over the past few years, (and soundly defeated) then please get a new hobby. Your constant, partisan disruption of this talk page is not constructive. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk

2 sources so far? Anyways if there were as reliable sources as others, there would be separate page? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Satp.org at Reliable source noticeboard

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Verifying_reliability_of_a_source_for_Christian_terrorism <- Here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability

There is new material which reads: "According to Rajeev Srinivasan, many of the terrorist incidents inside India were either funded or operated by some Christian terrorist group.(reference)Srinivasan, Rajeev (2010-07-27). "Hindu terrorism doesn't exist, but do we want one?". DNA (Online). Mumbai: Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. Retrieved 26 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)(endref)

The cite makes it clear that this is one columnist's opinion. a) We don't use columnists for controversial material. b) The material is already below the new material with WP:RS.

This is pretty much like saying in a Birther Conspiracy article that Rush Limbaugh says Obama is not an American. Then have a NY Times material in subsection that reports that there are x% of people who do not believe that Obama was born in the US. The initial material would be rm, because it was extemporaneous (not peer reviewed) prior to publication and, secondly, because we would have a more reliable citation afterwards.

WP:RS suggests that "Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution." The information is redundant here and isn't needed at all since we have better material elsewhere. There is no reason to have material in the article twice. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason to have it is to act as an intro for what's coming up. It's good writing. There's no problem using a reliable partisan source for an attributed statement, especially since we have other, less partisan, sources to confirm it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Columns are never reliable sources for facts, only opinions. In this case, even though we are using in-line citation, we are using the source for facts, not the opinion of the writer. The summary of what the source says is wrong too. TFD (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What would you consider a correct summary? MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good question by MilesMoney, this columnist is talking with the basis, he has highlighted a few incidents too, those incidents solely carried by the christians. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This article, similar to articles on Islamic and other forms of religious terrorism, defines Christian terrorism as "terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions." The two groups named by the columnist, the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland are classified in the literature on terrorism as "nationalist-separatist terrorism", which is ethnically motivated. They fight for the self-determination of the indigenous Tripuri people and Naga people, who are ethnically Tibeto-Burman, rather than Indian. While most members of these peoples are Christians, as a result of colonialism, many are animists and Hindus. Members of all religions are represented in both groups, although the NSCN is Maoist.

Most parts of the Tibeto-Burman northeast of India are not Christians, however there is the same ethnic unrest throughout the region. Indian police and soldiers have committed widespread atrocities against the indigenous population, including murders, rapes, beatings, torture, and kidnappings, having suspended civil rights fifty years ago. (See for example the Human Rights Watch report: "These Fellows Must Be Eliminated."[3]) While no mainstream sources attribute the unrest to Christianity, it is a convenient justification for government repression by right-wing Indian nationalists, such as the columnist referenced.

TFD (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Eastern India has christians, some like, nagaland having over 85% population to be christian. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I said that, although it is actually Northeast India. Some areas are predominantly Christian, but that is not the cause of the conflict, which is based on ethnic rather than religious division. There are of course Christians throughout India, but they are not involved in the tribal conflict in the Northeast. TFD (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. MilesMoney (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of RS describing the groups as fulfilling this page's definition of "Christian Terrorism". This argument has been had a bajillion times, but TFD thinks that the very concept of "Christian Terrorism" doesn't exist. Arguing with TFD will get you nowhere. (Apparently, the BBC is not "mainstream", by the way. LOL.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You believe that religion is the source of all conflict in the world and economic and ethnic differences are wholly irrelevant, so even Hindus, atheists and marxists who carry out terrorist actions get classified as Christian terrorists merely because most members of their group are Christians. As pointed out to you, that is not what sources say.

Miles Money, in answer to your question, I have no intention of summarizing your source, which has no relevance to this article. Another editor accused me of saying "the very concept of "Christian Terrorism" doesn't exist." He is defending a source titled, "Hindu terrorism doesn't exist." Do you see any irony?

TFD (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

FTR: I don't "believe that religion is the source of all conflict in the world", and am actually an extremely religious person. (Not a Christian...but extremely religious...) But you know, when multiple reliable sources describe a group as forcing people to convert to Christianity or be shot or raped, you know...I tend to lend some credence to them being "Christian Terrorists". Also, I am not defending the article, (which isn't RS, because it's an opinion column). I'm just pointing out that, every chance you get, it seems, you claim that CT doesn't exist. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have never claimed that Christian terrorism does not exist, but think we should not claim actions as Christian terrorism unless that is how they are generally seen. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, although most of their members are Christians, the groups are not considered Christian terrorists in literature on terrorism.

Incidentally, can you comment on the claim that there is no Hindu terrorism? Is that your belief and something we should put in the article.

TFD (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) There are Reliable Sources that suitably describe the actions in the India section as Christian Terrorism, including books and peer-reviewed journal articles. I no longer have access to JSTOR, so can't pull up the journals to copy/paste from them, but frankly, the entire India section has been pretty thoroughly "vetted" over the past few years. Multiple BBC articles refer to the NLFT as forcing people to convert to Christianity: "The separatist group says it wants to convert all tribespeople in the state to Christianity." [4]; "According to police, rebels from the National Liberation Front of Tripura wanted Mr Jamatia to convert to Christianity - but he refused." He was later found executed in the woods. [5]. (2) As to whether "Hindu Terrorism" exists, I find it unlikely, as I'm not aware of anyone attempting to force people to convert to Hinduism. That's historically been the exclusive domain of the Monotheists. (See "The Price of Monotheism", by Jan Assmann) Either way, it's irrelevant to the points I've raised. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by having a summary-like introductory sentence at the beginning of the India section, although I don't feel strongly about it either way. As for using him as a source for facts, I think it's clear from "According to [him]", that we are attributing a view to him, not an account of what happened. But, those of you who want to keep having the same arguments over and over again, please don't let me interrupt you. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that there's no thing called hindu terrorism, it's usually some propaganda that was created in 21st century, but, there's no proof about it, because Hindus don't usually terrorize, and people outside India, Nepal, they never did it even once. Even though they got projects everywhere in the world. Neither we see them killing people just for the skin color, even though they span the oldest, and indeed largest documented history. Now because it's just a propaganda, we got a page Saffron Terror. That's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this to the NPOV noticeboard. Could Miles Millions please explain why Communism is an Abrahamic religion? Is that a reference to the oft heard claim that it was created by the Jews? TFD (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is not as big as it could be. If you see "christian persecution" or "christian anti-sentiment", you would find them to be generally bigger, they have included the historical incidences and then current situation about the countries. While this page has only those incidents that took place after 1980, well most of them. It should be enlarged. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, sources on terrorism do not define Christian terrorism as terrorism committed by people who happen to be Christians but as terrorism committed by people "who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions". Mainstream sources say that these groups are motivated by ethnic disputes. Similarly, although most Arabs are Muslims, the article on Muslim terrorism does not include terrorist acts committed by Arab nationalists, many of whom were Christians. Sirhan Sirhan for example was a Christian, but I do not think he should be included as a Muslim terrorist, or Christian for that matter. TFD (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but this page has to undergo many serious changes for now. I am giving a try on this. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And as for Rajeev Srinivasan, can you find me some more another or more descriptive summary by a known person regarding this Christian terrorism? If you did, we can replace it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is tendentious to look for sources to support views you want to include in the article. One should instead look at what sources say and reflect them. "You can try Google books. " "Naxalites+"terrorism"" returns 12,200 hits,[6] while "Naxalites+"Christian terrorism"" returns 4 hits.[7] Of these 4, one is a wikipedia article, two of them do not refer to "Christian terrorism" and the fourth is inaccessible. It is like asking me for a known person regarding how the moon landing was faked. TFD (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that so few sources outside of India are even discussing these issues, so you have the addition of a language barrier. Also, there's lots of RS describing these groups' goals as fulfilling your above "who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions" element. The India section is chock full of RS. Most pages on Wikipedia just WISH that they were so well-sourced. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD is correct here. There is, unfortunately, a teensy possibility that some of the "RS sources" are more "anti-Christian" than "anti-'Christian terrorism'" which makes their opinions less than desirable for Wikipedia usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

^ And of course, the Right-Wing Christian Apologists are always looking for any reason to delete anything "uncomfortable" to their Sunday School weltanschauung. (And considering the fact that that comment is tinged with just the teensy possibility of racism, it's also suspect, as are all people who attempt to whitewash atrocity. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We are targeting only one single source here, not any other. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The post mentioned above is at WP:NPOVN#Christian terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect's Latest "Crusade" Against the India Section

