Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 12
 | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Susan McKay again
I'm going to repeat here something that I said earlier, because I think the point was lost in a minor bit of handbagging that followed ;-)
The Susan McKay article cited in the Northern Ireland section is about a murder. It deliberately makes a connection – a connection that has never been proved – between that murder and a meeting of a loyalist group that was held the same night, at which the rhetoric of religion and the rhetoric of war was used. This is rendered in the article as, "Journalist Susan McKay explored the Protestant fundamentalist element within militant Loyalism, and noted that some Loyalists described the conflict as a battle of Protestantism against Catholicism." That is not what she was doing, or what she was trying to do. The source article was not an academic study by an expert in conflict studies but sensational journalism (and the mere fact that it appeared in the Guardian, not a tabloid, is not a defence against the charge of sensationalism). As it stands that sentence is a misrepresentation of the source, and should be removed.
To quote TFD on that earlier occasion, "Another problem is that the first paragraph in the NI section is about the Troubles, but the actions described occurred in 2001, after the end of the Troubles. The murder has never been solved, and the organization that claimed responsibility is not normally described as Christian terrorist."
It seems to me that there is an ever-increasing focus on academic studies by experts in this article, so, unlike the Steve Bruce source, there is nothing to be gained by re-wording and expanding it. Even if it were an accurate reflection of the article, it would be out of place. Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- First, the most recent edits by you and by Bastun make perfectly good sense to me. (Just as information, and not as a matter of dispute, "different to" must be a case of WP:ENGVAR, because to US ears, it sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. Handbagging? This was no help, so I Googled it and saw a lot of stuff about Mrs. Thatcher. I'll infer you meant talk page discussion that you found to be unproductive.) Now, about this source, although I realize that you are advocating for removing it, I made an edit shortening it to say, only, that: "Journalist Susan McKay also noted that some Loyalists have described the conflict as a battle of Protestantism against Catholicism." That, she does, and it's entirely consistent with the source. Whether or not the murder of a journalist perceived as reporting things they didn't like is, or is not, terrorism, the page says nothing about the murder, how it should be categorized, or any possible causes of it. And, although the headline news in the piece was about the murder, McKay actually spends more of her text going into the background of things that were said, over a long period of time spanning pretty much the entire time period of the Troubles, by Loyalist speakers. So it is accurate to represent the source as having noted these things that were said; it's not like it was a minor footnote. The long list of "mainstream" sources near the top of the section (the ones saying that the Troubles were not about religion) is appropriately heavy on academics, but it also includes a few journalists and news pieces. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing "different to" to "different from". The colonists on this side of the Atlantic appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If you want to cite "a journalist", NPOV and UNDUE would require that you note the number of journalists that also reported on loyalists and murder, but without linking them to expressions of Protestant fundamentalism, such as this Guardian report of the O'Hagan murder, as well as this, this, this, this, this, this and this – all from a quick search of the Guardian alone. It is wrong to select out a single piece that depicts loyalist violence in a certain way, unless you can show that it is representative of journalistic opinion generally. In other words, it fails NPOV and UNDUE. I have made an edit to the sentence but that doesn't mean I am content to see it stay. It should be removed.
- I replaced "different to" with "different from".
Is that any better?. I'm glad that is acceptable. I thought that "to" was a universal rule but apparently I was wrong. For "handbag", see Wikt:handbag#verb. --Scolaire (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for discussing these issues instead of just deleting the sentence. I've read every one of those other reports to which you linked. If this page, in its current form, were making any kind of comment about the murder of the journalist, then I would agree with you that the McKay piece would be atypical in terms of the motivations for that particular murder. But (regardless of what Ms. McKay might believe about why that particular murder took place), the page, in its current form, says nothing about the murder or the reasons for the murder. The other sources you listed do support characterization of the groups that may (or may not) have done the murder as being terrorists, and as being the same as the three groups named as terrorists by Steve Bruce in his piece. Steve Bruce talks about the language that he thinks motivated the terrorist acts. The quotes from McKay are further examples of that kind of language, specific examples that conform to what Bruce said, but are not available from Bruce's essay because he does not quote them. All the page says is that, according to McKay (just as according to Bruce), there has been a history of some Loyalists themselves saying that they have Christian motivations. There is nothing in any of the sources you linked here to call into question that those things were, indeed, said publicly. I don't see how saying that these statements have been made fails either NPOV or UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just got an alternative idea. There are other sources for most of these quotes, so I'll substitute them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Saying a statement has been made violates NPOV unless sources on the subject ("Christian terrorism") say they are relevant. Otherwise we are using primary sources ("statements made", the fact someone was murdered) in order to represent it as an example of Christian terrorism, which is "original research" TFD (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, McKay said (whether one agrees with her or not) that the quotes were relevant, which is why she quoted them. It sounds like we have to cite McKay to satisfy you, and we have to not cite McKay to satisfy Scolaire. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Saying a statement has been made violates NPOV unless sources on the subject ("Christian terrorism") say they are relevant. Otherwise we are using primary sources ("statements made", the fact someone was murdered) in order to represent it as an example of Christian terrorism, which is "original research" TFD (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just got an alternative idea. There are other sources for most of these quotes, so I'll substitute them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for discussing these issues instead of just deleting the sentence. I've read every one of those other reports to which you linked. If this page, in its current form, were making any kind of comment about the murder of the journalist, then I would agree with you that the McKay piece would be atypical in terms of the motivations for that particular murder. But (regardless of what Ms. McKay might believe about why that particular murder took place), the page, in its current form, says nothing about the murder or the reasons for the murder. The other sources you listed do support characterization of the groups that may (or may not) have done the murder as being terrorists, and as being the same as the three groups named as terrorists by Steve Bruce in his piece. Steve Bruce talks about the language that he thinks motivated the terrorist acts. The quotes from McKay are further examples of that kind of language, specific examples that conform to what Bruce said, but are not available from Bruce's essay because he does not quote them. All the page says is that, according to McKay (just as according to Bruce), there has been a history of some Loyalists themselves saying that they have Christian motivations. There is nothing in any of the sources you linked here to call into question that those things were, indeed, said publicly. I don't see how saying that these statements have been made fails either NPOV or UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see the McKay cite gone. It means we can look at those quotes and judge them on their own merits. You have to remember that in 1912 Ireland, though governed from Westminster, was effectively ruled by the Protestant Ascendancy, through its armed paramilitary police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary. In 1997, though again there was direct rule in Northern Ireland, it was principally the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment (both overwhelmingly Protestant forces), and the British Army that fought the IRA. Thus, neither of the first two quotes can or should be seen as condoning or encouraging terrorism: it was state forces that had the job of battling "the Whore, the Beast etc." The third quote says, "The Orange Order is the last bastion of our defence." Now, since the Orange Order is not a paramilitary force, it cannot be saying that terrorism is the means of defending Protestantism. The sentence that replaced the McKay sentence therefore does the same thing as that sentence: it creates the impression of extravagant Protestant orators encouraging terrorism without actually showing that they did. It's not news that some Protestants see the world in terms of a battle against Catholics, and it's not relevant to "Christian terrorism" unless a reliable source (not a Guardian journalist) making a direct connection can be cited. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Steve Bruce uses the word paramilitary to describe the Orange Volunteers; is the Orange Order a different, independent group? (If so, I didn't realize it.) It also seems to me that Steve Bruce is just such a reliable source, that makes a direct connection between the "Christian imagery" and what the Orange Volunteers and the other two splinter groups did. I understand the point that you and other editors have made, that these kinds of quotes both predate and postdate the Troubles, but I think that Bruce (and for whatever it's worth, so did McKay) seems to see the long and ongoing history of some Protestants seeing the world that way, as a battle against Catholics, as being what gave rise to the actions of the three splinter groups during the time period that they were active (which, if I understand correctly, was actually after the main of the Troubles was over). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see the McKay cite gone. It means we can look at those quotes and judge them on their own merits. You have to remember that in 1912 Ireland, though governed from Westminster, was effectively ruled by the Protestant Ascendancy, through its armed paramilitary police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary. In 1997, though again there was direct rule in Northern Ireland, it was principally the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment (both overwhelmingly Protestant forces), and the British Army that fought the IRA. Thus, neither of the first two quotes can or should be seen as condoning or encouraging terrorism: it was state forces that had the job of battling "the Whore, the Beast etc." The third quote says, "The Orange Order is the last bastion of our defence." Now, since the Orange Order is not a paramilitary force, it cannot be saying that terrorism is the means of defending Protestantism. The sentence that replaced the McKay sentence therefore does the same thing as that sentence: it creates the impression of extravagant Protestant orators encouraging terrorism without actually showing that they did. It's not news that some Protestants see the world in terms of a battle against Catholics, and it's not relevant to "Christian terrorism" unless a reliable source (not a Guardian journalist) making a direct connection can be cited. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is the Orange Order a different group from the Orange Volunteers?
I am staggered by how profound your ignorance of the Northern Ireland situation is. I have been discussing this with you on the basis that you knew what you were talking about, but now it looks as though all you are doing is trawling through Google books and newspaper archives looking for keywords so as to bolster your case, without making any attempt to actually learn or understand the history.Yes, it is. I feel strongly that it is because you do not have a proper understanding of what the Troubles were about that I have difficulty getting points across to you. Your knowledge comes from books and articles on terrorism rather than from books and articles on the individuals and groups concerned and what they actually thought and did. No, Steve Bruce definitely did not say that what Protestant demagogues have said throughout the ages was the motivating factor for those three tiny splinter groups. To cite the Bruce essay, then give three random quotes and say that Bruce was saying they were behind terrorist acts is synthesis, and of a most egregious kind. Scolaire (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is the Orange Order a different group from the Orange Volunteers?
