Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 8

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 6

Archive 7

→

The gilmour article

NW supplied me with the article. I read it, and it's curtains for that section. Here's the text we had:

Ian Gilmour and his son Andrew Gilmour characterize the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in which Catholic mob violence targeted and killed thousands of Calvinist Huguenots, as religious terrorism. The Gilmours write that Pope Gregory XIII wrote that the massacre "gave him more pleasure than fifty Battles of Lepanto, and he commissioned Vasari to paint frescoes of it in the Vatican".[3]

The Gilmours indeed characterize it as terrorism, but to jump from that to Christian terrorism violates WP:SYN. And while NW is strictly correct that the Gilmours assert that Gregory said that, they cite nothing in support of that. An extraordinary claim like that requires a better source than an offhand remark buried deep in an article on a totally different subject. Here's the entire paragraph:

The recent past is not the only sufferer in this book. Professors Lewis, Kedourie, and Vatikiotis come on stage to tell us that Islam is in effect a terrorist religion and the term "Islamic terrorists" is therefore legitimate. Elie Kedourie even says that "the old history" of Islamic terrorism "will serve to account for, and in great measure explain, the recourse to political terrorism today." Now it may be that Islam is the most violent of the great religions. But before suggesting that, the minimum requirement is surely some comparison with the record of the other religions and with past and present Christian and Jewish countries. Have these Zionist professors never read the Old Testament? Have they never heard of the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day? That massacre, said Pope Gregory XIII, gave him more pleasure than fifty battles of Lepanto, and he commissioned Vasari to paint frescoes of it in the Vatican. Do Lewis and company think ETA* * is Sunni or Shi'i? Do they think Hitler took a crash course in Muslim fundamentalism? This attempt to give academic respectability to the Netanyahu thesis without the necessary qualifications and comparisons is surely the sort of thing that Julien Benda had in mind when he wrote of the "trahison des clercs.

(Keep in mind that, as I said, this is buried in a good-sized article which has nothing to do with our subject.) If I cited "Mein Kampf" for the factual proposition that the jews are to blame for all our problems, I might well be able to cite a specific passage where Hitler claims it, but that wouldn't make Hitler a reliable source for the factual proposition; likewise here. The source supports the claim that the Gilmours made this claim, but it won't support it as a factual statement and since no one cares what the Gilmours think it has to be deleted.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the source more closely, and I think you made the right call. NW (Talk) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord Gilmour's opinions are certainly notable, but first, book reviews are not good sources and secondly we cannot misstate what he wrote. If we want to mention the Gunpowder Plot and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, then we need sources that describe them as religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More specifically than that, we need sources that describe them as Christian terrorism. I think it is a dangerous game to attribute sectarian violence (Northern Ireland, St. Bart's) to "Christian" motivations, as there will typically be complex sociopolitical dynamics at play also. I would also add that I don't think it will be difficult to find opinionated sources calling certain things Christian violence; political utility makes it a useful claim. But we need to distinguish between sources that support the factual proposition at issue and sources that, when closely read, support only the factual proposition that author X has opinion Y.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As is my usual practice on this page, I'm not going to edit war with anyone, but instead continue to look at sources. But let's take a thoughtful look at the decision making process just above.

Simon went to WP:RSN, and was told there that the source is acceptable whether or not it requires payment to read in full. There is no dispute as to whether or not the Gilmours said that, as far as I can tell; rather the dispute is whether it rises to the level of significant sourcing.
Simon and NW tell us that what the Gilmours say is a bald assertion, rather than something that is footnoted to sources. Does that mean that what they attributed to the Pope was made up? Are there reasons to consider the Gilmours unreliable sources, perhaps POV-driven? (I'm really asking that, because I'm not familiar with them.) If not, where exactly is the problem? Our standard here is verifiability, not what Wikipedia editors consider to be the truth. If it's verifiable that the Gilmours said this, and it is, and if there is no reason to consider them unreliable, and I'm asking about that, then it's at least verifiable that they said it.
Student7 is concerned that someone (me?) regards it as a "smoking gun". Not really, at least not me. What a Pope said is notable, whether or not the Pope was the instigator of what happened. In a Christianity-related article, Popes can certainly be notable as commentators. It doesn't mean that what happened was the Pope's fault.
The Gilmours say that it is terrorism. Is it really SYNTH to conclude that it is Christian terrorism? Simon reproduces the whole paragraph above, and it appears that the entire paragraph is about contrasting "Islamic terrorism" with "terrorism" by other religions. There is nothing in the paragraph quoted above to indicate that the authors considered it to be some sort of secular terrorism, and to conclude from the source that it might have been secular actually is misrepresentation of the source (at least the available paragraph). The Gilmours are obviously placing it as (in their opinion) religious terrorism. And there is no way the incident, between Catholics and Protestants, was any religion other than Christian. The SYNTH policy does not require abandonment of common sense.
Now having said all that I said above, I'm going to backtrack a bit! I'm sympathetic to the argument that it may be UNDUE to base a section of the page on a brief passage in a book review mostly discussing something else, without any other sources. That's one reason why I'm leaving the page as it is, and instead going to look for more sources. And I'm also going to repeat a point I've made elsewhere in this talk. The nature of this subject is going to be such that we are not going to have sources all lining up and saying that X was Christian terrorism. We are going to have some sources saying that X was Christian terrorism and other sources saying no it wasn't. That's OK if we cite both in a balanced way, and attribute the claims accurately. Does anyone have sources saying this massacre was something else?

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: [1], [2]. On a quick and superficial scan, I see one of the Scholar links saying: "In 1572, Christian terrorists committed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in which it is estimated that up to 100,000 French Protestants were killed by Catholic mobs (Christian Terrorism, nd)," and a few of the books mentioning the incident in terms of terrorism, and one book seeming to deal with what the Pope said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish's points, one by one:

1. My question at RSN was whether materials posted at JSTOR are verifiable, not whether this particular article is a viable source for the claims attributed to it.

2. The Gilmours make an offhanded rhetorical assertion—offering no support of any kind—in a single passage of an article on a complete different subject. Imagine a twenty page article about 9/11, in which the author makes an offhanded remark somewhere in the middle that President Bush was reading his favorite book at the time. Is that a reliable source for the claim that "My Pet Goat" is W's favorite book? The idea is laughable. It is verifiable that the Gilmours made the claim. It is not verifiable that it is factual, and their claims aren't notable for this article.

3. The Pope didn't say it. There's no basis for concluding that he did. Two authors told an anecdote in an unrelated piece, and you're ready to jump all over it for whatever reason. Who knows where they got it? For all we know it was a half-remembered bit of cant from an anti-Catholic education. If it was true, there would be another source for it. There isn't.

4. The Gilmours claim it as an instance of terrorism, or perhaps even religiously motivated terrorism—but that falls far short of Christian terrorism. To illustrate with a more recent example, it's true that one side of the Northern Ireland fracas is nominally Catholic and the other side nominally protestant makes that conflict about pure sectarianism or Christianity, but there are a mass of sociopolitical issues wrapped up, and it would be delusional for someone to claim that the conflict is predominantly a long-running refight of the reformation rather than power, politics, nationalism, social cast, etc. SYNTH and common sense are violated by jumping from the source to the conclusion you're pushing. As I explained above (20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)):

Terrorists or groups who just happen to be "Christians," or whose "Christian" identity is entirely incidental to their terrorist activities, should not be included. It makes no sense to say, for example, that Russian nationalist terrorists are "Christian terrorists" simply because they happen to claim an Orthodox identity: if their member's welcome pack included a CD by the latest pop sensation, would we include them in an article headed Bieber terrorism? Terrorism is best treated as being defined by its goals….

5. If "[t]he nature of this subject is going to be such that we are not going to have sources all lining up and saying that X was Christian terrorism," our response can only be (as I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that it ultimately will be) to delete the article. We don't keep articles that are incapable of complying with WP policy just because the subject is important to some editors.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make my points in response to what other editors actually said, instead of framing what they said in misleading ways.

Fair enough, duly noted.
I made it clear that I'm sympathetic to leaving the material out until we have sourcing that is not simply a brief comment in passing. I asked whether the Gilmours are or are not reliable sources, whether there is some reason to think that they might be pushing a POV, and your answer does not address that. To use your goat example, it's verifiable that Bush was reading that book (but not to himself) at that time, while a source that claimed he was reading it to himself for its literary value would be pushing a POV. You do say that it's verifiable that the Gilmours said it, so I guess that's progress.
The Pope didn't say it? Did the Pope say something else? Did the Pope never say anything on the subject? Your source for that? And if I were "ready to jump all over it" I would have reverted you instead of discussing it in talk. And we'll see if there are other sources for it.
I'm not pushing anything, other than looking carefully at sources instead of deleting everything and walking away. Despite what you said, terrorism (or any other subject on Wikipedia) is best defined by what the sources say. The Gilmours, who are turning out to be far from the only source, say it's terrorism (in their opinion) in a paragraph devoted entirely to religion and not at all to "power, politics, nationalism, social cast, etc." And the parties to the massacre were Catholics and Protestants.
I do hope that you will become more familiar over time with what Wikipedia's policies actually are with respect to article deletion. If multiple reliable sources write about the subject of "Christian terrorism", then it's very likely to be notable as a subject of an article. Now if those sources say that event X was not an example of that Christian terrorism, then we should not misrepresent those sources here. If there are reliable sources saying that event X was Christian terrorism, and other reliable sources saying that it was not, then our best practice would be to present what both groups of sources say, in a balanced and NPOV way. And when those sources exist, we don't delete pages just because the subject is objectionable to some editors.