While there is certainly reason to debate the recent inclusion of the Rajeev Srinavasan opinion piece, Collect has decided to start making huge and unsubstantiated deletions of sourced content. (Including the rather mainstream descriptions of the NSCN as having a Christian motivation.) It's clear that he has NO consensus to be making these disruptive edits, and he has presented no "evidence" to support his contentions. This is blatant disruption, and cannot be tolerated. He has a long history of doing this sort of thing on this page, and he knows that any such massive deletions (including the SATP and NSCN stuff that has been thoroughly vetted) requires more than his personal "opinion", and actual discussion on this talk page, prior to such major changes. And since he's making these changes as part of large edits of OTHER stuff, it makes it extremely difficult to "undo", which is likely his intention. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see, below, that there is an RS discussion on the SATP; that should be helpful. I suggest you don't comment on Collect's motivations for making their edits the way that they are: it's unhelpful, it's purely hypothetical, and it quickly veers into NPA territory. Besides, you make the obligatory "WP:DONTLIKEIT" accusation in your edit summary: it's not very often that that is used correctly, and I don't see how it is used correctly here. Collect pointed out that they have doubts about the sources, and that's not a matter of liking something, it's a matter of following policy. Saying someone is merely deleting something because they don't like it is also, in my book, a personal attack, since it impugns someone's objectivity, credibility, and competence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Other user did removed the content only because he don't liked it, if not, then why he need to blank the Nagaland section? Also the Lebanon section? After his removal of sourced content, the page looks worse in the sense of grammar(coma, dot, etc). Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because I damn well try to follow Wikipedia policies -- such as using sources only for what they say -- when one uses them for what they do not say, that violates WP:RS from the start. By the way, this article now would fall under the Israel Palestine Discretionary Sanctions as far as I can tell, if you wish to include the Lebanon section with its accusations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it source should not be misused. Blanking can't be justified, and no, Lebanon has to remain, you can expand, but you can't remove as long as it's coherent to this page and matchable with the reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanking can be justified (for instance, Bladesmulti, in the case of copyvios, which this article is littered with--were they your edits?), of course. I'm giving you an NPA warning for reiterating--falsely, and without any evidence--that Collect has been removing material because they "don't liked it". Enough already. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He blanked those sections that he didn't even discussed about, or those who weren't even targeted, and no, i made no personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I explained why your statement was a personal attack and you chose to repeat it. Collect provided edit summaries. So far they have been right and you have been wrong in the matter of content. I think you should lay off the personal stuff and talk content, and no more. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You should really read the archives of this talk page, as this is ongoing behavior that has been going on for years. Collect has a personal "grudge" against this site's mere existence, and has waged a long war of attrition against it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with what I've seen of Drmies's edits, which were an attempt to streamline the article and make the sentences conform to the citations. This is a stark contrast, for example, to Collect's edits, which were to eliminate content willy-nilly, as part of a years-long attempt to whittle down the section to nothing, and then challenge its existence. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't judge Collect's past here, though I will say that generally I have respect for them as an editor. I'm loath to ascribe longstanding grudges to anyone, and if they feel that the SATP is unreliable, and have felt that way for a long time, they're entitled to their opinion. I myself, as you may have seen, have doubts about their status and I urge editors to treat their material carefully. But in general, the less we focus on individuals and the more we focus on content, tone, and sourcing, the better it is. You'll have seen by now that I seriously trimmed the entire section, the main reason being that it's superfluous detail in what should be a general overview article; I have moved the content to the NLFT article, where I've made additional tweaks and edits. Please go see what you think--there's more work that needs to be done in the article, but for now I'm done with it. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the reason that there was so much superfluous information in that section, was due to Christian editors claiming that, since the earlier section was small and didn't have a lot of sources, it meant that all of it was "made up" by anti-Christian editors. So a couple years ago, I (and others) filled up the section with a bajillion sources and examples, in order to counter the Deniers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[8] see this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I retract my statement about Collect being "racist". I had confused him with another editor (Student7), who made a racist comment in 2011 that alleged that Indian newspapers were inherently "unreliable". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Listen, even such a statement doesn't need to be racist. Lots of Indian newspapers (and publishing companies) have iffy reputations, but blanket statements of course are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Collect made a statement alleging that the sources on this article were "Anti-Christian", and combined with what I _thought_ I remembered from a previous argument (2 years ago), I saw a "pattern" that wasn't there. Again, Mea Culpa. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please give a diff for me improperly calling any reliable source "Anti-Christian" -- I suspect that the context will fully clarify your claims. Collect (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be this one: [9]. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The quote is:

TFD is correct here. There is, unfortunately, a teensy possibility that some of the "RS sources" are more "anti-Christian" than "anti-'Christian terrorism'" which makes their opinions less than desirable for Wikipedia usage.

Which was, and is, precisely and absolutely correct, and your statement above is so far off the mark about it as to be risible. Care to make a non-attack post? Collect (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(To The Audience) You see what I get for apologizing? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a little more wikilawyering than I would like. I thanked Bryonmorrigan for the apology and I stand by that. However, the paraphrase of Collect's statement into " alleging that the sources on this article were "Anti-Christian" " wasn't the best phrasing. I can appreciate the desire to explain one's self. The word should not be thrown around lightly, and you may have felt the need to show that it wasn't a cavalier usage, but that attempt ended up digging a different hole. Can we agree that Bryon has no reason to think Collect is a racist and move on?--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

edit revert

I would like to ask @Tryptofish:, you have stated WP:NOR for the revert. Its an established fact that
* Catholic church is the largest Christian church.
* that the Klan were against Catholics.
* that they claim to be christian organization.
* that they indulged in terrorist activities.
But its not an established fact that they were a Christian terrorist organisation. I wanted to make readers realize only that, without deleting any content and without adding any of my own facts/sources. So I would like to know why did you revert my edit? ~ ScitDei^talk 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My take is that the argument that you just made here is WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the revert. Saying that the KKK cannot be Christian terrorists because they do not meet the description is synthesis. OTOH few scholars consider them to have been Christian terrorists and instead classify them under ~~ethnic/national~~ right-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I did not simply revert the edit, as that diff demonstrates. Instead, my edit basically removed this sentence: "Since the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church, claims that the Klan was a Christian Terrorist organisation, cannot be categorised as facts yet." It seems to me that that sentence is SYNTH and editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but if it is so, then IMO labelling Ku Klux Klan as Christian terrorist organisation is also SYNTH ~ ScitDei^talk 06:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The source, Religion and Terrorism: An Interfaith Perspective, p. 21, calls them right wing terrorists, not Christian terrorists.[10] TFD (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We've already hashed this out in detail on this page, TFD. Don't feed "fuel" to disruptive editors. If you want me to start fillinf up this page with citations describing the KKK explicitly as "Christian Terrorist", I'll do so. They aren't really all that difficult to find. Example:[11] --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of editorial peace, please let me point out that, with ScitDei's original edit, and my modification of it (not really a revert!), the net effect on the page is that we now have an additional sentence pointing out the KKK hostilities towards Catholics (but without the additional editorializing in Wikipedia's voice). It's been a perennial (and, to me too, annoying) debate on this talk page as to just how much the KKK's terrorism is or is not "Christian", but the net effect of the new edits has been to add greater nuance, pointing out the potential limitations of pigeonholing the KKK specifically as Christian terrorists. In light of the fact that we have had a relatively long time period without disputing whether the KKK should be mentioned at all, and given how much editors disagree with one another, please let me suggest that we leave things as they are now, and not continue arguing when there is no chance of going all the way to one "side" or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that most sources do not consider the motivation of the KKK to be Christianity, but rather see its origins as a reaction to emancipation and reconstruction, while its modern motivation is nativism. TFD (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I mention that this perennial discussion is something I find annoying? We have sources that say the motivations are what you just said. We have sources that say that those motivations are intermixed with claims of Christianity (a lot of that nativism is intermixed in just that way), and we have sources that draw attention to the claims of Christianity, including but not limited to the burning crosses. I'm all in favor of adding more nuance to how this page characterizes it, if anyone wants to. It's fine to cover how different sources see the issue differently. But please, let's not go back to this never-ending squabble about removing the KKK from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in what you find annoying. The article presents a minority view as fact, which violates neutrality. Your statement that motivations are "intermixed" with Christianity is not represented in the article, which claims that Christianity is their motive. Also can you explain why Christianity motivated white Christian Americans to join the Klan while it did not motivate black Christian Americans to join. TFD (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't for Tryptofish, or any other editor, to provide reasons for the KKK's makeup here. It is a question of sourcing. Our sourcing indicates that the KKK is commonly grouped with Christian terrorists. We, therefore, need to represent that in an article about Christian terrorism. Race is irrelevant. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with TFD that the article presents a minority view as fact, also with Jess that It is a question of sourcing. But his next sentence that Our sourcing indicates that the KKK is commonly grouped with Christian terrorists. is not true or I would say WP:SYNTH. As Trypto said, there are many sources claiming the opposite too. IMO, A better standard should be made to validate a source, so that no fascist/misogynist/chauvinistic etc. type of sources could be used for citing in WIkipedia. And till that time I propose to limit mention of KKK to just racism or to oppression against ethnic minorities related articles and not in this article. Since the article itself claims in the opening sentences that Christian terrorists rely on tenets of Bible to justify themselves we should see did KKK fit into this.
Did the KKK rely on the bible for their ideology (like white supremacy, anti-jew etc)?. I don't think so. Moreover, What was their major motive? Christian supremacy? No. It was White supremacy which later turned to White Protestant supremacy. Also KKK was not killing non-Christians alone. It killed ethnic minorities. For me the first word that comes to my mind when I hear KuKluxKlan, is racism not Christian terrorist. But one cannot deny that there is a relation between KKK and Christian terrorism, but its just a relation. So IMO, KKK should be mentioned only in the related articles section or this article should be renamed to Terrorism by Christians

I'm sorry Tryptofish, this really is an annoying & perennial discussion. But It has to reach a consensus doesn't it? ~ ScitDei^talk 10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch of issues being thrown about haphazardly here, so I'm going to point out a few things:

(1) An organization can have more than one ideology. The fact that Al Qaeda are "Islamist"...and also completely opposed to certain sects of Islam (like Shias & Sufis) is actually similar to the Klan's ideology regarding Protestant supremacism and Catholicism. You can't suddenly say that Al Qaeda can't be Islamist...merely because they oppose the rather large section of Muslims who are not Conservative Sunnies. (This deals with ScitDei's original comment regarding the Klan's anti-Catholicism.)