- Thinking a bit more about it, and particularly about what TFD said, a broader issue occurs to me. The now-revised section cites a large number of sources that express the "not religious" interpretation, and presents them as the consensus amongst reliable analysts. And I've supported that, once the source were really provided. But what all of those sources actually say is that they, each source, considers the motivations to be other than religious. They don't actually say that there is a consensus amongst academics on this point, nor do they really say that the sources that do attribute the terrorism to religion have been widely discredited. But we still describe it as a consensus, based upon editors here counting up the number of sources on one side, versus the number of sources on the other. Isn't that original research, if we really get strict about it? On that basis, are we wrong to just cite a long string of sources and draw our own conclusions about it? And if we are not wrong, then what is different about citing sources for the Protestant quotes, given that Steve Bruce explicitly says what he does about "Christian imagery"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Trypotfish, the Orange Order is a a fraternal organization with wide membership, although it has gone into decline in recent decades. TFD (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- TFD, thank you for explaining that to me politely. I appreciate the fact that, even when you and I disagree about content, you are consistently polite during discussions. I looked at the page on them, and the lead says: "It has also been criticised for associating with loyalist paramilitary groups." That sounds to me like the relationship of the Orange Order to the paramilitary groups might be roughly similar to that between Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I apologise unreservedly for the language in my previous post. It was late at night, and I should have slept on it before responding in a knee-jerk fashion. I have struck it now. Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Scolaire! It happens to all of us, and I'm very happy to be able to get back to the issues that concern us both. I assure you that I'm trying my best to learn from the source material what information is relevant to the page, and trying my best to represent the sources accurately, and not merely selectively. I can also assure you that I have misunderstood sources in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, despite my best efforts not to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I apologise unreservedly for the language in my previous post. It was late at night, and I should have slept on it before responding in a knee-jerk fashion. I have struck it now. Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that one of the ways that the section about Ireland contributes to Wikipedia's mission is that, for most people who live in the US as I do, there is an assumption that, just because the Troubles are mostly Protestant versus Catholic, that it's about religion. By reading what the section now says, following the discussions here recently, US readers can get a more nuanced and knowledgeable understanding of what the facts really are. Perhaps some editors from Ireland will see that the section serves an informative purpose in that regard, but I wouldn't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- TFD, thank you for explaining that to me politely. I appreciate the fact that, even when you and I disagree about content, you are consistently polite during discussions. I looked at the page on them, and the lead says: "It has also been criticised for associating with loyalist paramilitary groups." That sounds to me like the relationship of the Orange Order to the paramilitary groups might be roughly similar to that between Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Trypotfish, the Orange Order is a a fraternal organization with wide membership, although it has gone into decline in recent decades. TFD (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thinking a bit more about it, and particularly about what TFD said, a broader issue occurs to me. The now-revised section cites a large number of sources that express the "not religious" interpretation, and presents them as the consensus amongst reliable analysts. And I've supported that, once the source were really provided. But what all of those sources actually say is that they, each source, considers the motivations to be other than religious. They don't actually say that there is a consensus amongst academics on this point, nor do they really say that the sources that do attribute the terrorism to religion have been widely discredited. But we still describe it as a consensus, based upon editors here counting up the number of sources on one side, versus the number of sources on the other. Isn't that original research, if we really get strict about it? On that basis, are we wrong to just cite a long string of sources and draw our own conclusions about it? And if we are not wrong, then what is different about citing sources for the Protestant quotes, given that Steve Bruce explicitly says what he does about "Christian imagery"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think the relationship is similar. The Order is probably more similar to the Catholic Church, because it provided unity and support to Prostestants.[1] Politically though the Order supported the moderate UUP in opposition to Paisley's DUP, and opposed his church as well. I do not think there was the same cooperation as between Sein Fein and the Provo IRA, although terrorists paid lip service respectively to the Orange Order and the Catholic Church. TFD (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- That being the case, I have removed the footnote that referred to the Orange Order. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I still think that the sentence, "Similar statements from loyalists over time have also portrayed the conflict as a battle of Protestantism against Catholicism", should go. On its own it says nothing about terrorism. The "conflict" referred to, as I have shown, goes back much further than any terrorist campaign: at least as far back as the Glorious Revolution. In the context of the paragraph, it gives the impression that these are the statements referred to by Steve Bruce in his article, which they are not. Therefore the sentence is either irrelevant or misleading, depending on which way you read it. In either case, it should be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I feel very strongly that your analysis is incorrect, for the reasons that I have already stated. However, it's more important to me to have editorial peace, and I can see that this issue could just become an endless impasse. Therefore, I have deleted the sentence as you recommended: [2]. At the same time, I also changed the word "consensus" to "view" in an earlier sentence: [3]. My reasoning is that, if we are going to say, in part, that citing those loyalist quotes is original research that goes beyond the sources (and, for that matter, that Susan McKay did not prove the connections that her piece claims), then it is original research to say that the majority sources represent a consensus, because most of them do not even mention the sources that are cited for the opposing view, and because the fact that editors have counted the numbers of sources that we, ourselves, have cited, does not mean that there is a source for that numerical difference. So please look upon this as a sort of package deal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that gesture to resolve this particular "conflict". I agree that "view" is the more appropriate word in that other sentence. Scolaire (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Good! I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that gesture to resolve this particular "conflict". I agree that "view" is the more appropriate word in that other sentence. Scolaire (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I feel very strongly that your analysis is incorrect, for the reasons that I have already stated. However, it's more important to me to have editorial peace, and I can see that this issue could just become an endless impasse. Therefore, I have deleted the sentence as you recommended: [2]. At the same time, I also changed the word "consensus" to "view" in an earlier sentence: [3]. My reasoning is that, if we are going to say, in part, that citing those loyalist quotes is original research that goes beyond the sources (and, for that matter, that Susan McKay did not prove the connections that her piece claims), then it is original research to say that the majority sources represent a consensus, because most of them do not even mention the sources that are cited for the opposing view, and because the fact that editors have counted the numbers of sources that we, ourselves, have cited, does not mean that there is a source for that numerical difference. So please look upon this as a sort of package deal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I still think that the sentence, "Similar statements from loyalists over time have also portrayed the conflict as a battle of Protestantism against Catholicism", should go. On its own it says nothing about terrorism. The "conflict" referred to, as I have shown, goes back much further than any terrorist campaign: at least as far back as the Glorious Revolution. In the context of the paragraph, it gives the impression that these are the statements referred to by Steve Bruce in his article, which they are not. Therefore the sentence is either irrelevant or misleading, depending on which way you read it. In either case, it should be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- That being the case, I have removed the footnote that referred to the Orange Order. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think the relationship is similar. The Order is probably more similar to the Catholic Church, because it provided unity and support to Prostestants.[1] Politically though the Order supported the moderate UUP in opposition to Paisley's DUP, and opposed his church as well. I do not think there was the same cooperation as between Sein Fein and the Provo IRA, although terrorists paid lip service respectively to the Orange Order and the Catholic Church. TFD (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
N Ireland - cont.