But you'll notice that I haven't undone your deletion of the passage from the article. As for what sources are out there, time will tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR, so I decided to look up the article. Rather than posting the whole thing and possibly running afoul of rules, I am going to quote another section of the relevant article, that I haven't noticed anyone commenting upon, which is odd considering its content.

"Mr. Ford also gives an absorbing account of the many "Christian" assassinations, and he says of Popes Pius V, Gregory XIII and Sixtus V that "together they produced a near-disaster in the historical development of the Church's relation to political murder." As well as celebrating the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, Gregory XIII ordered Te Deums to be sung for the assassination of William of Orange. Yet neither Professor Ford nor surely anybody else would seek to erect on this history a theory of "Christian" or "Judaic" terrorism. The second prop of the Netanyahu polemic-Islam's unique violence-has little more foundation than the first." (p.137)

Now, of course I certainly believe that the article should not be deleted. There are plenty of articles out there that some people find offensive or with which they disagree, and those articles often withstand repeated attempts at deletion. (For example, this one: Dalitstan.org.) However, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the section quoted above is specifically against the use of the term, "Christian Terrorism." (Of course, the article was written 21 years ago, and before a lot of the groups listed on this page even existed, and by Englishmen who were likely unfamiliar with some of the earlier American ones...) Anyways, my main interest is historical accuracy. If I were simply partisan on this issue, I'd be campaigning for a deletion of saffron terror, but I'd like to think I have more integrity than that. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know that you have access to JSTOR. I may ask for your help as I sort through the search results that I linked to a little ways up. (And it's a pity that Simon missed that passage, when he read the copy NW e-mailed to him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Lord Gilmour, who was in charge of the Conservative Research Department, was extremely knowledgable about American history and politics, as well as religious topics. TFD (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone read the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre? It says, "Although these formal acts of rejoicing in Rome were not repudiated publicly, privately misgivings in the papal curia grew once the nature of the killings gradually became better known. Gregory XIII himself refused to receive Charles de Maurevert, said to be the killer of Coligny, on the grounds he was a murderer."

In other words, the pope was reacting to what he called the "affair" (cosa) of the Huguenots whom he understood had precipitated the affair and lost. And reading the article, there seems to be some truth to that interpretation. When a more comprehensive chronology of events became available, he was less enthused. No mini-cams. No news at 11 in those days. Often people received biased information. It was easy to understand in this case.

Initially Gregory did commission paintings and did actually strike a coin or medallion.

All beside the point, of course. Student7 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very possible that the part about what the Pope said may be unimportant to what may eventually be returned to the article. It depends on what secondary sources say about the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

India a growing problem

Currently Christanic terrorism in India and Uganda has become an even worse problem and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention what's historically taken place in India in regards to Christanic terrorism, nor does the article cover what's happening in contemporary times.

If you look at the historic British activities in India, extensive Christanic terrorism was committed against the people prior to and then under British rule. Christanic terrorism is re-emergent in India with combative Christianic factions committing terrorist acts against each other in addition to committing terrorist acts against the people of India.

Once again we find that this Wikipedia article is woefully incomplete, a state of affairs that results from Christians unwilling to accept and admit that their cult even commits terrorism. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian terrorism - India

Christian terrorism - Uganda.

If you think any of this information should be in the article then it is your job to add it. Josh Keen (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The content listed above does not come from any legitimate sources but a special interest group. Converting people at gunpoint, or any terrorist action is clearly rejected by Christianity. If there is a group converting people by gunpoint they have strayed from the faith and are considered by the church at large as apostate. If the articles are true, this is being perpetrated by a cult group that has no place in the Christian church. This is on par with people starting a war in the name of Ghandi. ----providenceavenue

This has been discussed earlier under No true Scotsman. Either the references can be discredited or not. There may be nothing wrong to say that they have been repudiated by their higher authority, if any, but that would have to be discussed first. BTW, I don't think that they have been repudiated.

Like the KKK, the violence appears to be there. I didn't want to believe it either, but it's looks real. (Doesn't mean there isn't some on the other side, but that's not what this article is about). Student7 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, all three groups, Muslims, Hindus and Christians, start rumors of persecution or exaggerate real ones in order to justify revenge. Editors do need to examine accusations closely and test them for veracity. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

'..all three groups, Muslims, Hindus and Christians, start rumors of persecution or exaggerate real ones in order to justify revenge..' where is the revenge justified? Of what I have read, I can surely say that the theory of 'innocent youth with legitimate grievances' does not hold for all religions! For ex. [1], [[3]]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues regarding alleged persecutions of Christians (or any other group) should be dealt with on the pages devoted to those issues, not on one devoted to "Christian Terrorism." Also, the Christian groups discussed on this page, particularly the ones in India, have expressed ideologies that are based on "forceful conversion" and "Christian Nationalism," rather than "revenge." You might have a point if we were discussing the various revenge-oriented riots that have occurred between the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus over the years...but those have nothing to do with the specifically terrorist organizations discussed in the India section. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

KKK & cross burning

I have found no reference that supports cross burning as having any religious significance. It may have been rationalized after the fact, but it was done solely for intimidation. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Who told you that? Where did you find that?!.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Though similar to the pagan fire festivals of central Europe during the middle ages, the Klan's cross burnings in the 1920s were invariably constrained by Christian ritual. The ceremony opened with a prayer by a 'Kludd,' or Klavern minister. The multitude then sang, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'" Et cetera. (Wyn Craig Wade, "The fiery cross: the Ku Klux Klan in America," Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 185) [4] That's just the first of many easily-obtained sources I found with a quick Google search... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This page frightens me. Educated people, from first world countries, behaving like this is totally contradictory. What gives?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see this sourcing, because there has been a lot of resistance to any attribution of Christian motivations at the main page on Ku Klux Klan. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see crosses all over the article..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FTR: I added the above source to the sentence on cross-burning, and changed the wording of the sentence to specifically reflect the information in the source. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Student7: You don't SERIOUSLY believe that this link [5] is RS, do you? I'm glad you reverted that edit yourself, because it is nothing but propaganda, deliberately designed to make people think that Liberals opposed Civil Rights, while Conservatives supported equality...which is the exact opposite of what actually happened. You really should read some of these other pages, like [Southern strategy], which explains how we ended up with the current paradigm of "Democrats=Liberals" and "Republicans=Conservatives," and [Radical Republicans], which is about the Far Left-Wing activists who really opposed slavery, led by one of the most Leftist politicians in American history ([Thaddeus Stevens]), who is still reviled by Conservatives as a "villain." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortionist murder

I propose deleting the sentence about Scott Roeder unless a source can be found that shows his motive to be religious. The given source has a 10 minute interview of him, and he explains that he thinks abortion is murder, and that he believes that to be a justification for what he did, but he does not even mention religion as a motive. Roger (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? That's some powerful propaganda right there. Would you prefer this link then?

"Mr. Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., told jurors that he had a growing sense of his own faith and opposition to abortion in the 1990s after watching “The 700 Club,” the evangelist Pat Robertson’s television talk show. Mr. Roeder’s views on religion and abortion, he said, went “hand in hand.”" SOURCE: [6]

Any attempt to paint Roeder as not being motivated by religious belief is revisionism and deliberate propaganda on the level of trying to say that the KKK lynched African-Americans, not because of racism per se, but simply because they were feared increased crime rates, miscegenation, and lower property values. They go, as Roeder stated himself..."hand in hand." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bryon that there seems to be clear sourcing for saying that the motivations were religious in nature. But let me make this suggestion: Roger's edit would have been that the motive "was a belief that abortion is murder, and that he was stopping the murder of babies", which has been reverted back to "was religious". These can be combined: "was a religious belief that abortion is murder, and that he was stopping the murder of babies". That's well-founded in the sources, and is more informative than the shorter version. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It's the deliberate omission of religion (on a page that is devoted to terrorist actions based on a specific religion) that is the problem. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is an exercise to make the crime look humane! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not supported by the sources. They do not say that Roeder had a religious belief that abortion is murder. The above NY Times article describes his motive this way: "Mr. Roeder’s motive: his growing opposition to abortion, which he deemed criminal and immoral, and his mounting sense that laws and prosecutors and other abortion opponents were never going to stop Dr. Tiller from performing them." It would be more accurate to say that Roeder had a legal and moral belief that abortion is murder. Roger (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy the idea that we should describe it, even in part, as a legal belief. I don't think he was saying that he thought the law, as it existed, justified his actions, but rather, that the law ought to be changed to do so, which is a moral belief. And in this case, the moral beliefs are the same thing as religious beliefs, since they clearly were not secular. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Roeder's "legal and moral belief that abortion is murder" comes directly from his version of Christianity...which is supported by the source that I just posted above. I've proved my point with a citation, and saying, "Lalalala! I can't hear you!" doesn't prove otherwise. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the source does not say that. I favor just quoting the source, and saying that Roeder deemed abortion to be criminal and immoral. If you want, then you can also say that his religious views went "hand in hand". But that is not the same as saying that he had a religious motive. Roger (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So now although his religious views went 'hand in hand' with his morals, the actions was still only personal and there was not religious at all and had no religious motive. Where does he say that his actions had no religious motive. His page clearly states that he was becoming extremely right wing in religious way, very clearly. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I think saying it that way is fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be crisper IMO. As other editors have stated, it appears to justify the murder.