(2) Again, the fact that an organization has multiple ideologies should not surprise anyone. The Nazi Party's ideology clearly combined German Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, and other ideologies. Under the absurd "logic" of some editors here, we would have to remove the Nazis from the German Nationalism page...because they are most known for their anti-Semitism? (See how ridiculous that sounds?)

(3) Yes, the Klan did (and does) rely on the Bible for its ideology. It is steeped in a form of Christianity that has now come to be called "Christian Identity" (very similar to the Nazi Party's "Positive Christianity"). While mainstream Christians may balk at this ideology, they don't get to employ the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy on Wikipedia.

Chomsky never refers to the Phalange as Christian, the Israelis as Jews or the Palestinians as Muslims. He calls the Phalange "right-wing" and says they were under the direction of Israel. He sees the conflict as one between ethnic groups, not religiously motivated. The "no true Scotsman" analogy is misplaced. A Scottish sex maniac is merely a Scot who commits sex crimes. No one claims the motivation had anything to do with support of Scotland, even if was wearing a kilt. No one here has claimed that the Phalange or the Northeast India nationalists did not commit terrorist acts. And no one has said that Christian terrorism does not or cannot exist. TFD (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(4) Finally, there is a lot of OPINION being presented as FACT here. The only opinions which matter are those backed up by RS. There is plenty of RS describing the Klan as "Christian Terrorist", relying upon Christian ideology, and many other things that hurt the poor feewings of Christian editors. Obviously, the Christian editors who come to this page DON'T LIKE IT. Too bad. That's not how Wikipedia works, Sport.

In short, I "get it". Christian editors want to believe that "Christian Terrorism" does not exist. We've fought against their tactics of attempting to delete everything from this page for years, and we're not going to let their white-washing tactics to go unopposed. The RS is against them, and and they really just need to find a new "hobby". I'm sure Muslims feel the same way when they look at the Al Qaeda page. Grab a hanky, dry your tears, and act like grown-ups. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

When most sources oppose your classification, you should not say in the article that the KKK is CT. Instead you should explain why some writers think they are and balance it with the majority opinion. Some people believe that all disputes in the world result from religion, but most people see other causes as more significant. It may seem unfair to Muslims that their terrorists are called Islamic, while ours are not. But no one called their terrorists Islamists when they supported Arab nationalism and allowed Christians in their ranks. (In fact many of the leaders were Christians.) TFD (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if you wanna find some RS that specifically gives the opinion that the Klan didn't/doesn't follow Christian Terrorist ideology, go right ahead and "balance" the article with it. But keep in mind that I'll probably add even more RS of scholars to counter that opinion as well. Either way, that's not what the Christian Apologist editors want. They want this page GONE, and they're gonna keep working to chip away at it in little bits. It's only through the tenacity of a few editors that have kept this page from being vandalized into extinction for ideological reasons. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want this page to be gone, Bryon. In fact I want to keep this page to find out whether Christianity can be capable of producing terrorist through their (I mean christian) ideologies. For your 4-point-reply above I would like to reiterate your 4th point -a lot of OPINION is being stated as FACT here in this article. In fact a source used to present that KKK was explicitly a Christian terrorist (organisation) in ideology is Religion and Terrorism: An Interfaith Perspective by Aref M Al-Khattar. This source has not even once mentioned that they are Christian terrorist (instead mentions them as right wing terrorists). It gives the definition of right wing terrorism as "The basic belief of the far right wing organizations include the power of the white race and the hate of non-white people". Anyway I have reworded and regrouped the paragraphs for better clarity.
But your point 2 had me grounded. In fact it made me realize that I was wrong about "KKK should not be mentioned here" theory and I apologize for it. ~ ScitDei^talk 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A recent change introduced this wording:

“

On the other hand,KKK were not believed to be explicitly Christian in their ideology by most of the Christian clerics, even calling them "a crock

”

It also deleted a statement that they were Christian, and changed a description of their goals to "the KKK claimed that their goals..." I don't think any of this is an improvement. I have concerns about the source, and the way we are using it. This seems to stray too far from the majority of our reliable sources. The source used, for instance, only discusses one unnamed priest (who personally calls the KKK "a crock"). I'm not sure why we would say they claimed their goals were anything, as if to cast doubt on their real motifs.

The section is discussing the KKK around the civil war, so if we include content about their reception by other Christians, I'd prefer to see a source which discusses their reception within that time period, not a retrospective look. Even the current KKK denounces their activities in that period, so it doesn't say much that other Christians do too. Before introducing more content like this, I'd really like to see a few sources discussed on the talk page, so we can assess the proper weight to assign these ideas. Right now, we seem to have a lot of quality sources saying one thing, and just one source saying another (in a way which isn't incompatible, btw). — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit was done to remove unsourced content and and the actual content mentioned in the reference. The reference was already there; its not a new reference. I just added the url to it. A little regrouping was done so that all similar points may be in one paragraph and differing points in the second. I dont know why you DON'T LIKE IT? I would be very happy to discuss all the resources before introducing it in the article starting from the resources already mentioned.
Also I suppose "claimed" is the word used when refering to something accepted by some group but others are not sure about it :D .
On the serious note I would remind that this article is about Christian terrorism, so it should only mention about the terrorist actions done by Christians (preferably inspired by clerics/ideologies). Just so that I would not be blamed for removing this page, examples would be like anti abortion killings, crusades etc. ~ ScitDei^talk 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my point about "claimed". Why are we disputing what their own goals are? Who is better to speak about their goals than them? I know the source was already there, but the content added doesn't follow from that source, and that source isn't strong enough to counteract a large number of other sources we have on the topic, either. If you can list some other sources which discuss this, maybe we can talk about them and hash out some new content. I'm not opposed to presenting the KKK's reception in the Christian community. I am, however, opposed to presenting them as "not Christian" when they explicitly say they are, their activities are centered around Christianity, and we have a multitude of quality RSes that back the connection up. Since it's a perennial discussion, I also don't think it's likely to be worth having again without new citations. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My first impulse on checking back at this talk page was to reply to some of the things that were said to me above, but I changed my mind, and decided instead to make a suggestion about how to move forward. (I will say, however, that I've read everything, and I largely agree with Jess and Bryon.) Currently, the page says of the KKK: "They were explicitly Christian terrorist in ideology, basing their beliefs on a "religious foundation" in Christianity." The sentence seems to me to be reliably sourced, but I am willing to take TFD's point that the source may be a minority opinion, and that the page does not currently give adequate coverage to other opinions. So let me suggest this. Let's change that sentence to: "They were explicitly Christian terrorist in ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity." Then, we should add a sentence or two (but not more!) somewhere in the same paragraph, citing scholarly sources that present aspects of their motivations that are other-than-Christianity. It's entirely reasonable, I think, to make clear that they also had racial, nativist, etc. motivations, while continuing to cite sources that attribute their motivations, at least in part, to their perceptions of Christianity (or at least Christian identity). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish's suggestion is welcome but the sentence is not reliably sourced as he says. Instead the source mentioned, can be used to say that, According to Christian clerics, KKK is not based on christian ideology, even calling them "a crock"(see page 55 of the book cited for this exact word used). To modify the sentence or not can be discussed here.
However, the book has not mentioned anywhere that the KKK "were explicitly christian terrorist in their ideology".
Also, I would once again like to propose that instead of mentioning the ideologies of the terrorist groups, we should instead only mention the acts done by the Christian Terrorists, thereby avoiding heated discussions like this (if nobody has objections that is).~ ScitDei^talk 10:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The book in question, by Al-Khattar, discusses the KKK in a chapter titled "Modern Christian Terrorism". In addition, if you will look at the way the citation is used on this page, as well as the discussions on this talk page (which go back at least 2 years in reference to this section), you will see that the book is actually being used to source the sentence: "They were explicitly Christian terrorist in ideology, basing their beliefs on a "religious foundation" in Christianity." All of that can be backed up in that book. Yes, there is a quotation from a more "mainstream" Christian cleric referring to the KKK's Christianity as a "crock", but that is not the view presented by the book, and it would be completely inappropriate to use this book as a "citation" disproving the KKK's motivations...when the clear thesis presented by Lt. Col. Al-Khattar is that the KKK followed a Christian ideology, and he describes them under the banner of "Christian Terrorism". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

1) I would be very grateful if you could point me to the page number where he has said that KKK has Christian ideology.
2) Also, it would be an added advantage, if you could tell me why I should not cite a particular book to present a point mentioned in the same book. I'm just trying to present the view of a leader of the group (here Protestant Christian) to which the KKK claim itself to be. Which WIKI policy am I breaking if I did that?~ ScitDei^talk 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go:

"Many Christian organizations rely on their special interpretation of the Bible in committing violent (terrorist) acts. These include anti-Semitic attacks, anti-abortion acts, and violent anti-black movements." (p. 29)

He follows that by going into detail regarding the "Christian Identity" movement for a while, then coming back to the KKK on p.30.