According to the Council on American–Islamic Relations, Jonathan Mutusitz is an officer of the "Islamophobic" group, ACT! for America.[4] True or not, his comments put him on the fringe in terms of his views of religion and terrorism, even though his book meets rs. It could explain too why he chooses to mention Catholics but not Protestants. That is why it is always best to use secondary sources to report opinions - so that we know what weight they have in reliable sources. Has anyone other than us taken any notice of what he says about Christian terrorism in Northern Ireland? TFD (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Saying that Schbley has "written about the Provisional IRA as being Christian terrorists" is misleading. He tried to develop a "common profile of religious terrorism".[5] To do that he researched terrorists where religion was a factor. In the case of Christianity, he concluded that only one group - the Maronite Monks with 200 members - met the criteria. While that does not mean there were other Christian Terrorist groups that did not meet his criteria, just that he did not identify any. TFD (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, dear, I thought that the most recent edits would have settled the issues about this section, but I guess it just keeps on sprouting new issues. About Schbley, you and I have discussed this extensively before, and as you will well remember, I think that your reading and characterization of his writing is just plain wrong, and that was about the point in time when I figured that we would need to address it via mediation. My reading of him is that, to say that the Maronite Monks are the only group he describes that way, is totally wrong, and you obviously are equally convinced that I'm totally wrong. This exact issue is about to come up in the next step of the mediation, so I'm going to request that we resolve it there, and that we not discuss it in parallel in two different places.
- Now about Matusitz, I don't think that the group he might or might not have joined has any relevance here, and I think that discussing him that way, just as discussing Jessica Stern in terms of what you previously said about her supposedly having given some bad advice once about the Middle East, comes off as casting aspersions on the source. You acknowledge that it might not even be true about him, and even if it were, it would only speak to his views about Islam, and Islam is one thing that has not yet come up in our discussions of the groups in Ireland and Northern Ireland. (Obviously, there's no Islamic paramilitary in Ulster. At least I hope not.) You asked about taking notice of his book. I'm under the impression that it has just been published, and so it may be too soon for that to happen. But I can equally point out that there are no sources that I know of that repudiate his claims about the IRA, referring specifically to him and what he said. I don't think you can refute that he is a tenured faculty member at a university. And I won't disagree at all that his opinion, in this case, appears to be a minority one. But not a WP:FRINGE one. And that's how the page presents it. So here we are, back in WP:DUE, which requires us to present the majority and minority views with due weight, and not to present the majority view while completely omitting the minority (but not fringe) one.
- And, should we now go one-by-one through all of the "majority" sources, and eliminate all the ones where I can come up with some concern about the personal views of the authors? Do I get to challenge every one written by someone who can be identified as Christian? Or as Irish? Or that haven't been subsequently mentioned by name in a secondary source?
- If it helps any with these issues, as I've said before, I would like the mediation to lead to a reorganization of the page. In that case, I think it might be a very good improvement to treat these two views about the IRA in a section about various academic views, instead of in a section about Ireland. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I iinvite other editors to read Schbley's comments by following the link. Whether or not Matusitz is an officer of Act! America, his comments provided in the video on the CAIR website reflect a fringe view of the subject Islam and terrorism. He says for example that Islam commands Muslims to take over the world and establish a caliphate with sharia law, which he says means the introduction of polygamy.
- The relevance to the current issue is that if his ideas on the relationship between Islam and terrorism appears to closer to bigotry than the mainstream, it is possible his views on the relationship between the Catholic Church and terrorism is the same. Anyway he isn't even an expert on terrorism, he has degrees in communications and decided to write a book about how terrorists communicate through videos, murals, names, etc. Schbley otoh had a PhD in criminal justice and was invited to edit the book used as a source.
- Anyway, the personal views of writers do not matter when it comes to whether their works are factually correct. But they are important to assign weight.
- TFD (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I invite other editors to read Schbley too, but to discuss it at the mediation page, and not to have parallel discussions in two different places. I take exception to calling an author a bigot, or close to it, without as much sourcing to back it up as would be required by WP:BLP if we were dealing with a page about the person. If it "is possible" that Matusitz's views are that way, then it is possible that they are not that way, and it would be original research to decide that we know what he thinks about Christianity, outside of what he actually says in the source. As a tenured academic who published a book about terrorism, it is mis-framing the situation to say that he is a non-expert who simply "decided to write a book about" it. And as for weight, the page already makes it very clear that Matusitz's views are minority views, and so the only way to give that less weight would be to leave him out entirely. Again, do I get to remove any "majority" source if I think the author is Christian and thus predisposed to disagree with the Christian terrorism designation? Do I get to remove any "majority" source if the author is Irish and I think the author may not want to see Irish persons described as terrorists? I'd be "happy" to do that if it were within policy, and the result would be that the "majority" sources would disappear. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- "My colleagues say Islam is a religion of peace. I say it's a religion of pieces -- piece of body here, piece of body there." They "procreate like mushrooms after the rain.” Do you think those are reasoned comments? By all means remove any opinions where we have not established weight, but remove all of them. I would never add opinions without determining weight, and always do that by using secondary sources. TFD (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if those are representative comments, and I see no evidence that any such comments prevented him from getting tenure. It does not matter whether you or I think that the comments are reasoned, because we are not reliable sources. But tell me this: what exactly do you propose as an edit to the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Are they representative? Click on the link I provided and listen to his speech at a meeting on "Radical Islam and U.S. National Security." The other speakers were Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney and William J. Murray. That's the Pamela Geller who is banned from the UK. You can watch the entire meeting here.