For contrast, how about (in another article) "bin Laden was motivated by the transgression of the Holy of Holies on Temple Mount and heretics allowed to profane Allah and the Qur'an....." Somehow, the rationale seems to outweigh the crime. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that a terrorist's thought processes should be rational. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A more apt comparison would be that what Student7 and Roger Schlafly are trying to do is tantamount to a Muslim editing the page for Islamic terrorism to say that Osama bin Laden was not motivated by his "version" of Islam at all, and he should be removed from the page, because he was motivated by a desire to remove American soldiers from Islamic countries. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

While Christian terrorism is terrorism motivated by Christianity, it is not enough that we find evidence of motivation to include examples. That is synthesis. Incidentally, terrorism literature usually claims that the KKK is motivated by racism, while Roeder was motivated by opposition to abortion, grouping their actions under nationalist and single-issue terrorism respectively. TFD (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure when/how in any condition a terrorist act can directly be grouped and accepted as such by Christians as Christian terrorism. To say that we all must wait till Christians specifically group some acts as terrorist (won't) and till then keep on diverting the acts in different 'groups' makes little sense when it is occurring right here and now. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN. We do not rely on what Christians think or say, but what reliable sources say. We do not rely on what Wikipedia editors have reasoned either to include or exclude information. It may be that the groups you wish to included should be in the article but you must find a source specifically about Christian terrorism in order to include them. TFD (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Another link, not sure of its reliability though - [| Huffingtonpost]; or [| about investigation]; as also Sovereign Citizen Movement of which the man was a member. Anyway, my only concern here is that this incident should be given its due seriousness otherwise people may take it lightly. Worse it can degenerate into something else whence accused can then point finger at this incident as a loophole. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Stepping back a bit, except for this one person and another subsection, the article seems to be a high level description of Christian terrorism. "The KKK did..." not "Grand Dragon X lynched Y." No list of specifics. Hasn't there been more than one killing (or attempt) of doctors performing abortions? And their share of threats? Seems now, like this should be summarized here and detailed, if essential to the article (which I doubt) in a forked article. Seems a bit like police blotter at this level. Maybe even a forked article.

The other subsection is Orissa, India. But best not to discuss that in this thread. Student7 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(out) Thisthat2011, please read WP:SYN. You think your sources describe Christian terrorism but you need a source that makes the connection. TFD (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Accusations against Hmar

There is "ethnic/religous" strife in India. Nothing new. The following link, by Christians, actually tends to substantiate the possibility of forced conversions by Hmar teens. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19834

It also tends to put it into context. Each side taking revenge on the other. The accusations against the teens, is just that until convicted. Need to distinguish between media embellishment and how the legal accusations read. If this actually happened, the link suggests that they are not condoned by Christian leaders. Quite the reverse. Some context may be necessary. Kind of like the Northern Ireland situation with thugs/revengeful-ness on both sides. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's NOTHING like the Northern Ireland situation, and is in fact a PERFECT example of "Christian Terrorism." Whether "Christian Leaders" publicly condone the actions or not is irrelevant. That's like saying that Al Qaeda isn't really a terrorist group, because such-and-such Imam doesn't condone his actions. Furthermore, your complaints about the size of the organization, and its relation to the arrests, is similarly irrelevant. They are a terrorist organization devoted to forcefully converting people to Christianity. Period. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree in part with Student7 that we should be careful to distinguish between accusations and facts, although I think that the existing sourcing passes WP:V. And I also agree that it is desirable to provide context about condemnation of the terrorism by Christian leadership. But that doesn't change the fundamentals, and Bryonmorrigan is right about those. It doesn't matter if it's "nothing new". It doesn't matter if it's "each side taking revenge on the other", although violence in the other direction should also be noted on the page. Two wrongs don't make a right, and they don't make it not terrorism either, whether in India or in Ireland. The point of the page is not to say "look at Christianity, look how bad it is," and editors should not react to encyclopedic descriptions of Christian terrorism as though that were the intent, either in material about India, or material about Ireland. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, that 13 youth are arrested with "Two SBBL guns and a country-made pistol along with sufficient quantity of ammunition were seized" is a fact which makes all, and not only 7/8 along with leader, punishable.

As it is, the report is that "The local residents also said that Manmasi National Christian Army cadres had painted cross symbol on the walls of the temples with their blood" which is an accusation but whether it is proof or not will perhaps depend on proof made available to The Sonai police station.

This is a direct accusation from temple priest and the behavior to force people todo something at gunpoint is direct death threat. "Meanwhile, Rajkumar, priest of Naga mandir on Bhuvan Pahar, told VHP members that he was forced by the Hmars to show them the tracks on the Pahar at gunpoint."

"he Hmars posted a flag, a tabloid and a Holy Cross on the wall of one of the temples bearing date May 29, 2009." and so on. These things must have been mentioned at the police station and police must have investigated.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Student7 put 3 "clarify" tags in the section. Two of them seem to me to be straightforward questions about seeming contradictions in the numbers, and I've simply deleted the material that didn't add up. The third tag raises more complex questions, so I'd like to ask about it here.

From the tag edit, the concern expressed was: "need to distinguish fact from media hype here. Are they accused of "painting" crosses? Or is this just a media/reporters embellishment? Also, with 15/13 people arrested, but only 7 or 8 commiting a crime, why were the other 5 or so arrested? What is the charge against THEM?"

According to the source cited, the crosses were shown to local authorities by way of a video. I think it passes WP:V that the crosses had been painted, and doesn't require further clarification. The source does not describe any charges filed, but instead describes the arrests and says that the suspects are being investigated further (which appears to be the legal process in that jurisdiction). Of course, our page should not say that the persons were convicted of anything if that is not (yet) the case, but it does not say that. It does say that they were arrested and that weapons were seized, all of which is stated in the source, and thus passes WP:V. WP:V does not require that Wikipedia only report things where there has been a legal conviction, only that we report things whose sourcing can be verified. I think with the deletion of some of the numbers, there is no longer a contradiction on the page about that. Are there remaining issues, or can the "clarify" tag be removed? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In India it is a crime to have all these kind of weapons -Two SBBL guns (like these?) and a country-made pistol along with sufficient quantity of ammunition) just for info.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though it may appear obvious to us, We need sources that classify these actions as religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, there is: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source does not seem to support your position. TFD (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for finding a better source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The news reports have satisfied all of the criteria necessary to establish "Christian Terrorism." They are a terrorist organization with the goal of forcefully converting people to Christianity. The fact that the English language reports on the subject do not use the specific term "religious terrorism" while clearly making that case is irrelevant. That's like saying that it's not "murder" unless a source specifically uses the word "murder" (as opposed to "homicide" or something). I mean, this is probably one of the most clear-cut cases of "Christian Terrorism" that we've ever debated on this page. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article [8] discussing terrorist groups in the region of Assam, which is the region where these groups are located. The article specifically uses the term here: "The missionary mission of Church is very aggressive and multipronged in this area. Before and after the Christmas, the programs of Church and door-to-door contact by missionaries are aggressive which Rabhas do not like. But they are helpless and they have to bear the brunt in silence due to fear of Christian terrorist outfits." This next article [9], also focusing on Assam, (and from a Christian newspaper, I might add) uses the term twice! "The leaders of Garo-Rabha Peace Council charged that there was a "hidden agenda" of the church and that the nexus between the Meghalaya government and Christian terrorist outfits led to the clashes that began on January 1," and "The Garo-Rabha Peace Council claimed that the church was "spying" on the communities and was providing logistical support to Christian terrorist outfits." This article [10] also uses the term, stating that there is, “Christian terrorism in the Northeast." It's not easy to search online through Indian newspapers, especially considering the language issues. Most of these items don't come up in a "regular" Google search, and you have to search within the newspapers themselves...but that doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bryon. I increasingly realize that this page presents a situation in which, on the one hand, a robotic insistence by some editors that we must have sources that use the exact words "Christian terrorism" only appears to be a righteous adherence to good sourcing practices, when it actually is an exercise in rigidity over common sense. But, on the other hand, it's a good idea to comply with this insistence about sources, because the simple fact is that the subject is, for some editors, a POV battleground, and having sourcing that is purer than Caesar's wife is the best way to avoid endless arguments and edit wars. Good sourcing is always good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I take it there are no objections to removing that third "clarify" tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we also include Christian peacekeeping attempts?