"Most right-wing terrorist organizations have a Christian ideology in their agenda….examples from this wing include the following organizations:(...) and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)"

and

"Right-wing terrorism is based upon ideologies of racial or religious supremacy." (p. 21). He also states the the KKK shares "the same system of belief, based on religious foundations, in white control and power, and the perception of the immorality of government." (p. 30) and that they "…claim to justify terrorism in the name of Christianity" (p. 55)
"Christian terrorists also deny that any kinds of victims resulted from their violence. Victims "deserve to be attacked," for example, because they are non-whites in the case of the KKK, which looks at minorities, Jews , and non-whites as less than human." (p. 91)

Also, since this is coming up again, here's a bit of the text from another of the citations:

"Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Secret and violent U.S. Protestant white-supremacist organization…. It's intent was to reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible…. Mixing nationalism, nativism, and religion, the KKK was the first organized American anti-Jewish movement. As the Imperial Giant (senior leader) of the Klan affirmed: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why . . . Christian white men are . . . to give the Jews some of their own medicine." Klansmen believe "in the tenets of the Christian religion" – that "the Bible (stood) as the basis of our Constitution . . . We honor Christ as the Klansman’s Only Criterion of Character."… In a Klan magazine called the Kourier, a minister wrote in 1925: "As a Protestant minister of the Gospel, I joined (the KKK) because: I believed in Jesus Christ and His church; I believed in militant Christianity; I believed in the Cross." A Klan pamphlet of 1924, "Christ and Other Klansmen," indicated that Jesus was the first and ideal Klansman and blamed Jews for his murder…. the Ku Klux Klan made great gains after the war by championing Christian supremacy and anti-Semitism…" (Michael, Robert, and Philip Rosen. Dictionary of antisemitism from the earliest times to the present. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Scarecrow Press, 1997 p. 267.)

--Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As one of your sources says, "Most right-wing terrorist organizations have a Christian ideology." Absolutely true and wholly relevant. But it does not support your view that the KKK are "Christian terrorists", and therefore you should not claim they are. BTW there are Christian terrorists, but ironically they are not included in the article. TFD (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, about your last sentence, would you care to let the rest of us in as to who they are? And everyone, instead of arguing in order to "win" the argument all the way, how about settling on the compromise that I suggested? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And TFD also "conveniently" ignored the sentence that I posted where the KKK was specifically referred to as "Christian terrorists" (not to mention the fact that it's all from a chapter entitled "Modern Christian Terrorism"...). Yes, all "Christian Terrorism" in the USA is likely also going to fit into the category of "Right-Wing Terrorism". They're not mutually-exclusive. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that we are all tarred with the same brush and "you can't pick your 'friends'," but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard here. Christians get stuck with Breivik, and Rudolph. In the article Jewish religious terrorism they deliberately define out, the Stern Gang, etc. as "Zionist," and therefore secular, not religious. Somehow, the Jewish Defense League is also "seen also" rather than integrated into the article. No easy outs for Christians. If someone acts like a nut and he says he is Christian or motivated by Christian principles, then it is "Christian terrorism." Automatically. Islamic terrorism, the same.

In short, they don't have to walk and talk like a duck. They just have to claim to be a duck! :( Student7 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure most modern day Communists don't like being associated with the atrocities of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean they get to use that "No True Scotsman" fallacy to claim they weren't "real" Communists. I won't comment on the Jewish examples you used, because I'm not very knowledgeable about them. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize that editors have very good reasons for being concerned about sensitivity to these issues, but meanwhile, please let me suggest that we return this discussion to my suggestion here. Perhaps it is a compromise about how to write the specific material about the KKK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good suggestion. There are groups whose terrorist actions are dictated by their Christian beliefs, while there are terrorists who have other objectives but incorporate Christianity into their world-view. Some writers, such as Juergensmeyer go further and claim that the motivation for these latter groups is Christianity. I do not think the "no true Scotsman" comparison is accurate. Hamish believed that the sex maniac could not be a Scotsman. My view is that he could be but he was not a sex maniac because he was a Scotsman and he was not offending in order to advance Scottish interests. Nor would his adoption of another nationality lead one to think that his behavior would change. Nor would be expect a book to classify criminals as "murderers, thieves, Scottish sex maniacs, vandals, traitors, etc." TFD (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Given that you, ScitDei, and I support it, at least as an initial step, and no one has actually objected to it, I'm going to, right now, do the first (and easier) part of it: adding the phrase that I showed in green font. I'll leave it to other editors, who probably have better access to sources than I do, to add the additional sentences, so what I'm doing now is not the last word. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon

The Lebanon section failed verification. The refs do not speak of Christian terrorism. Specifically in the case of the massacres the source attributes the Phalagist militia support of Isreali actions in the context/motivation of rooting out "terrorist stockpiles" and strongholds. To re-add this section other refs must be found. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[12] and probably more. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting ref. That is not the ref that was given for the section. Not the ref that failed verification. The previous (law review) ref went into great detail about the massacres and spoke about the motivation to find and root out terrorist stockpiles. This new ref gives an explicit "christian terrorist" coloring to the attacks on the camps but is incomplete. I note that we only have a handful of viewable pages in that new link you have provided. It starts ten pages into the essay an then abruptly ends. Interesting and may be usable if it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Then refer to the main 2 sources that have been given already, you still haven't provided the reason that they has to be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the justification lies in the massacre having been committed by a Christian group. (I'm reading Linda Malone's article about the Kahan Report.) The bigger issue is that "terrorism by Christian group" doesn't necessarily mean "Christian terrorism" (the same applies of course to Hindu/Muslim/whatever terrorism). This problem occurs also in the section I've been editing: the constitution of the National Liberation Front of Tripura makes it clear that the club thinks of itself as representing a repressed and "original" minority going back to 3000BC, making the Christianity issue ancillary. Once you move into forced conversion, as the NLFT has allegedly done, I suppose you can speak of Christian terrorism, but I note that the lead of the article has a much more narrow interpretation of what constitutes Christian terrorism. I do not think it applies to the massacre studied by Malone. I do think it applies to forced conversion in Spain and Jerusalem and during the Crusades and all, but hey, that's not as sexy as modern acts of terrorism, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How does it deny that christian groups have fought and massacred the people in lebanon? Also, there can be sources about Assam, one has to look about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't see my point, I guess. If a Christian group commits an atrocity, does the reason not matter? The Kataeb Party has much more to its raison d'etre and its mission than just Christianity. What is necessary is to verify that acts were done out of a Christian motivation--not just politics, repression, counter-repression, resentment, etc. It's a higher bar than just "a Christian organization did something", because that means for instance also that the KKK needs to be listed here. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I don't see how the Bus massacre can be labeled a specifically Christian act of terrorism. The groups involved didn't all subscribe to Christian ideology or act from it, given the involvement of the National Liberal Party (Lebanon). Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I will check if there's some availability about Assam's sources, stay in touch. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing to look for, really, is that organization and what it stands for and what it's done. A search for "Christian terrorism Assam" may not be the way to go; keep in mind that for this article individual events, one-offs, are not very relevant. Look for the organization, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a parallel between Christian and Islamic terrorism, both of which are forms of religious terrorism. Al Qaeda, the most significant Islamic terrorist group by far, is made up entirely of Muslims, and does not recognzie racial or national distinctions. Before al Qaeda, the most significant terrorist group in the Middle East was the Abu Nidal group, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other Arab nationalist groups also engaged in terrorism. While most of them were Muslims, they included Christians and Marxists, and we do not call them Islamic terrorists.

Terrorist studies make a distinction between these two types of terrorism (nationalist and religious). Nationalists have a substantially greater membership, their attacks do not show the same level of disregard for human life including their own, and they are willing to negotiate. Unlike religious terrorists, they "claim responsibility" for their attacks.