My proposed edit is to remove the reference to this writer's opinions because we have not established any weight it has in studies of terrorism in Northern Ireland. What would a rs say? Maybe something like "a Protestant scholar blames IRA terrorism on the Catholic religion and says Catholics are peasants, but excludes Protestant terrorists. He also includes Islam as another religion that promotes terrorism."
TFD (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for specifying your proposed edit. (Do you have any sourcing for saying that he is a Protestant?) I disagree with your proposal and will oppose it actively, for the following reason. You argue that this material should be regarded as so minor within the source material that it should be omitted entirely, partly because you regard the author's views as offensive and partly because the author's views have not (yet) been taken up by other sources. (In case there is any suspicion, let me say that I, personally, would not say the kinds of things he says (but of course I'm not a reliable source), so I'm defending the content as a WP:RS in the face of WP:POV objections, as opposed to defending it because I agree with it.) However, I just made an edit, making Matusitz's point of view explicit. I think that addresses any concerns about WP:BIASED (a section of WP:RS) better than complete removal would. As for any issue of offensiveness, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. As for how minor it is, you have argued that he is WP:FRINGE, so that WP:DUE requires us to deal with it as we would deal with flat earth arguments (the example used at DUE). I would argue that a book by a tenured university professor and published by a reputable publishing house specializing in the academic and scholarly markets, Rowman & Littlefield, may certainly present a view that is opinionated, contrarian, and unpopular, but it is not flat earth. Ultimately, I see this as governed by WP:NPOV#Bias in sources: "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." We can, and already do, indicate that the author's view is "at odds with" that of many other analysts, but we do not get to exclude him from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Trypofish, you are confusing two separate poilicies: reliable sources and weight. The first determines whether we can rely on the facts presented in Matusitz' book, the second determines whether we should report the opinions expressed in his book. From the evidence presented, the book is reliable for facts but the opinions lack significance for inclusion. And if someone holds fringe views about the connection between Islam and terrorism (it's causal), its likely that their view of the connection between Catholicism and terrorism is also questionable. TFD (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that I was confusing them, so please chalk that up to poor wording on my part. Yes, I take your point that your primary concern here is about due weight. I am taking a neutral position on this talk page about whether or not those views about Islam are fringe, because this page isn't about Islam. The specific question here is whether Matusitz's writings about Christian terrorism and Northern Ireland – the content that we are actually discussing – are actually fringe, or are perhaps a minority view. If they are a minority view, but within the range of academic scholarship, then WP:NPOV#Bias in sources should govern what we do here, as I said before – and that points us towards presenting his views as we do, as worth a brief mention, but identified as a minority view, and with identification of the author as a critic of religion. For you to establish that the views should be entirely excluded as being WP:FRINGE, you have to do more than express your opinion that his views about a different religion are fringe. I've said that he is a tenured university professor, and that his book was published by a legitimate publisher who specializes in academic and scholarly works. It's not enough for you to show that he is a contrarian. You have to show that the publisher accepted a book that is as far outside academic discourse as a flat earth thesis would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Trypofish, you are confusing two separate poilicies: reliable sources and weight. The first determines whether we can rely on the facts presented in Matusitz' book, the second determines whether we should report the opinions expressed in his book. From the evidence presented, the book is reliable for facts but the opinions lack significance for inclusion. And if someone holds fringe views about the connection between Islam and terrorism (it's causal), its likely that their view of the connection between Catholicism and terrorism is also questionable. TFD (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me that these sources are two of those added to the page as representing the not-religious perspective: [6] and [7]. I'm not challenging them, because I don't want this discussion to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. But if I were to challenge them in the manner that other editors have been challenging sources, I don't think that they would hold up particularly well. And that's not even getting into challenging everything written by Christians or by Irish people! I have repeatedly been making good faith efforts to see both sides of this discussion – as, for example, when I self-reverted the sentence at the end of the section about the quotes from loyalists, even though I personally disagreed with deleting it. What I keep seeing from other editors is much more one-sided than that. I make an edit like that one, and then a new discussion, looking for even more shifting of the POV, pops up. I'm beginning to think that I ought to put the sentence about the loyalist quotes back in. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish you added the 1rr to the article? Check out your edits in the article bud, you are in breach. Murry1975 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- So much for my wish for this not to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your edit summary called me "Jeff", which I can assure you is nothing like my name, nor is it "bud". In no way am I in violation of the 1RR restriction. But it appears that my comments must have struck a nerve. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Responding to your comment of 18:40) Maybe it's because you seem to be the only one ardently striving to include Northern Ireland/Irish/Northern Irish paramilitaries in a "Christian terrorism" article? Fringe views aside (and yes, they are fringe!), nobody takes the proposition seriously. The amount of time being wasted on this is ridiculous. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bastun, I do appreciate that you are talking to me in a polite fashion, even though we happen to disagree about content. As often happens in disagreements about POV, you may see me as the only editor currently making the arguments that I'm making, but I see what I'm doing as taking a stand against a small number of other editors who are letting their personal opinions get in the way of Wikipedia policies. After all, what I said was that I had hoped that things were settled, but other editors raised new issues, so it's not really fair to say that I am unilaterally extending the amount of time spent discussing this section of the page. And no, those views are not WP:FRINGE, no matter how many times some editors keep saying so. And it does not escape my notice that, when I made the edit I describe just below, about the Daniel Price source, it was reverted within minutes – but my very reasonable explanation in talk has gone unanswered for about a day. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Responding to your comment of 18:40) Maybe it's because you seem to be the only one ardently striving to include Northern Ireland/Irish/Northern Irish paramilitaries in a "Christian terrorism" article? Fringe views aside (and yes, they are fringe!), nobody takes the proposition seriously. The amount of time being wasted on this is ridiculous. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
TFD, you asked me some things that I'm inferring are about Matusitz, in the section below, which is about Price, so I'm going to comment further about Matusitz here. There are some things that I've previously said in our discussions about Matusitz, that you have not really responded to, so I am going to re-ask them here, and I would very much appreciate direct answers.