In response to Student7's concern, I made this edit, using the source he linked above: [11]. I still think it was appropriate per NPOV, but I now find myself accused of pushing a pro-Christian POV: [12]. I point this out mainly for the benefit of those editors who have been oh-so worked up over what they think has been anti-Christian POV in discussions in this talk! Actually, I think I must be doing something right! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If the page is about Christian terrorism, then it is bound to look like anti-Christian though affect on others should not be ignored. Everyone has human rights.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, but Wikipedia's responsibility is to provide an encyclopedia, not to enforce human rights. And while a page may look to be unflattering to something, it must be NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I said not to ignore, not enforce.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

So, wouldn't not ignoring be a reason not to delete that sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which sentence exactly? I am a bit confused now.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 09:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

[13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its POV pushing. Still can ask for consensus. Looks like propaganda to blunt facts.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

I'm not pushing any POV. I think you mean the source may be POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions terrorism. The efforts for peace are implicit, and are done by all the concerned parties in civil society after such incidents as an obvious social work.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I take it no one wants to restore the sentence about peacekeeping efforts by the Christian groups? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it further conflates religious practices with a positive effect on society and those who purport to be religiously motivated whose acts have a destructive effect. You don't balance person who believes in A who does G, good, with person who purports to believe in the same A who does B, bad, i.e,. imply they both legitimately and simultaneously represent the light and dark sides of A. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Vecrumba, but it seems to me that we should include whether the attacks were supported (or not) by the group's higher authority. So it would clearly be irrelevant if the "Presbyterian Association of Mumbai" disavowed some attack, but quite germane if the leaders of any particular group made it clear that some of their members had "gone rogue" and were doing so without moral support from their supposed parent body. In other words, differentiate between sponsored terrorism and some group/person who was acting on his own. Student7 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

...and if the group committing the acts of terrorism were calling itself the "Baptist Church of Tripura" or something, and the REAL "Baptist Church of Tripura" wanted to disavow the attack...that might be a legitimate concern. However, these groups have done no such thing...and "Christianity" is not an organization or group that has leaders or an official organization (kinda like "Islam" in this regard). Catholicism maybe...but "Christianity"? Nope. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are Christian churches which are part of an organization with a synod and then there are self-declared Christian churches and then there are self-declared Christian adherents. We should not mix these. If there is a legitimate content connection (organized Christian church "X" in country "Y" denounces terrorists "Z" invoking Christian ideology also in country "Y") then that may be reasonable to note as it directly relates to terrorists "Z". You're not going to find any synod of any legitimate Christian church advocating for terrorism, so the question is moot. Meaning, also, that just because something calls itself a "church" does not mean we repeat it in a manner which implies legitimacy or call its leaders "church authorities." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns though if 'A' is involved in terrorism, that does not mean B involved, only part of (A+B) is involved. That is understood. Saffron terrorism or Jehadi terrorism does not mean all believers are advocating terror, but it is an incident of Christian religious terrorism by a few believers..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In the course of recent edits, the current wording on the page now describes the group as "extremist", which perhaps is sufficient to make clear that the terrorist group does not represent Christianity as a whole. Anyway, no big deal to me about the sentence that was deleted. Although the discussion kind of took on a life of its own, my principal reason for starting this talk thread was to comment towards those editors who were involved in some of the earlier discussions about Lebanon and some other places. I guess we now have a somewhat different group of editors taking interest in the India edits, so the discussion takes a different form. But, as for those editors who were so sure that they knew what consensus was in the Lebanon and Ireland edits, it seems obvious to me that !vote counting can sure look different after a couple of weeks go by! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

India (break)

We need someone who calls them Christian terrorists. Trivial mentions do not count. TFD (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best not to jump on the editor's use of the word "mention", other issues notwithstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please go through the sources and in what exact form do you need to see what this please clarify...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

We come across this type of problem in many articles. They are Christians and they are terrorists and there are passing references to them as "Christian terrorists" (sometimes by people quoted in newspapers). But that does not mean they necessarily fall within the topic, and we need sources that categorize them as such. It should not be difficult to find sources for that if that is how they are normally classified. The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a nationalist group. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland is maoist. Whether these groups come under nationalist terrorism, left-wing terrorism or religious terrorism is not clear and we need sources to clarify this. TFD (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear Christian(left wing or any any other way) terrorism. Please read the article again..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem? You seem to have an agenda to dispute any examples of Christian Terrorism, regardless of sources. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland clearly states its goal by its own motto: "Nagaland For Christ." [14] The National Liberation Front of Tripura has stated multiple times, even in reports by the BBC, that its goal is to, "convert all tribespeople in the state to Christianity." [15] [16] What exactly will satisfy you? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For comparison see Left-wing terrorism#History, Left-wing terrorism#Western Europe and Left-wing terrorism#Asia. The article uses sources that defines the topic and provide examples, which are then written about in the article. Can we find similar sources for this article? If nothing else this approach stops us from arguing which groups should be included. TFD (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

source here. "‘Greater Nagaland’ (‘Nagalim’ or the People’s Republic of Nagaland) based on Mao Tse Tung’s ideology ... based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a spiritual outlook – ‘Nagaland for Christ’. " points to left wing mindset..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And as I've mentioned before, Al Qaeda and other Islamic Terrorist organizations also have other classifications under which they can also be categorized...as they are also examples of Right Wing Terrorism, and are engaged in Nationalist Terrorism as well...but that doesn't suddenly negate the fact that they can be described as Islamic Terrorists. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they are considered to be religious terrorists. There are black, white and Chinese members of al Qaeda from countries ranging from the US to China, not typical of nationalist terrorism, and they are not right-wing - they oppose example for example the return of the Shah of Iran or the elites in Turkey. But you must present reliable sources that support your views. TFD (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is a Far Right organization, and is pretty much textbook on that. They are devoted to an extremely reactionary weltanschauung, and essentially began as a Islamic Nationalist uprising, fighting for Afghan independence against the Soviets and Marxists. Your comparisons to Iran and Turkey are absurd, as that would be like claiming that the Ku Klux Klan is not a Far Right organization, because they are not trying to reinstate the English monarchy over the USA. Now you're just being silly...and I think just about everyone on this page is probably bored of all the sources that I keep throwing at you. I proved my point long ago, but like the Birthers, you stubbornly cling to your position in the face of insurmountable evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While I admire TFD's consistency, I believe the same line of contention has resulted in a POV-fragmentation of Communist terrorism. That is, Communist + terrorist =/= Communist terrorism. Instead, it is left-wing terrorism, it's insurgency, et al. Individuals committing terrorist acts in the name of Christianity/motivated by Christianity are by their very nature, engaged in Christian terrorism. One should also note that the existence of "X" terrorism does not mean that all legitimate adherents of "X" are terrorists or that "X" legitimately advocates for terrorism. (Of course, the latter is possible, viz. Bolshevist terror.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the categories used by reliable sources of right-wing, left-wing, nationalist, religious, single issue and state-sponsored should be used or whether we should use our own. One example discussed here is a Christian maoist nationalist group with foreign support. Do we rely on Wikipedia editors to determine how they should be classified or do we rely on sources that classify terrorism? How to classify them would make an interesting discussion, but I think we should go with sources. TFD (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The links provided itself suggests that the killing was done in a religious dispute, first time by Naxalites. As far as my understanding goes, Naxalites (and to a an extent Maoists) never indulge in Religious militancy for their rank and file consist of members of all religions. Source mentioned "Admitting that the Maoists had for the first time intervened in any religious dispute by killing Laxamananda Saraswati" here and here ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more sources for TFD to ignore. "The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) was formed in December 1989 for the purpose of seceding from India in order to create an independent Christian fundamentalist state of Tripura." [17] In addition, the book "Terrorism in India's north-east: a gathering storm, Volume 1," by Colonel Ved Prakash, (an Indian Army officer who spent decades fighting against terrorists in Northeast India) has plenty to say about Christian "militants" and "terrorism" in reference to these groups. [18] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they support an independent state may be reason to classify them under nationalist terrorism (also called separatist or ethnic terrorism). Do you have any sources that categorize them? TFD (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you make no sense. If the goal is to create an independent CHRISTIAN state, then that fully satisfies the definition of being a "Christian Terrorist" organization. And here are some more sources, though why I continue to bother, I have no idea... This archived article [19] actually refers to the NLFT as both "Baptist Terrorists" and "Christian Terrorists." This one [20] also refers to the NLFT as "Christian Terrorists." Just because this issue is not widely covered in the Western media...does not mean that it doesn't exist. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you inappropriately favor purpose over ideology. The scope here is terrorism which is driven by or which cites ideology, in this case Christian beliefs. Purpose is secondary. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not our role to determine which groups should be classified under Christian terrorism but to report how the experts classify them. The fact that an ethnic group that happens to be Christian uses terrorism in order to achieve independence would normally place them under the category of ethnic, nationalist or separatist terrorism. Find an expert who has written about religious terrorism and classifies them as such. Otherwise we are just discussing our own personal opinions. Peters, you are wrong and sources do not support your view. Noi doubt IRA terrorists may have been Christian or communist, but their objective was independence and that is how academics classified them. If I am wrong, please provide a dicsussion of the typology that differs. TFD (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

...and I have presented a multitude of sources showing that these groups are only seeking "independence" in order to create a Christian Theocratic State. This is nothing at all like issues where the terrorist just "happens to be" a Christian. You keep moving the goalposts around as if you are the only person whose opinion matters on this subject. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"independence" in order to create a Christian Theocratic State - I am sure you are neither justifying terrorism, not independence by terrorism as just. That these people are militant and form some banned organizations that indulge in terrorism, banning Hindu festivals(which makes it religious terrorism of Christian nature) etc looks like no consequence to you only if you ignore human rights of Hindus. Human Rights of Hindus is very important to me and should be important to you and others as well..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that comment supposed to be addressed to TFD? I think we are both on the "same page," so to speak, ThisThat2011. Human Rights of Hindus are very important to me as well...especially since I am one! ;) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment was about Christian Terrorism. My page is here ->>.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is classic synthesis. We have sources that define Christian terrorism, sources that describe a group's actions as terrorism, and a source that the group wishes to create "an independent Christian fundamentalist state". It may be that the actions of the group would lead scholars to group them under Christian terrorism. It is also possible that scholars might instead determine that this was nationalist terrorism, "the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group" (Aubery, p.).[21] But that is not our call to make, we need sources that do this before we should include them. TFD (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not...and you are misrepresenting the sources, many of which specifically define these groups as "Christian Terrorist." You want an academic source? How about the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism? In the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, it begins with this paragraph:

"Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." (p. 963)

Here is another line from the article: "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." (p. 967) The only way to conclude that this group does NOT fit into the definition of "Christian Terrorism," is if one has an agenda to deny the existence of "Christian Terrorism." In light of the many sources that have presented here, no other conclusion can be drawn. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one for you: "NSCN and National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) under the leadership of Bishwamohan Debbarma promoted Christian terrorism." ("Problems of ethnicity in the North-East India," Braja Bihārī Kumāra, p. 23, [22]) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Last year, they issued a ban on the Hindu festivals of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/717775.stm I dont think anyone should ban Hindu Festival in the name of nationalism, which apparently is okay from your viewpoint but it is Anti-Hinduism. So is painting cross on temples, destroying temples etc. and conversion at Gunpoint. It is all Christian terrorism..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And some advice that I'm sure everyone will ignore: WP:NOTAFORUM. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to those who ignore human rights of Hindus and then wonder how terrorism is terrorism! Calling well referenced material as forumchat is not proper. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/717775.stm is reliable. I am sure people will ignore those whose views are anti-Hindu..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The article by Corider et al is good. All I was asking for was a good source that classifies the violence as motivated by religion, as opposed to our making the call ourselves. We must be very careful in all groups we include to ensure that we are reflecting reasoned, accepted opinion, rather than our own judgment. TFD (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad that we can agree on this source. Bryon: do you have a URL for that source (Corider)? If so, I'll be glad to make an edit, adding it to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's from an academic journal, so it doesn't have a "regular" URL. (Hence the DOI...) I'll send you a PDF if you like, but I can't really post it here without running afoul of copyright issues. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thanks. I'll add it to the page shortly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

'A bible in one hand and a gun in another', desecrating temples by 'painting a cross on temple' as if it is an accepted social behavior just like painting, are good indications, and then making people do things at gunpoint is a straightforward christian terrorism. One can not deny it or dodge it by accusing ideology. If other ideology doesn't make Christians let go of terrorism, then I can not say much anyway..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 05:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unusual report seem confusing (subsection name changed in response to comments below)

A Swami accuses a former "senator" of planning to assassinate him. The "senator" is also chief of a local Christian group, in conflict with Hindus. Like everything in India, it is strange and only gets stranger by the years. Does any of this makes sense? This seems to be typical of India. Can't find out what really happened. Investigation drags on for years and years. Hard to believe that a Christian group could line up 30-40 armed men. But the Christians were definitely annoying the Hindus by their conversion tactics. The swami is clearly dead. QED. But does it really? Student7 (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an accusation as mentioned. Please dont get into questioning everyone in the whole world and blame Indians for truth...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

If you don't understand anything about local Indian politics in regards to the issue, then you really should not be editing anything in reference to it. In India, the "Right" are a bunch of Socialists, criminal investigations can sometimes last for a decade, and Maoists and Christians work together to commit terrorist acts. Since it's obvious that you don't believe anything in the India section, regardless of how many reputable sources are used as citations, why don't you stop putting tags on everything and go edit a page where you might have a tiny bit of expertise? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

~~Let's steer clear of calling any nation "strange", please.~~ But I think that Student7's most recent edits were improvements. And I also somewhat agree that the last paragraph has a somewhat thin relationship to Christian terrorism in its present form. It seems to me that the key points are the claims of conspiracy to assassinate, and of covert funneling of money for the purpose of religious conversion. Those two things seem relevant to me, whereas some of the other details strike me as "noise". However, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that the involvement of Maoists means that there could not also have been any terrorism by Christians. As I said the other day in my edit summary, I'd be OK with shortening that paragraph a bit more. And I continue to feel that it's appropriate to point out that any Christian terrorism in India does not occur in a vacuum, that there is a variety of religious terrorism, coming from a variety of directions. That's just good NPOV, and neither excuses acts by Christians nor trivializes concerns of other religious groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As per my understanding, what is displayed here is like the tip of an iceberg. Rest is concealed from public discourse. Refer to my comments about Maoists claiming that http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/05orissa1.htm they killed Swami as a matter of religious dispute..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the problems we have with India reporting (contrasted with the West) is that the reporter repeats everything as "fact." In the West, this would soon be supplanted with a crisp arraignment and formal accusation, approved by a judge. This doesn't seem to happen in India due to a variety of third-world type problems. Again, in the West, some media would try to "get to the bottom of this." This sort of investigative reporting doesn't occur in India. Media is quite happy nourishing the problem along "forever", if it can.

So it is frustrating from a Western point of view. Everyone who is still alive and standing winds up "accused" and no one is ever truly cleared. Wikipedia needs some kind of process for handling this. Otherwise, we risk being diddled by an incompetent justice system coupled with a complaint media. Student7 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not here to determine guilt or innocence. We are here only to report verifiability, not truth. If editors try to use this page either to indict Christianity (or anyone else) or to exonerate it, they are missing the point. The point is to report, in an NPOV manner, verifiable information that has been reported first in sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is going off track. I have mentioned resources as well. My intention is to get correct picture, but there is a high probability anyone doing this, or as you mentioned "get to the bottom of this" in India would be called Hindutva, no matter how would that affect who all irrespective of truth or anything else. You may not find the same behavior w.r.t. other such issues like Graham Steins case, or riots against Muslims, or riots against Christians, and so on, where your assertions that "this seem to happen in India" does not hold. A curious paradox in India, as a third world country, is that secular media changes behavior on nothing but religion! On the other hand, when you say a third world type problems, I would like to remind that Swiss Banks, with black money as a loot of wealth from third world countries (if you want to fragment black money too) of the whole world, are not in India, Swiss Banks are in European first world countries, and Swiss Banks do and are allowed to recruit from the finest schools of managements since decades..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I got to clarify here that black money from third world country stashed in Swiss Banks is not just my personal or only problem of India. It has money from other countries too and two wrongs does not make a right(redusing size of legitimate economies from all over and dividing stakeholder peoples). That black money(little as tax evasion, most as loot of countries) is a problem only for Third World countries is a myth(as per me)that benefits few and divided those affected regular people; for it had stashed monies from first world countries also. What I am trying to point out is how all the unaccounted money is allowed as a legitimate enterprise for decades is beyond me(secret banking and the whole infrastructure), it doesn't happen in India where secret bank accounts are not legitimate as per my understanding..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Gun ownership and illegal firearms in India

Refer this http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-08-26/hyderabad/27224057_1_illegal-weapons-illegal-firearms-illegal-arms source, and stop putting citations all over the place. If you dont understand laws in India, find out yourself instead of putting citations wildly. It looks unwise from here. "the city police found an illegal countrymade pistol in possession of a person in the old city who was holding a valid arms licence. investigations revealed that the man purchased the weapon from a mumbai-based dealer. he was learnt to have procured the illegal weapon, despite being in possession of two weapons which he purchased from a citybased licensed-arms dealer. though the police seized the weapon, the matter was allegedly hushed up by the police without even registering a case." i.e. illegal arms can not be purchases, irrespective of license. Arms must be purchased from registered seller only by licensed users. Though, I would like to quote Mahatma Gandhi's views on this :"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)"; or Dalai Lama "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate". Source here http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/ ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing before consensus please. You have put "Illegal in India" after guns, and then added another citation needed mark. Please desist from such a behavior..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And furthermore, the issue here is not gun control; it is terrorism. Legally purchased firearms can, in principle, be used for terrorist purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How are "Legally purchased firearms can, in principle, be used for terrorist purposes."?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You argue with me even when I am agreeing with you?! How can legally purchased firearms be used for terrorist purposes? By using them for terrorist purposes! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Legally purchased firearms can, in principle, be used for terrorist purposes."- is what I read. Not in principle, but may be by conspiracy, legally purchased firearms can be used for terrorist purposes..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Source

Just looked at one of the (Sentinel) articles referenced above in the arms discussion. It seemed okay until I got to the phrase "Unfortunately, 85 per cent of the Garos have converted to Christianity..." My, that is "unfortunate"! :)

You never know what bias you are going to get here. We don't know what the heck we are reading. Could Christians be terrorizing poor Hindus? Yes. Could the reverse be true and it's getting turned around by the predominately Hindu public and press? I wonder. This is one place where I would prefer a Christian source reporting the problem. It might leave out some stuff, but it might omit fiction, as well. If Christian authorities are denying everything (I don't think they are), that would be instructive, as well. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Forking discussion. Provide sources. Bias for Christian sources and against "predominately Hindu public and press" introduced. Please desist..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.sentinelassam.com/state1/story.php?sec=2&subsec=2&id=61683&dtP=2011-01-24&ppr=1 Student7 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement in question is a quote, and is located within quotation marks. Therefore, it does nothing to "impugn" the source (Sentinel-Assam). Furthermore, if you will look, I've presented sources from Christian sources on the matter, such as this one [23]. You'll note that this article downplays the connection between local churches and "Christian Terrorist" organizations...but does not deny the existence of those organizations. Furthermore, the BBC has also reported on these issues, multiple times, in sources listed above. Holding your hands over your eyes and ears and not WANTING this to be true...is not sufficient "evidence" to prove that it is not. In fact, there is a large amount of evidence to the contrary, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever to make your case. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious context

Another problem here is purely religious and has always befuddled Christian missionaries. What does it mean for a Hindu to recognize the Christian God? The answer is that this is not a serious problem for a supposedly polytheistic Hindu. "You say Jesus is God? Fine! Stick him over there with the others!" To convert by Christian standards is to forgo all other deities. "Conversion" per se, by means monotheists would generally recognize is not really applicable.