TFD (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What you said reminded me of something I have thought about from time to time, about this page. Looking at what has been written about Lebanon and the phrase "Christian terrorism" something that got some of the most extensive reliable sourcing (including first page coverage on the New York Times), was when a Lebanese Christian general said, sarcastically, that he would be interested in performing some "Christian terrorism" in opposition to Islamic terrorism. Obviously, he wasn't actually being a terrorist in saying that, but it illustrates how the subject of this page has been used as a rhetorical device. I wonder if anyone here knows of a secondary source that addresses the use of the the phrase as a rhetorical device, because it seems to me that, if this isn't just my WP:OR, then it could merit a section of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

They are a distinct non-Arab ethnic group referred to only as "Maronite Christians." (Maronite is a form of Christianity in communion with the Roman Catholic church.) It is not clear that General Michel Aoun was referring to his religion rather than his ethnic group, since his words were directed against the U.S. As you say, he was being sarcastic and he denied saying it anyway.[13] And he was not a member of the Phalange, but a general for the country, and was backed in his opposition to the U.S. by Saddam Hussein. He now leads the Free Patriotic Movement which is supported by Christians and some Shias. TFD (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been earlier discussions at this page, and anyone with a strong stomach can find them at Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 6#Lebanon section: removed, and continuing to the bottom of that archive page, and resuming at Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 7#Removed Lebanon section. Because some new editors are now paying attention to the page, I really hope that some of you will take a look back at those discussions. I've always believed that there really is sufficient sourcing (not what is discussed just above, but what was around back then) to justify some coverage of Lebanon on this page, but I gave up in the face of too many POV pushers. Perhaps this is a subject than can be re-examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Tryptofish, considering your concern for my stomach (full of non-denominational red beans and rice) can't you summarize, and give a source or two for a statement or two, pointing at some specific groups and actions? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Myself, the discussion just below is the kind of thing that gives me a headache about this particular page, so I'm going to reply specifically to you here – with sincere thanks for your interest. Aside from the rhetorical issue involving Gen. Aoun, which I think is quite interesting as a side phenomenon but not as terrorism itself, and I agree with TFD that my finding it interesting does not count as a secondary source – the incident in question is the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I do not dispute the arguments made by other editors in the now-archived discussions that the motivations for the massacre were complex and multifaceted. However, I believe that there is adequate sourcing to justify characterizing it, in part, as "Christian terrorism". Every source I will now mention is also discussed in the archives, where one can find other editors' objections to my arguments; I believe those editors to have been incorrect, but I felt at the time that I was unable to out-shout them. We have a notable commentator, Noam Chomsky, giving his opinion that it was terrorism: [14], and there are multiple other commentators who also discuss the incident in these terms: [15] (for example: [16]). (Any moment now, other editors are going to tell me that they were Christians and they were terrorists, but they weren't Christian terrorists. Maybe WP:SYNTH, maybe No true Scotsman.) There is good sourcing for the events from the BBC: [17], and this lengthy and unpleasant BBC transcript describes in detail how the attackers self-identified as Christians and drew attention to their motivations as a group of Christians (along with other motivations, of course) at the time they were committing the atrocities: [18] ("People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians", from journalist Don McCullin who observed first-hand.). We also have the United Nations declaring the event a "genocide": [19], and scholarly sources treating genocide and terrorism as overlapping concepts: [20]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

One ought to note the gist of the UN Resolution -- which is

Noting that Israel's record and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, ...

The resolution makes no claim of "Christian terrorism" at all, and is clearly in the range of "Israeli-Palestinian" issues, which would make for interesting rules concerning this article. Note that your other sources all inferentially lay the blame at Israeli hands. Collect (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick (as I predicted)! Yes, there is a lot of sourcing about Israel's role, although there certainly were not many Israeli Jews amongst the Phalangists who were described by Don McCullin. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting position. If the troops were under the de facto control of Israel (as your sources clearly state), then their primary focus was not "Christian terrorism" any more than Indian troops under British rule in WWI could commit "Indian terrorism". IMO of course. It is the person or persons responsible who count at that point. Collect (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I probably should know better than to get drawn into this, but I'll reply anyway. I don't see anything in the source material to indicate that Israel controlled or influenced the thinking of the persons who committed the terrorism; rather the sources indicate that Israel may have, for its own reasons, failed to prevent the Phalangists from acting. I don't see any sourcing to indicate that the Phalangists did what they did because Israel made them do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The UN Resolution clearly placed blame on Israel. It did not say "Israel failed to prevent" anything at all. The news reports stated that Israeli soldiers made it possible for the Christians to enter the camps. Sorry -- the result would be that Israel would have to be mentioned, but the problem there is that most Israeli soldiers who made the attack possible did not happen to be Christian. Cheers -- but is that a Pandora's box we ought to open here? Collect (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As you just said: "The news reports stated that Israeli soldiers made it possible for the Christians to enter the camps." It was the Christians who entered the camps. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And in the postulated case of "British Indian regiments" - it would have been Hindus in WWI ... making killings by the British into "Hindu terrorism"? IMO it is more likely the "prime mover" who is the one involved - and the prime mover's motives were unlikely to be "Christian terrorism" per se. Unless we disregard the UN resolution you brought in here. Collect (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If terrorism carried out by the Maronite minority is by definition Christian terrorism, does that mean that terrorism carried out by the avowedly Jewish state of Israel is Jewish terrorism? Are Christian Palestinian terrorists Muslim terrorists because most of their colleagues were? Incidentally, I cannot find a source that says who the "Christian" attackers were. Young men (Lebanon) says they were rejects from the national army and some sources say as many as half were Muslims. So they would be Muslims carrying out Christian terror possibly on behalf of Jews. TFD (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was correct when I said that I should have known better to get drawn into this, because this discussion has become a rerun of the archived ones. Suffice it to say that I find the rebuttals above very unconvincing, as I did in the past, so for now I'll let those editors have WP:The last word, but I still hope that editors new to this page will think about it for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do, because in your view, all conflicts are caused by religions, and economic and racial factors play no part. TFD (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And because of that you refuse to provide any sources from terrorism experts that classify this as religious terrorism. You present Chomsky for example who called it terrorism, reject his conclusions about the reasons and substitute your own. TFD (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And I smell bad too.

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not know of a source of the term as a rhetorical device, and there is requirement that I do. FYI, Christians often use Christian terminology. Lincoln said "I hope God is on our side", British soldiers swear before God their allegiance to the Queen, even sing "Onward Christian soldiers." Bush even talked about a "crusade" against terrorism. Does that mean that all the wars waged by Western nations are religious wars? Possibly, but unless mainstream sources concur on that issue, we cannot present that theory as fact. TFD (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but this is notably larger subject, there might be few reasons to know that christian ideology was used by the terrorist groups of Lebanon, which is far more than just George bush talking about crusades. Even putin had condemned Libyan invasion as crusade. Don't take them too seriously. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Phalange in Lebanon was predominantly Christian, modeled itself on European fascism, included Muslims, called for a secular Lebanon, and saw Israel as an ally. Al Qaeda otoh is not predominantly Muslim (it is entirely Muslim), does not model itself on European anything, does not call for a secular state and is unlikely to form an alliance with Israel. If two nominal Christians rob a bank, we do not call them a "Christian gang", not that Christians cannot rob banks, but because that is not the motivation of their action. And if two nominal Christians and a nominal Muslim unite in the robbery, there is even less reason to call it a Christian crime. TFD (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope we are not confusing "terrorism committed by religiously motivated Christians" with "terrorism committed by Christians", Where's the argument that Lebanon's terrorism wasn't promoted or operated by the religious christians? Sorry if i am repeating same thing, but it can be confirmed. Israel obviously support/fund various organizations but it doesn't means that it was their soldiers involved in the given massacres and bombings that are labelled on Christians? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you need to show that they were motivated by their religion and that the fact they were a nationalist ethnic minority had nothing to do with their opposition to (secular) Arab nationalism. During the Vietnam war, most American soldiers were Christians, while most of their enemy were Buddhist, even if led by Communists. Does that mean it was a religious conflict? TFD (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism in the U.S./Civil War

As already stated in the article, the Ku Klux Klan were a terrorist organisation that came into being after the civil war and claimed to draw justification for their ideas from the "Christian Bible". What is not mentioned is John Brown and his followers who were also terrorists and also claimed biblical justification for their ANTI slavery views.

Seems to me this deserves attention as you have two groups with almost diametrically opposite views BOTH claiming biblical inspiration for their respective positions, further, one group played a role prior to and LEADING to the civil war while the opposition RESULTED from the same war.

Seems to me the paradox is worthy of some attention... User:212.93.105.39 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add it, with sources, if you have enough time. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Bias in Introduction?

"Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on idiosyncratic or literal interpretations of the tenets of faith – in this case, the Bible."

This introduction immediately emphasizes that these terrorists "claim" to be Christian, and that they have distinct "interpretations" which implicitly separates them from some unspoken other group. I don't mean to say that this is erroneous, but compare it to the introduction for Islamic terrorism:

"Islamic terrorism is a form of religious terrorism[1] committed by Muslims to achieve varying political ends in the name of religion. Islamic terrorism has occurred globally, including in the Middle East, Africa, Australia, Europe, Southeast Asia, South Asia, South America, The Caucasus, The Pacific and North America. Islamic terrorist organizations have been known to engage in tactics including suicide attacks, bombing, Spree killing, hijackings, kidnapping and recruiting new members through the Internet."

Here there is absolutely no mention of "idiosyncratic interpretations" and no mention of the terrorists only "claiming" to be follow Islam. The opening sentence is no less accurate when applied to Christian terrorism: "...committed by Christians to achieve varying political ends in the name of religion." This is exactly what violent opposition to abortion and homosexuality are.