- What evidence do you have that Matusitz is Protestant?
- What reason do you have to think that Rowman & Littlefield publishes WP:FRINGE material, in the sense of flat-earth, as opposed to merely unpopular and challenging academic opinions?
- Is there any evidence that anything Matusitz has said has led to him being brought under sanctions at the university where he is tenured? If not, do you think that his tenure has no weight in assessing him as a scholarly source?
- You have repeatedly noted that Matusitz appeared, once, on the same stage as a woman who was barred from the UK because of things that she has said. Has Matusitz ever been barred from anywhere?
- One more question, but in this one I'm raising something partly new. Please look at these comments by Andrew Sullivan: [8]. (I'm not claiming that Sullivan is an academic scholar.) Do you think what Matusitz says is (other than, perhaps, tone) really that much farther outside the mainstream than what Sullivan says? Or do you consider Sullivan to be WP:FRINGE?
Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Daniel E. Price
About this revert: [9], my edit that was reverted simply added Daniel E. Price's name to the sentence "Experts who subscribe to this view, including Philip Purpura, Richard Jenkins, John Hickey, and Daniel E. Price, note the importance of religious motivations in what Purpura calls an "overlap" between religious terrorism and national or ethnic terrorism." I was not adding him as a source opposing "this view". I could understand an objection if I had presented him as supporting calling it Christian terrorism, but as can be seen from the sentence that I edited, I was not doing that, not at all. The edit summary of the revert said: "source ascribes minimal importance to the "Christian terrorism" aspect". Here is the quote from the source:
- "The violent conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1998 exemplifies the multidimensional nature of religion-based violence and terrorism. Although religion played an important role in solidifying and sharpening the divisions between Catholics who wanted Northern Ireland to unify with Ireland and Protestants who wanted it to be annexed by Great Britain, several of the causes of religion-based terrorism outlined earlier including colonialism, occupation, ethnic division, discrimination, and inequality are of equal or greater importance." [10]
"Equal or greater" is not the same thing as "greater" – and "an important role" is categorically not "minimal importance". Even the non-religious causes are called "causes of religion-based terrorism", as though those things result in it. That's the same kind of placing importance on religion in non-religious categories of terrorism that Purpura, Jenkins, and Hickey wrote about. The author is a well-qualified academic.[11] Is it possible that the revert of my edit was a misunderstanding? I cannot see how grouping this source with Purpura, Jenkins, and Hickey would go against the source or not belong in that particular sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, are you saying that although his views on Islamic religious terrorism are well outside the mainstream, that maybe his views on Christian religious terrorism are moderate? He chooses to share the stage with someone who is barred from the UK for expressing views similar to his,[12] and makes inflammatory remarks. Do you have any sources that have commented on his moderate views on Christian terrorism" TFD (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- TFD, I wonder if you posted this comment in the wrong place. I'm guessing that you are asking about Matusitz, rather than about Price. Is that correct? If so, my comments about Price remain unanswered, which is unfortunate. And if you mean Matusitz, I'll comment further on it in other sections, but I'll repeat something I already told you earlier, which is that the short answer is no, because his book has just been published. I already told you that, so how many times are you going to keep asking me about it again and again? But if you are going to set a requirement that every source we cite has to have also been commented upon in a subsequent source, then I'm going to ask you to provide such secondary comments for each of the not-religious sources that are currently cited on the page, not just other sources that agree with the position, but other sources that actually refer to each of the now-cited sources by name. I also did not say what you just framed my previous answer to you as being. I did not say that Matusitz's views about Christian terrorism are moderate. I said that they are minority and contrarian, but not WP:FRINGE. I already said that, so are you going to keep framing what I am saying as something else? Is it your position that only "moderate" sources can be given weight? How far outside of "moderate" puts a source into a place where it must be excluded from the page?
- Anyway, is anyone able to respond to what I wrote about Price? Or should I conclude that what I said is correct, and that there is no dispute about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Another source
God and the Gun: The Church and Irish Terrorism, by Martin Dillon, appears to discuss the role of religion in the acts of terrorism. [13] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Taken note of by Irish journalist T.P. O'Mahony [14] in a Sept. 2014 piece [15] where he writes: "Leaders of the mainstream Christian Church in the North have always been uneasy with any depiction of the Troubles as a religious war, or even as a war with a religious dimension. Yet the subject-matter of Martin Dillon’s book — God and the Gun: The Church and Irish Terrorism — is sufficient to remove any doubt that extremist political religion was (and remains) an Irish phenomenon every bit as destructive as the perverted Islam of al-Qaeda or Boko Haram or Isis." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think that is cherry-picking. It is best to use sources about terrorism, see what they say about religious terrorism and its subtypes (e.g., Christian, Islamic, etc.), including the main authors, and then report the main literature in accordance with its general acceptance. Instead you appear to have determined to find sources that say terrorism in NI had a religious motivation and are trying to find sources that support that view and balancing them with opposing views. There are countless arguments throughout the project stemming from that approach - in global warming, creationism, 9/11 truth. But neutrality requires us to assess the weight of various opinions which can only be done using books that provide an overview of the subject. TFD (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did I say that Dillon should be "singled out"? No, I presented him as one more source, to be considered. Am I cherry-picking? WP:Cherrypicking defines it primarily as selecting unrepresentative parts of a single source in a way that does not reflect what the source in its entirety actually says. I'm not doing that at all. Cherrypicking can also refer to only wanting to cite sources that present one view when there is also another. It's true that I'm pointing out sources here in talk that question the apparent majority view on the page, but I've also supported the emphasis on the majority views, once legitimate sources were provided by Asarlaí. What I'm pushing for is NPOV. And, as I've already said, I was ready to move on after Scolaire and I had agreed at the end of #Susan McKay again, after I made good faith efforts to accommodate views of other editors with which I disagree, but then TFD opened this new complaint, and other editors started calling me "Jeff" and "bud" as well as reverting an edit of mine but failing (so far) to respond to me in talk. So, I'm seeing evidence of what I think is POV pushing, and I'm pushing back. As for books that summarize the field overall, just look at how TFD and I cannot agree on the most basic aspects of Schbley's summary, something that I hope will be worked out in mediation.