My point being, what exactly does sticking a Christian gun in someone's face who readily accepts other deities and ordering "Believe," mean? What action would please the accused "terrorists?" The victim saying "Sure? Why not?" This seems ineffective, and by seeming ineffective, again seems to strain credibility. The accused terrorists know their supposed victims. Why would they even try this approach? It seems futile to start with.

Maybe we need to enhance the article with another source explaining context so it is believable. Student7 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dont start propaganda here. Hindus dont usually just put Jesus along with other Gods. ""Conversion" per se, by means monotheists would generally recognize is not really applicable." It is the other way round, it is not applicable for Christianity to accept other Gods.

Stop justifying terrorism. ""Sure? Why not?"" !! Be the change you want to see in the world. Dont confuse the context.

I am requesting this user off this page for some time, with all his propaganda and justifying terror and so on..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, Student7...you really don't understand anything about the situation in India, so why do you feel "qualified" to edit the page? People get murdered and raped over this issue, so obviously some people think it's more "serious" than you do. For one thing, Christian missionaries in India generally force new "converts" to sever all family ties with Hindus or Muslims, with the idea that being around "infidels" is likely to make the new convert revert to his/her traditional views/practices. Furthermore, your view of Christianity v. Hinduism shows an astounding lack of understanding of theological issues. Under your "reasoning," what point would an Islamic terrorist have in "converting" a Christian or Jew? Surely, they have far more in common from a theological standpoint than a Christian does with a Hindu. Why don't you watch the video "Bad Manna" on YouTube if you are sincere in wanting to learn more about the situation regarding Christian activities in India. (I tried to link, but Wikipedia won't let me...) It's only about general "conversion" activities, and not about "terrorism," but you might learn a bit more about the general "climate" where these activities are taking place. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inhuman to ignore Human rights of non-believers..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should all take a break and read WP:NOTFORUM. Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone doing wild propaganda ignoring human rights of non believers should not be ignored by anyone..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From a Christian pov, this would indeed be "Christian terrorism" if true (and belong in this article). From the Hindu pov, it would seem to be "terrorism" and "vandalism." The religious part of it would seem to be lost in translation. Student7 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While you may THINK you are entitled to speak for the "Hindu POV," you are certainly misrepresenting the views of Hindus, particularly Hindus like myself, as well as all of the various Hindus who have been quoted in some of my sources, or the Hindus who have been raped or murdered by Christian Terrorists. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The dude is oblivious to Human Rights of Hindus..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orissa, India

I suppose it is typical that we have accusations of criminal activity from Orissa, but few or no actual trials and convictions? The problem here is we are left with otherwise unsubstantiated "eyewitness" accounts, but no court findings of fact. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to explain this before, but I'll say it again. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to determine guilt or innocence. Our task is verifiability, not truth. Thus, we need to have reliable sources saying that activities, or accusations of activities, have taken place, and we do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In the name of accusations, referenced material is edited to look like something else edit that removed religious symbolism, wordings are changed here and in some cases lines are removed in spite of references under frivolous argumentsArgument-just one member said so!. Please don't start judging & questioning everything. Why is the lime "NGO Justice on Trial said that the Christian missionaries attacked the swami eight times earlier for opposing clandestine conversion activities" removed? The argument "reports of earlier attacks were only by one member of the NGO committee, not the whole" makes no sense when the report clearly mentions that the chairman of the committee said so. Who made anyone to judge whether the NGO was correct or not? Is this how Wikipedia works? Read the report before giving independent interpretations. Discuss the issue here before making edits. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 04:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. It's apparent from your edits, comments, and edit-comments, Student7, that you have no interest in this subject other than Christian apologetics. I've explained previously that the criminal justice system in India moves very slowly, and you have obviously done no research on either the subject at hand, the religious disputes in the area, or anything else germane to the article. What you are suggesting are known as "conspiracy theories," and have no business on an encyclopedia article, (except of course, an article on conspiracy theories). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Suspects in custody. No trial.

Does Wikipedia allow the courts to decide guilt or innocence? Is that okay? Or just the media? If the courts do act, is it permissible to report it here? Student7 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that editors in Wikipedia can decide guilt or innocence. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 04:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As of April 20th, 2011, the investigation is still stalled, with 7 of the 20 murderers currently imprisoned awaiting trial. [24] As I stated before, the Indian criminal justice system moves slowly. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Justice on Trial

It is unusual to have a non-police organization, or non-victims, or non-media reporting criminal activity. I cannot find independent views on "Justice on Trial." They are an NGO, but so what? Media seems to report them like they were a judicial group, but there is no accompanying explanation to bolster their credibility except their name. And why isn't the media finding this out directly? Why is it second-hand? Has the government lost complete control over Orissa?

BTW, I'm often not getting real answers to questions on this page by editors. I am disappointed by non-response. A lot of emotion and accusations but avoidance of serious answers to questions. Student7 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry are you demanding answers about reliability of an NGO just so that your personal doubts are passed off as facts? What do people of third world countries owe to you exactly? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Justice on Trial is headed by former Judge of the Gujarat High Court and former Lok Ayukta of Gujarat SM Soni and former Governor of Himachal Pradesh and former Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court VS Kokje." [25] The non-sectarian organization also includes Muslim women's rights activist Nafisa Hussain, Sikh advocate, and former Add. Advocate General of Rajasthan, S.Gurcharan Singh Gill, and retired Director General of the Indian Police Service, P.C. Dogra. So yeah...you go right ahead and TRY to impugn their credibility. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I think the group deserves a Wikipedia page, (for exactly this kind of reason...) so I'm gonna make one. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can now find out everything you ever wanted to know about the group at Justice On Trial (NGO). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Please avoid WP:ATTACK. Student7 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume "good faith" in regards to your edits, as you have clearly shown, on multiple occasions over a long period of time, that your only concern in regards to this page is Christian apologetics. You refuse to listen to people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject when we try to explain Indian culture and laws, and all you do is try to cast doubt on every single reference. Furthermore, WP:ATTACK has absolutely nothing to do with anything here, since nobody has created an "attack page" targeting you or anyone else. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Disobeying orders"

Someone inserted that people were murdered for "disobeying orders." This makes it sound like the people giving the orders had some right to do so and the killings were maybe "excessive discipline." The point of the article is that the "orders" or whatever were totally illegal. Therefore the people were murdered for simply going about their normal business. The giving of "orders" is extraneous to the crime. This is confusing to an ordinary reader. Let's keep the explanation to the essentials. Student7 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The disobeying orders part is taken from the source. Lets not waste more time in rationalizing and adding personal versions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear. We are using stuff that is not normally used for reports of this nature, because we don't have anything else. The nature of the reports is uniformly poor and subjective. Most are primary sources. The media reports are designed for negative appeal to the target audience, which is Hindu. To alarm them and "sell papers."

No, we are not supposed to indiscriminately use any report even if from a highly reputable source, which most of these aren't. We certainly shouldn't be using tabloid type information. "Disobeying orders" has nothing whatever to do with anything. It probably weakens the article anyway, since it is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with rationalizing. We have to use material that makes sense. The original report does not contain information used in an encyclopedia. What we want and need here is a report from the court, which is not, and probably never will be, available. But it would presumably contain objective material.

How is it a "personal version?"

We need to use material, but we need to use our heads as well. Using sloppy material indiscriminately is not helpful in when constructing an article which contains controversial matter. If extraneous material is eliminated, it becomes easier to discuss the actual "facts," as represented by the media, which are left. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

...and I'm pretty sure that you have never presented a single "fact" or even a reference in regards to India. All you do is claim that all the references, whether they come from Indian newspapers, terrorism experts, peer-reviewed journals, or the BBC, are somehow "exaggerating," though you never even ATTEMPT to "prove" these assertions with any other references. All you are doing is conspiracy theorizing. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence has been improved. But the current sentence reads "...forced conversion to Christianity under threat." This isn't worth fighting over, but it isn't the best sentence either. Could stand improvement. Either allow "forced conversion" by itself or drop it and insert "converted to Christianity under threat." The problem, as with all these extremist type statements is that it sounds a "bit much" as opposed to "credible." "Credible" is what we are aiming for. Understatement, rather than overstatement. Overstating is off-putting. Student7 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with you that it's redundant to say both "forced" and "under threat". The latter just means the former, and I'm going to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

About 'forced conversions under threat' - the 'forced' part is the part about being evil, the 'under threat' part is about how(amongst consequences such as from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death). The latter does not mean former. See Forced part ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that we are having a misunderstanding about language. From what I can make of what you said, I think you mean that the "under threat" part is the mechanism of how the "forced" comes about. Although that is true, logically, I'm pretty sure that for readers who are fluent in English, it will be readily understood without saying both, whereas saying both comes across as redundant. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how "for readers who are fluent in English, it will be readily understood".. that 'the "under threat" part is the mechanism of how the "forced"' - is a "language issue" when a source is provided just to clarify the same. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bigger picture

As with everything else in India, the "bigger picture" here is that Christian may also be victims. See, for example, http://wwrn.org/articles/10988/. This does not justify terrorism, which is less excusable under Christianity than any other religion, except maybe Buddhism. Another factor is that the Christians of the area were formerly in the majority until Bangladesh broke away. For whatever reason, Hindus reputedly fled to India for security, and now constitute a majority in the area. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the violence goes both ways, but that's beside the point for this page. In deletion discussions, Wikipedia considers the existence of other bad stuff to be an invalid argument, and in this case, I think the same concept applies to content. Turn Hindu terrorism from red to blue, put that source in it, and I'll agree with that edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It has nothing to do with anything at all. It's like having an article about Islamic Terrorism in America, and bringing up hate-motivated attacks on Muslims. It has no place in this article, and would do nothing but seem to "justify" these terror attacks. Furthermore, as I've noted in regards to the recent edits at the top section of this talk-page, these are completely different subjects, as "revenge riots" are not the same as organized terrorist groups whose goals include the forced conversion of non-Christians and establishment of a Christian state. That's like talking about the L.A. Riots on the Wiki page of the KKK, and saying that we need to "understand" the relation between white supremacy and "black violence." It's prima facie offensive, and based on a false correlation. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Better footnotes

We have the best footnotes we could find, but the references are a bit suspect. If we could find similar refs by Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) publications, it would do a lot to enhance the credibility of the article. I use media that usually disagrees with me to justify material in an article. Who can refute it? The anti-s are looking at their own publication! And it's worded npov. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As you say, we have the best sources we can find. They satisfy WP:V. If you find better sources, all the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Visit happy Tripura http://tripuratourism.in/treligious.htm. Right! :(

An ncc report does refer to the problems but is way too vague. http://www.nccindia.in/resources/view.htm?no=7&page=3 .