So why do these articles introduce the subjects in such different ways? This seems to me to be a very clear double standard. Either the Islamic Terrorism introduction should be changed to make the same emphasis on "interpretation," or the Christian Terrorism introduction should be changed to remove it.208.101.164.4 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm on board with the "interpretation" part, but to me, the Islamic terrorism introduction you've quoted reads better and conveys more information. I think I'd support rewriting this lead to be similar. Go ahead and be bold, and see what happens. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what happens, too. I'm glad this question arose, because I've been uncomfortable for a long time about ways in which editing of this page has been skewed towards the editorial opinion that Christians can't really be religious terrorists, and I've wondered whether the lead has served to be a self-fulfilling definition. One specific aspect of that is whether there may be scholarly source material that treats some "Christian terrorism" as arising from identity with Christian populations (committing terrorism on behalf of one's group of people), as opposed to arising from interpretations of Christian theology (committing it on behalf of a belief). I've been meaning to look for source material of that sort, and intend to do so when I get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While other articles may be a guide to what is written here, the reverse is also true. Reliable sources classify terrorists according to motivation, i.e., the reason why terrorist acts are committed rather than the ethnicity, religion, race, nationality or gender of the persons carrying out the actions. The phrasing in the Islamic terrorist article may reflect an Islamophobic bias. However, since we are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, rather than correct their biases, we would need to show that the definition used in the Islamic article misrepresents sources in order to change it. TFD (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a great point. I boldly edited the lead accordingly. Comparing the two articles, this article is really weak on biblical and theological roots; that is the first section in the Islamic terrorism article. I will try to work on building that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said I was interested to see what would happen, and now I've seen.

Since the change to make the lead more like the Islamic page was quickly reverted, I suggest leaving it reverted for now. After all, WP:CIRCULAR and all that. Whatever does or does not happen with the lead, I think it's very clear that it will have to reflect high quality secondary sources, and any edits will be nitpicked and will have to hold up per sourcing in order to get consensus. The best thing to do now is to look for sourcing, preferably scholarly and expert. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed reading your changes. I boldly changed as well. I don't think I changed the sense of it by rm idiosyncratic. Shortened mainly. If I overwrote your edits it was by accident. Student7 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with your edit, because the previous bold edit had been reverted back to the status quo. I see that, with the subsequent edits, "idiosyncratic" was removed, and then "literal" was removed, so that it currently just says "relied on interpretations". I'm not sure, but there's something to be said for that, in that we don't offer any evaluations in Wikipedia's voice. On the other hand, it feels like something is missing: doesn't there have to be something unconventional about those interpretations, relative to other interpretations? Obviously, yes, given that this is terrorism. I think "idiosyncratic" had been intended to communicate that the interpretations are ones that would be rejected by most other Christians. "Literal" opens a debate about whether literal interpretation inevitably leads to terrorism. How about changing "have relied on interpretations of" to "have relied on their interpretations of"? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The leads to left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism (both of which I wrote), and nationalist terrorism all refer to the motivation of the terrorism and does not mention that the terrorists are left-wingers, right-wingers or nationalists. I do not think that any sources define Christian terrorism, but they define religious terrorism, then describe various types of religious terrorists, e.g., Christian and Islamic. I think that is the most fair-minded approach. The sources emphasize the motivation, because of course a Christian terrorist is not a terrorist who happens to be Christian, but someone who carries out terrorist actions from Christian motivation. TFD (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Peru

This section has one source that does not mention anything about being Christian terrorism or even for than matter terrorism, since at best the "alleged" instigator was a christian, that does not make it Christian terrorism. And the inclusion of this text becomes Original Search. If this is what is passing as sourced material on this page I will have to go threw all the sources and text here to make sure that they conform to the policies that Wikipedia promotes in regards to OR and sourcing. 66.216.235.178 (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@66.216.235.178: Here is the definition of Terrorism. Another link. Let me know if you need more. The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Next when it is done by Christian then, it is Christian Terrorism. The source says, The traditional healers, all from the Shawi ethnic group, were murdered in separate incidents over the last 20 months, allegedly at the behest of a local mayor. The prime suspects, however, in the disappearance of one victim and the murder of another are the mayor of Balsapuerto, Alfredo Torres and his brother Augusto. The Roman Catholic church in the area has reported the death of seven other shamans whose bodies have yet to be found, Otta said, adding that territorial disputes and political disagreements also pointed to the mayor being "one of the instigators of the slaughter. Roger Rumrrill, an expert on Peruvian Amazon cultures alleged that the mayor, who is an evangelical Christian, ordered the killings on hearing that the shamans planned to form an association. He said the mayor's brother was known in the area as a matabrujos or witch killer.. How the source reading above texts doesn't support the below lines,

Fourteen traditionalist shamans about to form a shamanic school and association were murdered in Peru over a period of several months prior to October 2011. The murders were allegedly committed by, and/or at the behest of, the local mayor and a group of other evangelical Christians. The mayor's brother was known in the area as a matabrujos or witch killer.

Explain! Do you want a source that says, Christian Terrorism in heading so only then you could able to agree to include the source and the contexts in an article title Christian Terrorism? Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to learn what Original research is and why it is not allowed on Wikipedia- see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. 66.216.235.178 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah! WP:OR is your primary concern. Well, those lines could be re-written. But in the edit summery while reverting my edits you said, that does not make it christian terrorism.... You've chose to make a u-turn. That's good. I'll re-write the lines sometime soon. Meanwhile, If you have any more questions, ask me here. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, no mention of Christainity as a motivation being behind these, according to the reference given. Murry1975 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The only mention of chritianity in the article is;

He alleged that the mayor, who is an evangelical Christian, ordered the killings on hearing that the shamans planned to form an association. He said the mayor's brother was known in the area as a matabrujos or witch killer. For Protestant sects, the shamans are possessed by the devil; a totally sectarian, primitive and racist concept.

Drawing a parallel line to join the two sentence is indeed OR. Murry1975 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Murry1975: The mayor, who is an evangelical Christian allegedly ordered the killing of people belonging to a particular community, Shawi ethnic group on hearing that the shamans are planning to form an association. According to Roger Rumrrill, an expert on Peruvian Amazon cultures For Protestant sects, the shamans are possessed by the devil; a totally sectarian, primitive and racist concept. The source says,Shamans in the Peruvian Amazon use psychoactive plants such as the jungle vine ayahuascafor spiritual ceremonies. As early as the 16th century, Spanish and Portuguese missionaries described its use by native people in the Amazon as the work of the devil. Until now the death of 14 curanderos who are the depositaries of Amazon knowledge wasn't worth the attention of the press," Rumrrill said. "That's an expression of how fragmented and racist this country is. A centralised country which continues to look at its interior with total indifference.

Another reliable source Peruvian Times says,

the murders are related to “protestant sects” that Torres and his brother belong to...,
For these protestant sects, the shamans are people possessed by demons, so they have to be killed...
For many years they have practiced the ancient custom of killing the witches, making them responsible for the death of some family member who was receiving treatment from the shaman....

Here is an another one that says the same. Now can you please explain how this doesn't indicate the notion of motivation? Anup Mehra ^✈ 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And before you keep refering to WP:OR, I would like to make it clear here what does exactly WP:OR stands for,

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. - Here we got tons of reliable sources. Anup Mehra ^✈ 14:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And here is a qoute from your second source

What is happening now in my community is organized crime," said Pizango, himself a Shawi medico who studied for seven years under a master shaman.

Pizango explained that Shawi tradition used to allow certain shamans, often ones who had quit their apprenticeships and used their powers for "bad things," to be killed or banished by others in the community. Now, he said, a "bad interpretation" of that tradition has been used to cover up corruption and greed.

And both the Gaurdian and Peruvian Times qoute one source, a Roger Rumrrill, but not one of the three say it is because of this Protestant sect.

For it to be included it would have to state who it was by and the motivation was Christianity. As for now mentioning an unproven allegation against an elected offical is not only WP:OR, but infringes uponWP:BLP. Murry1975 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The clear fact is no-one has been found responsisble for these murders, or are their motives documented and proven- hence WP:OR. Murry1975 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It could be an ethnic dispute between Europeans and indigenous people. The article says there were political territorial disputes. There is too little information to determine if it was religious terrorism and we need a source before saying that it is. TFD (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Murry1975: The first two sources, Guardian and Peruvian Times are indeed more reliable than the third one whatWP:OR seeks for.

If there's a reliable source that says, A alleges B that he smashed C on his face. Then including A alleges that C was smashed by B on his face, does not violate OR. Did you get it?
No one is saying they are murdered by the mayor. Even the earlier the article included that IT IS ALLEGED ....... not they actually did murder them.
And perhaps you didn't read my last comment and the 2nd source. I'm reposting. second source that says,

the murders are related to “protestant sects” that Torres and his brother belong to...,
For these protestant sects, the shamans are people possessed by demons, so they have to be killed....