- Oh, those 180 sources at The Troubles! At the moment, there are 188 sources cited there, but most of them are about other things besides the motivations for those incidents of violence that were terrorism, so it's incorrect to say that there are 180 sources that all say that the terrorism was non-religious terrorism. And when the first set of sources were copy-pasted from there to here, it turned out that those sources didn't even say what was attributed to them, so that Asarlaí had to come in and provide the correct sources (and I gladly accepted them!). So we are talking about a lot fewer sources than 180. At the moment, we have 14 sources at the end of the second sentence of the section, references 47–60. "It is best to use sources about terrorism"? Well, of those 14, how many of them mention "terrorism" in the citation quote? Want to guess? The answer is: 1. Reference 48, the one by Bruce Hoffman is the only one. If the political disputes, as opposed to the killings and such, were not about religion, well that's not too surprising.
- And let's look at The Troubles. The lead there says: "although it was not a religious conflict." That's a pretty black-and-white statement. And it's sourced to Richard Jenkins. That's a book in which he devotes an entire chapter to what he calls "the cultural stuff", by which he means the role of religion in the Troubles. He concludes that the Troubles were basically about things other than religion, but that religion also played an important albeit secondary role. That's not the same thing as "not a religious conflict". But it is cherrypicking, by focusing on where the source says something and leaving out where the source says something else. So I'm not the one here who is cherrypicking. But why is that? Why isn't Martin Dillon ever cited at that page? He certainly seems to be a significant writer on the subject. And T.P. O'Mahony says that some mainstream Irish people "have always been uneasy with any depiction of the Troubles as a religious war, or even as a war with a religious dimension." And then he goes on to agree with Dillon's view that religion played a role. Could it be that some Wikipedia editors are likewise "uneasy with any depiction of the Troubles as a religious war, or even as a war with a religious dimension"? I'm not seeing any objective evidence that the sources I am drawing attention to are not reliable sources, and in fact, I haven't even gotten an answer yet about why my edit about Daniel Price was reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. It was dumb to start on the 180 again, and I ignored the fact that the most relevant of those are now cited in this article. What I should have said is that Martin Dillon would not by any means be among the top twenty writers on the Northern conflict. Probably not even among the top fifty. His article (thanks for the link) is still a stub ten years after it was created. Nevertheless, it is, I admit, a published source, and it does draw a link between terrorism and religion. In the end, it comes down to what we consider to be due weight, and it is apparent that we are not going to get agreement on that in this page. Hopefully there will be some resolution of that at mediation, although it bothers me that the question has not been added as a specific issue on the mediation page, despite the number of times it has been raised here. Anyway, I am about to make a proposal that has been on my mind for a few days now, and I hope you will accept that it is in no way intended to prevent your adding this source. Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thank you for that very gracious statement, and I find it very helpful. I'm in no hurry to add Dillon or anything else to the page, so what you are saying is something that I can happily work with. As for the mediation, there is a third broad area that is on the agenda, about reviewing specific sections of the page, and I was going to seek discussion of the NI section during that part of the mediation anyway, and so now I will make an even greater point of doing so, in accordance with what you are saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that. But really, I meant that in the mediation process the question of due weight ought to be discussed in the abstract. NI has taken up a disproportionate amount of space here on the talk page because there is a relatively large number of Irish editors with an interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. It is quite likely, even probable, that the same issues exist for Norway, Lebanon, Africa and India, but there are fewer editors from those places on en.wiki and so parallel discussions have not taken place. I'm still determined to stay out of mediation, so I can't dictate what you do there, but I do think that addressing the question of due weight and finding a consensus on how to determine it would help enormously. Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That works for me, too. I think that due weight is necessarily a part of any such discussion, and I think that the mediation is set up so that all those page sections can be discussed. For whatever it is worth, I'll tell you here and now something that I am planning to propose at the mediation (no predictions about what other editors will think). Given all the spilled pixels over various countries, I'd like to do away with country-by-country sections entirely. It's just too much of a hornet's nest to imply that this event in this country was Christian terrorism, full stop. Instead, I'd like the entire page to be organized in terms of scholarly thought, instead of by country. Thus, there might be a section about how experts delineate the boundary between Christian terrorism and other kinds of terrorism. Something like the first paragraph of the NI section could go there, but with a revised emphasis on how some authors see the Troubles one way whereas other authors see it another way. There could be another page section about how Christian terrorism is seen in relation to Islamic terrorism. The second paragraph of the NI section, with Steve Bruce's compare-and-contrast relative to Hezbollah, belongs there, and there could be merely a brief mention that Bruce also says what he says about three splinter groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would certainly be my ideal. Good luck with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I always find it especially gratifying when I have a discussion with other editors that starts out with strong differences of opinion, but that comes over time to find ways to work together productively. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would certainly be my ideal. Good luck with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That works for me, too. I think that due weight is necessarily a part of any such discussion, and I think that the mediation is set up so that all those page sections can be discussed. For whatever it is worth, I'll tell you here and now something that I am planning to propose at the mediation (no predictions about what other editors will think). Given all the spilled pixels over various countries, I'd like to do away with country-by-country sections entirely. It's just too much of a hornet's nest to imply that this event in this country was Christian terrorism, full stop. Instead, I'd like the entire page to be organized in terms of scholarly thought, instead of by country. Thus, there might be a section about how experts delineate the boundary between Christian terrorism and other kinds of terrorism. Something like the first paragraph of the NI section could go there, but with a revised emphasis on how some authors see the Troubles one way whereas other authors see it another way. There could be another page section about how Christian terrorism is seen in relation to Islamic terrorism. The second paragraph of the NI section, with Steve Bruce's compare-and-contrast relative to Hezbollah, belongs there, and there could be merely a brief mention that Bruce also says what he says about three splinter groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that. But really, I meant that in the mediation process the question of due weight ought to be discussed in the abstract. NI has taken up a disproportionate amount of space here on the talk page because there is a relatively large number of Irish editors with an interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. It is quite likely, even probable, that the same issues exist for Norway, Lebanon, Africa and India, but there are fewer editors from those places on en.wiki and so parallel discussions have not taken place. I'm still determined to stay out of mediation, so I can't dictate what you do there, but I do think that addressing the question of due weight and finding a consensus on how to determine it would help enormously. Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thank you for that very gracious statement, and I find it very helpful. I'm in no hurry to add Dillon or anything else to the page, so what you are saying is something that I can happily work with. As for the mediation, there is a third broad area that is on the agenda, about reviewing specific sections of the page, and I was going to seek discussion of the NI section during that part of the mediation anyway, and so now I will make an even greater point of doing so, in accordance with what you are saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. It was dumb to start on the 180 again, and I ignored the fact that the most relevant of those are now cited in this article. What I should have said is that Martin Dillon would not by any means be among the top twenty writers on the Northern conflict. Probably not even among the top fifty. His article (thanks for the link) is still a stub ten years after it was created. Nevertheless, it is, I admit, a published source, and it does draw a link between terrorism and religion. In the end, it comes down to what we consider to be due weight, and it is apparent that we are not going to get agreement on that in this page. Hopefully there will be some resolution of that at mediation, although it bothers me that the question has not been added as a specific issue on the mediation page, despite the number of times it has been raised here. Anyway, I am about to make a proposal that has been on my mind for a few days now, and I hope you will accept that it is in no way intended to prevent your adding this source. Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Moratorium?
I suggest a moratorium on further edits to the Northern Ireland section (or "Northern Irish and Irish paramilitary groups" as it's now called) pending the outcome of mediation. The section has changed out of all recognition in the last couple of months — from this to this – due in large measure to Tryptofish's commitment to reflecting the point of view of all editors fairly, and his willingness to go the extra mile. Anything still under discussion is just tweaking. There is still at least one bit that The Four Deuces would like to see removed, and two sources that Tryptofish would like to see added, but the changes would not profoundly affect the section, and as long as little things continue to be changed people will continue to come up with little things to be changed. There will be reverts, and endless discussion, to very little benefit to the article, especially if the whole article is going to be revamped completely when the mediation is concluded, and the section as it exists may cease to be. We currently have a version which all parties are more or less willing to live with. Why don't we quit while we're ahead? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree enthusiastically, and I also thank you for the kind words. If other editors agree, I will be happy to hold off on further edits to that section until after the mediation is over (outside of vandalism reverting, of course). I was never in any hurry to add further sources, at least not unilaterally, so much as to seek discussion of them in talk, and I do think they merit discussion. I would also suggest, however, that during this moratorium, there should be no impediment to discussion here on this talk page. For one thing, if other editors who are not parties to the mediation have points that they would like raised at the mediation, please feel free to state them here, and I will try to bring those points up there. For another thing, I've recently posed some questions to other editors here, that are unanswered at the time that I make this post, and I would urge anyone who has a reply to make a reply, rather than to leave the appearance that you are deliberately not replying. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Interpretations Of The New Testament Used To Justify Violence
Where are quotations from christian texts with directives for religious aggression and violence similar with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Interpretations_of_the_Qur.27an_and_Hadith ? GeMiJa (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can suggest some of them here, along with reliable citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Rename to "Christian violence"?
| See the mediation at WP:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The content isn't only about terrorism, but largely about violence perpetrated by Christians, and not often because they were Christians, but because Christians just happened to be the default largest population group who were politically, not religiously, violent. The title of the article should be changed to something like "Christian violence". That would cover terrorism and other forms of violence perpetrated by Christians. This would bring the title into harmony with the current content, and no change of content would be necessary. Yes, professed Christians have and do engage in violence. I say "professed", because it's a "Catch-22", no true Scotsman, and exception that proves the rule situation. Those who follow Christ's teachings and example are not taught by Christ or the New Testament to engage in violence, unlike believers in the Old Testament, which contains many examples of violence, often commanded by God. (How convenient that God just happens to hate the same people I hate! When it's religiously motivated it's fair to mention their faith and hypocrisy, but when they are just caught up in political and societal conflicts, their political actions should not be tied to their religious beliefs. The same would apply to murder committed by Christians, unless there is evidence that they are motivated by religious beliefs, which, BTW, would be sectarian or cultish beliefs, and not mainstream Christian beliefs. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
|