Not exactly what I was looking for, but a secondary assessment. http://shabarikumbh.org/en/conversions-northeast-ind.pdf Still very Hindu-centric. Curious as to why no Christian pub has picked this up except the vague ncc ref. This one more high level, maybe too high level. http://planningtripura.nic.in/THDR/backgroundreport/Insurgency%20and%20Human%20Security.pdf .

Supposedly the Catholic church was forced to close down for similar but all second hand (Hindu) reports! http://www.hvk.org/articles/0703/107.html. Really strange that there is so little that is objective and almost nothing from Christian religious sources except vaguely from ncc Student7 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, you're assuming that simply because a source is "Indian," that it is "Hindu." India is a secular country that affords freedom of religion to all, and has a long tradition of being the place where people of persecuted faiths run to to find a safe haven, like the Jews and Parsis. The percentage of people who identify as "Hindu," (80.5% of the population [26]) is fairly comparable to the percentage of people in the USA who identify as "Christian" (76% of the population [27]). I think it would be safe to say that it would be incorrect to assume based on these demographics that major US newspapers are "Christian" publications, the way that you seem to be insinuating that major Indian newspapers like the Times of India and Indian Express are "Hindu" publications, and need "verification" from the tiny Christian minority. That would be like assuming that any US news articles about Hindus are "suspect" or not RS, unless "verified" by American Hindu periodicals. I quickly searched through both of those newspapers and found many articles quite favorable to Christianity, such as [28] and [29] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed US publications are silent on anti Hinduism in Trinidad & Tobago and in Fiji.

But I guess that is not too alarming at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor question

There is a sentence that reads "The insurgency in Nagaland was led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and continues today with its faction NSCN–Isaac Muivah, which..." My suggestion is to shorten this to "The insurgency in Nagaland is led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) which..." The Isaac Muivah name means nothing to a reader and is unnecessarily confusing. I thought at first that someone was talking about a person in the middle of the sentence. If they are interested, they can go to the NSCN link. Student7 (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

link - "NSCN (Isaac-Muivah)" is the name of the group. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is the official name of the group. But it is confusing to insert it IMO and detracts the reader (who is usually not from India) from what the editor is trying to say.

In American history we once had a "Republican Party" in 1800 or so. This shortly became the "Democratic-Republican Party" around 1810. And then the "Democratic Party" around 1820 to this day. Today, their opponents use their former name "Republican Party." So when speaking even to historians, an author might write "The party that became the Democratic Party" just to avoid confusion, even though that was not their name during the era under discussion.

My point being that formal names are sometimes confusing. Student7 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tags necessary?

I'm unconvinced the tags are appropriate but this isn't my area. Can one of the locals please review the article and remove the tag(s) that are not relevant? -- samj _in ^out 02:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the tags at the top of the page? Well, there's enough disagreement about the page that they should probably stay, if that's what you are talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them, since it's not clear what the issues are. If anyone wants to add them, please mention why on this page. —Ashley Y 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. Please let me suggest that the users who got interested in the tags stick around and help contribute to the page. And also take a look at the talk archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oslo, Norway Christian Terrorism

Well, I figured I'd start a new section, since it's looking more and more likely that Anders Behring Breivik, the man held in connection with the terrorist attacks in Norway from earlier today (22 July 2011). News reports are all referring to him as either a "Christian conservative" with ties to the "Right-Wing," or as a "Christian Nationalist." We might as well start figuring out how this issue will affect this page, as...if these early reports are correct, this may be the biggest, most widely reported act of Christian Terrorism in recent history. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about this at all. Both links are dead and there may be reports of involvements of Islamists involved. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We need sources that say this was Christian terrorism. It could instead be right-wing terrorism as your sources appear to suggest. TFD (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering report, "At least one Islamic terror group quickly claimed the attacks were “revenge” for Norway’s engagement in Afghanistan, but last night Norwegian police said the attack did not appear to be the work of Islamist terrorists.", I would rather wait till the picture is more clear. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All is rumour and supposition at the moment, and probably will remain so until there's a trial. I think only then can we include information about this attack, if indeed it does turn out to be Christian terrorism, rather than having a racial or political motive. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FTR: This is why I mentioned this on the Talk page, instead of editing the article! ;) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not have to wait until the trial is over. We need an article by a terrorism expert explaining how terrorists are categorized and how this incident fits in. Then we may report that as his/her opinion. When we can show that there is consensus in this opinion (which may take some time) then we can reflect that. TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, we should wait for clearer sourcing. The news reports that I have heard seem to focus on right-wing politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The video that he published is clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE&skipcontrinter=1 He is a Christian terrorist. He's not a guy who happens to be Christian. His Christianity, as he understood it, played a significant role in his desire to kill the "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Norway. His whole shtick is to get rid of the Muslims because he saw them as a threat to Norway's cultural and religious (Christian) purity. He was a member of the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video told Christians to be like the crusaders and battle the Muslims, join a local Templar group, and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other people who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity. In the video he also hated on feminism, multiculturalism, Marxism, Obama, and all the usual stuff you usually find amongst right-winger Christians in the United States. 66.188.228.180 (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik wrote that it was essential to "fight" for a "Judeo-Christian Europe", praised the rejection of "anti-Jewish views" and stated that "the new Conservatist ‘new right’ is rapidly developing into a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance."^[1] He applauds Israel, and considers Israel to be a victim of alleged "cultural Marxists" who "see Israel as a 'racist' state".^[2] Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding references tag. Hopefully talk pages will have default references section at the bottom by some bottom page location macro/stylesheet. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty clear that this is Christian terrorism according to the New York Times:^[3]

“

The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination.. The manifesto, entitled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” equates liberalism and multiculturalism with “cultural Marxism,” which the document says is destroying European Christian civilization. The document also describes a secret meeting in London in April 2002 to reconstitute the Knights Templar, a Crusader military order.

”

Josh Keen (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

^ "Exclusive: The Oslo Terrorist in His Own Words: Bomber Predicted "Europe soon will burn once again"". Washington Times. Retrieved 2011-07-24.
^ De forumposts van Anders Breivik (in (in Dutch)), EénVandaag, 23 July 2011{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^ "Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War". New York Times.

The New York Times does not say it was Christian terrorism and quotes a political scientist who says, “This is the Norwegian equivalent to Timothy McVeigh.... This is right-wing domestic terrorism" (my emphasis). TFD (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see the old familiar pattern of conduct at this page goes on as it always seems to.

I think the current version of the section on the page relies much too heavily on quoting from the video and related primary sources in order to WP:SYNTH a case. I also think that the sky is not going to fall if we wait another day or two to get more to work with from secondary sources.

However, that said, from what I have read in today's New York Times (here's an image of the front page: [30]), I increasingly think that there is a good chance that we will eventually conclude that this event belongs in this article. Please note the headline in that screeshot to which I just linked. The article that it covers is, I think, largely the same as the one to which Josh links to (under a different title, however), above.

TFD: in reading the paper version, I too saw the quote about "right-wing" to which you refer. However, in what I read, that quote comes after a very long series of paragraphs in which, in almost every paragraph, the Christian nature of the terrorism is treated as its primary attribute (both in the perpetrator saying that he was engaged in a supposed war of Christians against Muslims, and in analysts treating him as having Christian, at least Christian identity if not theology, motivations), such that the "right-wing" comment, when taken in context, is treated as something secondary.

I really think we need another day or two before we can draw any encyclopedic conclusions without stepping into WP:OR, one way or the other, but I think a case is growing that secondary sources are starting to regard the incident as truly being Christian terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he is going to make a statement when he appears in court tomorrow - if they'll let him. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A few points. One is that he appears to have acted alone. He will be the first terrorist that I can remember who has acted totally alone. What if he changes his mind and decides later that he "was" some other kind of terrorist?

It is more credible to label someone a religious terrorist when he has targeted another religion, say a temple, or something. It seems more credible to label someone a political terrorist when he has, in this case, targeted a political faction, not a church.