Peruvian Times is a reliable source, hence OR doesn't apply here. The artilce is not a Biography of living person, hence neither WP:BLP. However, really there are reliable sources that says the alleged killing of Shamans by people belonging to Protestant sect who consider them devils. I'm not sure what are you arguing for. ::Repeating once again to avoid confusion, We're talking about alleged killing of people on basis of the reliable sources. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Perhaps Peruvian Times says so. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Its still OR, because the articles dont actually say it was done by x for reason y. They say it could be this it could be that. You to class it on this is OR. BLP applies to ALL articles that mention people who are alive, not only blp articles. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, WP:3RR, everybody. It seems to me that the Peruvian Times article is a slightly better source for our purposes, but it also seems to me that we are on very weak ground, per either of the two sources, in characterizing it as "terrorism", as opposed to as violence. I'm seeing a lot of WP:SYNTH, so unless we can find other sourcing, I'm OK with leaving it off the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm out of the conversation as well. I find it tiring. I'm just curious why some lines could be re-written in the body of the article using these sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. There actually are many more out there on the internet/books/magazines referring to the same incident. Thanks guys. Have a good time. See you some other place. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt discouraged by this discussion, and indeed, I never like to see a good faith editor walk away discouraged from any content discussion. I've carefully read each of the six sources you provided, and they are useful sources, albeit not, I think, for this page. It is very clear that we have reliable sourcing for the multiple murders of shamans in Peru, and that the subject is an encyclopedic one. I'm just not seeing the sources characterize what happened as terrorism, as opposed to as a series of homicides, nor as specifically Christian, because the sources emphasize pretty strongly a complicated group of motives, with religion seeming pretty low on the list. There's probably a place on Wikipedia for this information, but it really isn't this page. (And other editors here will recognize that I'm far from hostile to adding new subjects to this page.) But the third source makes an interesting connection to the earlier persecutions of native Americans by Christian explorers and settlers. I wonder whether the earlier, historical attempts at violent conversions by missionaries have been treated by scholarly sources as Christian terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the terrorism must be illegal in the state where it is carried out. Passing quickly over the fact that Christians had probably usurped the local government, and replaced it with one of their own devising, that would let them off the hook for this one article, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3 issues

I just made this edit, that I will now explain: [21]. My edit undid two edits made a couple of hours earlier by two other editors, and is about three separate points:

A "see also" link at the top of the U.S. section, that adds Anti-abortion violence in the United States to Ku Klux Klan. I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that not all anti-abortion violence is considered to be terrorism by secondary sources. However, a see-also link means that further information can be found at the linked page; it is not a statement in Wikipedia's voice that everything covered at that other page is within the scope of this page. Furthermore, this section of this page does include the last three paragraphs of the section, that focus largely on anti-abortion violence.
A statement about present-day KKK organizations. Given that the page already covers the KKK, it seems reasonable to me to have one sentence about its status today. Also, the material about perceptions of "war" is very much like what one sees in sources about religious terrorism, and consequently seems to me to be relevant here.
A sentence about the group Concerned Christians. This material has been discussed in this talk previously, where the question was previously raised of whether a plan to commit attacks qualifies as "terrorism", and the consensus at the time was that it is not disqualifying. (After all, the U.S. kills persons abroad on the grounds that they are Islamic terrorists, and does so before the planned terrorism has been carried out. That doesn't mean that the planned terrorism was not terrorism.) And once again, the material about the group's motivations is strikingly similar to how secondary sources describe religious terrorism in other religions (such as Islam).

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to #2, and the "Knights Party": I really wish that the average person coming to WP agreed with Student7 that the KKK's "Christian credentials [have been] established", but we've seen plenty of arguments about that, so I think the more facts in evidence, the better. Also, I checked the link, and it didn't appear to be "dead". In any case, I found another link from a 3rd party, explaining this group's modern ideology, and quoting their own agenda:

""Non-whites who reside in America should be expected to conduct themselves according to Christian principles and must recognize that race mixing is definitely wrong and out of the question. It will be a privilege to live under the authority of a compassionate White Christian government."

"[T]here are politicians in Washington D.C. working around the clock chipping away at our liberty, but thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers America has held out the longest against the global, race mixing, homosexual, anti-Christ forces working to wipe out White Christianity the way we have always known it."

Source: [22] "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan", Southern Poverty Law Center. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

National Democratic Front of Bodoland

today an image was added in this dif, by User:Tobby72. The image concerns National Democratic Front of Bodoland which is an terrorist group in India that is not discussed in this article. The article on the NDFB was also wikilinked to this article. It doesn't appear to me that NDFB fits the criteria, so I reverted the image and also took the "see also" link away from the NDFB article until this could be discussed... Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Assam used to be discussed on this article. Dont know where it happened. Christianity is used by the NDFB to distance the region from Indian beliefs, if their actions fit and sources do too, it should be added but if its not in the pic shouldnt be used. Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked back at the article history, and Assam used to be included in the Tripura section. It was taken out by User:Drmies, here: [23]. But that content was about a different group, not this one. I would expect that bringing this new group into this page would set off the perennial argument that occurs here: according to National Democratic Front of Bodoland, the group membership is primarily Christian, in contrast to the rest of the local population, but the group's objectives (see: National Democratic Front of Bodoland#Objective) sound mostly nationalist rather than religious, and they appear to self-identify as Democratic Socialists, rather than as Christians. I'm inclined to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving them out. The PLO and the Abu Nidal group were largely composed of Muslims, but were not considered Muslim terrorists because their objectives were national independence unlike al Qaeda, which is motivated by their interpretation of Islam. TFD (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine

The rebels in Ukraine have been called terrorists by the U.S. and Ukraine government, they seek to create a Christian state, their rebel flag has the Orthodox Jesus ("Image Not-made-by-hands") icon, look at the photo on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28619599 - perhaps they should be included in the article? Josh Keen (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You would need to show sources that say they were Christian terrorists. That is unlikely, because their main motivation appears to be Russian nationalism. Note also that your source does not even call their actions terrorism, it just says that they call the Ukrainian government terrorist. TFD (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Our Two(?) New Edit-Warriors

It seems that User:Kinderlander and User:Numancia have both arrived to cause disruption on this page. A look at both profiles shows that they both have a history of edit-warring, and both edit a lot of the same pages, which leads me to speculate on the possibility of sock-puppetry. In either case, they need to lay off. This page has been through the fire and flame, and is duly referenced. If you have a problem with any of the things that survived the years of attacks waged by Christian Apologists, please consult the archives, as you will no doubt see where those issues have already been addressed and dealt with. You can discuss your concerns on this talk page. If you have nothing constructive to offer, then please stop deleting sourced content. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion of sockpuppetry rests on thin evidence, and borders on a violation of WP:NPA unless accompanied by a request at WP:SPI. Anything in the way of WP:BATTLEGROUND, in either POV direction, is unhelpful here. But I fully agree with the request to refrain from edit warring, and to come to this talk page instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A claim of rediff isnt a rs, yet last discussion I can see, short and to the point it is. Murry1975 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

rediff.com

Per this, do folks think rediff.com is a WP:RS? I see shopping and gossip, not a serious news with fact checking that we should rely on, especially in a controversial article. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

just saw the post above. I find that a pretty unsatisfactory answer... one response on RSN Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the linked RSN discussion is not definitive, and I'm unsure about rediff.com in general, when I look at the specific use of it for sourcing the sentence on this page, I think that it's alright, unless editors know of other sources that contradict what it says. Absent conflicting other sources, I'd be inclined to leave it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

for potentially controversially statements i would be comfortable with something that looks less pitiful. if there are not other and more reliable sources for these claims i don't think we should keep the content sourced from rediff. really, this is bottom-of-the-bowl scraping sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: It has been on this page for some time, and I think you accidentally deleted it when you were cleaning up my citation earlier, which is why I re-added it. Pardon me if that was a mistake on my part. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I spent a bit of time looking at whether there are alternative sources. I found this: [24], which does not report the exact same thing, but which seems consistent in terms of Mr. Joseph saying these sorts of things. I also find a ton of stuff about conflicts between his supporters and his critics. I guess there are two questions here: (1) Do we have a RS as to whether he said what the page attributes to him? (2) Do we have a RS that what he said is true? I'm inclined to think that the answers are (1) yes, and (2) no. Perhaps there is a middle ground: if The Hindu is a better source, we might take something from that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If it were reporting something particularly "controversial", I might be more inclined to agree that it isn't RS...but like you say above, it looks pretty legit. Because of the way that Indian news, at least Indian news in English, is less available for citation on WP, it causes problems, (like when some of the previous editors were essentially inferring that Indian news outlets could not be "trusted" to report on Christians without bias), and I don't see why this particular instance would fail RS. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

what our article says right now: " John Joseph, the Christian representative of the National Minority Commission, stated in 2000 that foreign funds used for Roman Catholic terrorism in the northeast are routed through Christians in Kerala.[14]"

what the rediff source says:

"National Minority Commission member John Joseph's statement that fundamentalists in the Christian community want the current tension to continue for ensuring the flow of foreign funds has apparently triggered a demand from the Sangh Parivar for an inquiry into the source of funds.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad secretary Manohar Joshi said that conversions were part of an international conspiracy. Demanding a judicial inquiry into the flow of foreign funds into the country, Joshi said that 'Christian terrorism' was the root cause of troubles in the north-eastern region of India.

At a press conference in Kozhikode, he alleged that the Catholic Church was supporting 'Christian terrorism' with the help of funds from abroad. "They have been spreading lies about Hindus to cover up their anti-national activities," he said. Joshi said that the VHP would continue to oppose special privileges to the minority communities."...

The Catholic Congress has also taken strong exception to John Joseph's charge that there was 'Christian terrorism' in Kerala as well as Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. Catholic Bishops Conference of India president and Thiruvananthapuram Arch Bishop Dr Cyril Mar Baselius has also expressed surprise over Joseph's statement."

I gotta say that this is jumbled mess but it appears that if anybody made the allegation it was Manohar Joshi, not Joseph. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be for us to rewrite it, rather than simply deleting the whole thing, and I'd be inclined to cite The Hindu for it. How does that sound? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

based on the above quote from the given source it is clear to me that Joseph John did not say that catholics were funding terrorism. i just spent about a half hour looking for anything to verify that and found nothing. i also found nothing to verify that Manohar Joshi said it either. I did find this report from human rights watch from 1999 that confirms that at that time "VHP members also pronounced that the burning of churches and prayer halls in Gujarat's Dangs district, further described below, were part of an "international conspiracy" to defame BJP-led governments and to malign the VHP and the Bajrang Dal" which would more back Joshi saying it. but even that is flimsy. this source says that mainline christian organizations said that once the BJP took over the government in the late 1990s, the National Minority Commission and particular Joseph John on it, became ineffective at best and played down anti-Christian violence. I am taking the quote out for now as it is clearly fails verification, until folks here come up with something that passes WP:VERIFY and is not WP:UNDUE ("allegations" are pretty lame in any case) and all this happened what, 15 years ago, in the midst of a very difficult period in India. Please also note that many of those folks are probably still alive and if we say "X said Y" it better be verifiable per WP:BLP. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry to keep peppering. trypto, the hindu seems great and much more clear than the rediff source. it is not specific to any region or group in NE India - Joseph just talks about christian militancy in NE india and gives a very narrow but nonlocalized story, so I added the to the article as a source for the single sentence section lead, for the Christian violence in india section. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After giving this matter further thought, I mostly agree with you. In particular, The Hindu actually says that Joseph denied having ever said anything about terrorism in Kerala, and he described Kerala as having peace-loving people. So I now agree with deleting the previous sentence. But I also think that the new source supports saying more than just the very brief topic sentence, so I added one additional sentence, that relates somewhat to what the previous material said about funds, but is based strictly on the source. Please check whether you agree with me that the sentence is faithful to the source; I think it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks trypto. can you please point out where in the hindu source these is anything about " foreign funds as supporting the conflicts" in the northeast (in other words, the terrorism)? I didn't find that yesterday and just double checked, and still didn't find it. So i dug some more. In this interview (yes in rediff!) from July 2000 John Joseph says that a guy named John Dayal is exaggerating the conflicts so his advocacy organizations can get more foreign funding. And in this article from August 2000 John Dayal says that John Joseph is accusing him of all sorts of terrible things like stirring up trouble and angling for foreign funding. I don't see any reliable source that says that foreign funding is going into supporting christian terrorism in the northeastern states. This stuff about foreign funding looks like typical stupid political he-said/she-said spatting that is pure bullshit (speech intended to persuade without regard for truth)... why is it in our encyclopedia article? Can we please take it out til there is a reliable source provided? Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

From The Hindu, third paragraph: "He alleged that these quarters wanted flow of foreign funds by keeping alive the tension between the Christians and the Hindus in different parts of the country." (The preceding sentences identify "He" as Joseph and "these quarters" as Christians.) I'm open to persuasion about how "different parts of the country" relates specifically to the northeast parts, but my reading of the source as a whole is that the violence being talked about in that paragraph of the source is the violence in the northeast. I recognize that there is indeed a lot of sparring back and forth in the source material, but I also think that it is important that the wording I suggested attributed the assertion to Joseph, rather than saying it in Wikipedia's voice. My reading of the source material is that Joseph himself is a Christian, and that the people who dispute his claims are people who have a dog in the fight, whereas there are no sources in which neutral parties dispute his claims about foreign funds. In the CT source you cite (at least the part before the paywall), I don't actually see Dayal denying the part about foreign funds. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive me - I am pretty new to this topic and am still learning about it, and don't know how much you know. I read the human rights watch report i linked to above with great interest, as it seemed pretty neural/reliable and gave a good overview of the context. it appears to me that in 1990s a wave anti-Christian violence arose in India, and different groups responded in different ways... and there were lots of politics. I haven't figured out yet if Joseph Johns was really an even handed dealer (as he seems to be at some points, saying that what some christians were calling anti-Christian violence was just random) or if he was a pawn of BJP as some called him. But clearly (to me) he is making allegations that some Christians were making hay of the situation - raising tensions as many people accused Al Sharpton of doing as the Tawana Brawley incident unfolded - so that people would give them (the activist group) money, out of sympathy and to self-aggrandize. But I don't see Joseph saying anywhere that foreign funds are going to terrorism. His interview in (gulp) rediff that I linked to above makes this even more clear: " I am on good terms with him and other top church leaders. It is not they who are trying to create unnecessary hysteria over the so-called attacks on Christians. It is some lay Christian leaders who are advising the bishops to act against the interests of the community. They are trying to vitiate the communal atmosphere in the country....I sincerely feel that some of these Christian leaders want the attacks to continue so that they can be in the limelight. They are playing politics in the shadow of the attacks. Some of these leaders want the tension to increase in the country. They want to achieve so many other things in the name of the attacks against Christians in the country. In the name of violence and atrocities, I suspect some Christian organisations are trying to get foreign funds." See what I mean? He doesn't seem to be talking about funding terrorism - the subject of this section.... Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I sort of see what you mean – but don't give me credit for knowing a whole lot.

I think that you are arguing that we have reliable sourcing that he said that the funds were going to the purpose of keeping certain persons in the limelight, rather than to the purpose of supporting terrorist violence. I would argue that there is a loose analogy to the difference between Sinn Féin and the IRA: an "above-ground" group that has plausible deniability for the violence of the underground group. I also think that you are parsing the difference between whether or not we have verifiable evidence that Joseph said it versus whether or not we have verifiable evidence that what he said was true. I still think we are on solid ground to report that he said this, with attribution. Would it help to follow it by a rebuttal by someone else, denying it, all with attribution? (Such a point-counterpoint should go lower in the section, not at the top.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 2 key things and i think we might be home. John Dayal is the person about whom Joseph James was talking and nobody has accused him or his fellow christian activists of being involved with or supporting christian terrorists in the northeast. 2) Joseph Johns said Daval and his cohorts were trying to get foreign money, not that there they actually were getting foreign money.... Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On the first point, John Joseph is talking about John Dayal in the rediff interview, but not specifically about him in The Hindu article. On the second point, John Joseph says, in the rediff interview, "In the name of violence and atrocities, I suspect some Christian organisations are trying to get foreign funds." I would be OK with quoting that sentence directly, with attribution, and following it with a rebutting quote from John Dayal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

this is kind of weird, trypto, as usually we click into sync very quickly. I am objecting to using the Johns quote in this article about terrorism, because he never explicitly says anything foreign funds fueling terrorism per se. Not even by doing some kind of reasonable SYN can we get there (for instance, if Daval were involved in supporting terrorism, you could maybe get there). To link what Johns said to terrorism you have to really leap. That is not Ok to me... Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, unless someone else objects to the removal, I'm ready to forget about it. I don't care that much. I've had a long history with this page, of editors saying that if a source doesn't actually use the phrase "Christian terrorism", then it isn't Christian terrorism except by SYNTH, so I've become rather sensitized to that. Please understand that I'm not implying this about you, but I've seen that argument used too many times as simple POV-pushing to push a pro-Christian POV. It just seems to me that John Joseph is saying that foreign funds are being sought by the people behind the terrorist attacks. Anyway, this is a very small point within the India section, and I'm ready to let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

am definitely not saying that it needs to be explicit in that way. a reasonable amount of dot-connecting has to be allowed. johns just seems to be fishing in a different barrel, is all - the christian activists who he thinks are charlatans. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you guys have solved this to your satisfaction and I'm willing to drop it too. However, it would seem more reasonable if we ignored it, in light of 1) Joseph's position as part of a group investigating there matters, and 2) the fact that he is WP:NN (we have no idea how he got his job!). He is a nobody as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Not WP:RS. If the Hindu said it, then I suppose. We all know we are talking ~~third world~~ underdeveloped country here. We've all had a devil of a time figuring out what, if anything, is going on in Northeast India. (Shouldn't be that hard for Kerala, BTW). IMO, it should be omitted until his group decides to take a position, which is probably never, which is probably why he went public with the accusation. Student7 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

wunderbar! Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Student7 I agree with User:Jytdog about the reliability of source. We are not talking about third world here, you just don't know what it means because it is outdated term and misused term. It means nothing since the end of cold war, third world also included Sweden when it was relevant to use. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I misused one word. Is "underdeveloped country" acceptable?

I don't see that my misuse of the term negates any of the other questions concerning the use of a sound bite from a rogue member of some commission. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)