If someone blows up a bus in Rangoon, does it matter that police find writings that indicate that he is anti-Semitic? The label ought to fit the crime IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the idea of a terrorist acting alone is more common than you'd think, and the concept itself (Lone_wolf (terrorism)) is openly advocated by many groups and ideologies. Your comparison to Rangoon would only MAYBE be applicable if Rangoon was experiencing a growth of Jewish immigrants, and the terrorist attacked a bus full of people going to a political rally promoting tolerance for these Jewish immigrants, and the terrorist clearly articulated that the attacks were designed to force all Jews to leave Rangoon. In other words...not even close. If Breivik were a Muslim, and had committed terrorist attacks aimed at forcing all Christians out of Norway, I don't think we'd be having a discussion as to whether he was an "Islamic Terrorist." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorists, unlike religious terrorists, typically act alone or in very small groups and are mentally unbalanced. They tend to join right-wing groups but do not become active because they are unable to relate to other people. Their targets usually include government or left-wing groups. What they share in common with religious terrorists is their utter disregard for human life, including their own. TFD (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And another thing... Not sure how Norway's legal system works, but in the US, this guy would be innocent until proven guilty. That is, he would be an accused terrorist of whatever stripe is decided until after his trial. (It may not work that way in Norway). Student7 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you will be shocked when it could be pointed out that entire pages such as Saffron terror, Category:Hindu_terrorism, etc are present though cases are still in courts. As Bryonmorrigan pointed out that reliable sources say it so it is mentioned. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Was Osama bin Laden ever "convicted" in the 9/11 attacks? Did he take credit for them? Do reliable sources confirm that he did them? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of news reports up to this time is that the person in Norway has told the authorities that he takes responsibility for having done the acts, and that the judge in the case has filed a formal charge of terrorism. Consequently, we are on firm footing in calling him a terrorist, and Wikipedia isn't a court anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The question, then, is whether we really should be calling him a Christian terrorist, as opposed to a right-wing terrorist (or a combination of both, since they aren't mutually exclusive). I think that's still an unresolved issue. But here are some sources that are beginning to provide some commentary from reliable and secondary sources: [31], which argues in favor of calling him a Christian terrorist, and [32] and [33], which seem to me to provide balanced analyses of whether or not he really is one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

" The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want to face up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come under human or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of a doubt. Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keepyour head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours. " -Christian terrorist of Oslo, Norway (Manifesto, p. 1390). " By propagating and defending Christendom we simply mean that we want to halt the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks and systematic deconstruction on our Christian cultures and the Church itself and to reverse the de-Christianisation of Europe." (Manifesto, p.1352)

" Although the PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist. " (Manifesto, p. 820)

" Q: Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian." (Manifesto, p. 1403) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He also says that he is a cultural Christian, and not a religious Christian. He did not belong to any church. Roger (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is Mark Juergensmeyer who as explained in the article interprets much conflict as based on religion, but his conclusions have not been accepted by other scholars. TFD (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"On his Facebook page, Breivik described himself as both conservative and Christian." http://www.courant.com/mobile/hc-campbell-terrorist-0726-20110726,0,6453552.column 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Better Source tag, the source cited is primary and its supported by secondary sources. 200.118.82.127 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, where to start amid all of this? To 200.118...: I've reverted you, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious from the discussion above. To 66.188...: Well, the same issues as what I said to the other IP. TFD, if you want to argue that Mark Juergensmeyer should not be cited at all, you may want to put his bio page up for AfD. Otherwise, let's see what those "other scholars" say about his analyses, and cite the available sources, balanced according to WP:UNDUE. In the mean time, I think the source by Mathew N. Schmalz (Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross) that I linked to is certainly something to consider as a balanced assessment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Titles of sections are not rs for anything. The section begins "Most right-wing terrorism in the United States has a religious (Christian) component" (p. 29). He does not call it CT. Even the one writer who does (Mark Juergensmeyer) says that he represents a minority view. It is not my position that Juergenmeyer should not be presented but that per NPOV we do not present his views as consensus. TFD (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You've posted almost the same comment in two different places, so it's a little difficult to follow. Nothing about the Oslo events has anything to do with the title of a section in a book, and it's been too soon for any books to have come out yet anyway. When you say that per NPOV we can present Juergenmeyer's views, but we need to cite majority views too, and make clear what is majority and what is minority, that's what I've been saying all along, so I agree with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oslo attacker: "Darwinian" claim

1.) 'Darwinian' is a propaganda term. The theory of evolution is accepted as the best scientific theory to explain the diversity of species. 2.) Knowing the validity of the theory of evolution and believing in Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Many Christians, and other theists and religions, believe/understand the theory of evolution. The Oslo killer's belief in the validity of the scientific theory of evolution does not discredit the fact the claim that he was a Christian. 3.) The fact that he was a Christian is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not he was a "fundamentalist," what that term entails, and what degree it played a role in his attacks vs. other things like being "right-wing" (again, not mutually exclusive with Christianity, and may have been based on his understanding of Christianity). However, that his understanding and valueing of Christianity played a role in his attacks is not in dispute. 4.) You are a troll. Stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of the utterances of people deemed to be insane

I've read in the news that Breivik's lawyers may well plead insanity. Given that the claims of this "Christian" connection come from Breivik himself, can this self-identification really be seen as reliable for this article if he is proven to be delusional? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try what? It was a serious question. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Plenty of terrorists are delusional. This is just another tactic intended to distract from his Christianity, and no better than a "No True Scotsman" argument. There is certainly area for debate as to whether or not the guy should be labeled under "Christian Terrorism," but to try and say, "Well...since he might be nuts...we can't call him a Christian!" is about the most ludicrous argument yet. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee, folks, I hate to break up a good fight, but actually the solution to this problem is what I've been advocating all along: get away from so much reliance on primary sources, and instead use secondary sources. Preferably from academics, arguably sane. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Berwick describes his views pretty clearly in his manifesto. We are unlikely to find a better source than that. They are also summarized on the WP article on Andrew Berwick. We should just briefly (in a sentence) describe his beliefs, as told by his manifesto. Roger (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik a Hindu terrorist?

Apparently so, according to this latest source[34]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You found somebody's blog. Good for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. The stuff this guy's posting on this talk page is unintentionally hilarious. I suppose he'll be a Buddhist next...anything but the Christian he claims to be! Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The joke appears to be on those who rely upon reading Breivik's manifesto to push their own political wheel barrow, and some Wikipedians are no exception. This site[35] contends he was a Zionist terrorist. As Mathew N. Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts points out, Breivik is more an anti-islamic terrorist than anything else[36] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! He posts another blog! Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I now agree with Martin, insofar as the content currently on the page relies all too much on primary sources, opening the way for WP:OR. I'm waiting a few days for the secondary commentary to solidify, but I fully intend to rewrite it, using academic secondary sources, in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite as easy to classify these loners, who don't have all their oars in the water in the first place. A bit different than the 9/11 terrorists whose affiliations were clear, by comparison. This fellow was clearly "Anti-Left." And probably anti-Muslim. The 9/11 folks appeared to kill because they were Islamic extremists, not because they were opposed to African-Americans, who were among the victims of the attack. And not because they opposed education for women.

But it may be hard to tell with clarity what his actual affiliations (motivations) were. Does everything a presumed murderer, acting alone, believes in need to be labeled after the fact? What if he were opposed to public libraries, for example? Not really a motivating factor. Student7 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure with time, may be decades, people will come around to what the blog says. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorist: http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrorist-norway-case-strikes-debate-181559379.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

McVeigh

I have attempted to correct the entry on McVeigh, but my attempts have been reverted without addressing my concerns. Currently it uses weasel words to associate McVeigh with Christian terrorism, without giving any direct evidence of it. It says "scholars have referred" without saying which scholars. It says "groups like ..." have supported McVeigh, without any evidence that any specific group supported McVeigh. It implicates a "definition of Christian terrorism" without saying what that definition is. It tries to associate McVeigh with Christian terrorism, without pointing out that McVeigh denied being a Christian. The article should explain precisely what McVeigh has to do with Christian terrorism, or omit him. Roger (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence that you have a problem with is directly sourced in the RS, which uses the exact phrase, "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh," and refers to all of the groups mentioned as "Christian terrorists." The second part of the sentence, which was added later by someone else, is the only undocumented part of the sentence. (The part about "science" being his "religion.") I don't really care about that part if you want to delete it or something, but it seems to be supporting your POV, so I doubt you will. I'll even fix the weasel words for you...but the phrase, "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh," is 100% documented, and you have no leg to stand on in removing it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore...you can't delete all the other groups mentioned, and the entire passage...simply because you disagree with a minor part of it. THAT'S why you get template warnings, you know... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you think that my POV is. If there are Christian groups who supported McVeigh in his OKC bombing, then I favor prosecuting them for supporting murder. But there is no RS saying that. The Timothy McVeigh page says that he was "a militia movement sympathizer", but it does not say that any Christian militia supported him. If Christian militia groups had supported him, then the major media would have reported it, and the FBI would have made arrests. Roger (talk)

The source says the groups and "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh... can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" (p. 30, my emphasis)[37] It does not say scholars have referred to them as "as also falling under the definition of Christian terrorism". (I do not know however what Christian militia the writers mean or what support they supposedly gave.) TFD (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that the chapter is titled, "Modern Christian Terrorism," right? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a RS. The previous page says, "The major Christian group of the right wing is the Christian Identity Movement (CIM)." No, CIM is a minor fringe group that most people have never heard of. The book mentions McVeigh just once in a off-hand way, and it is nearly unintelligible. If you want a source on McVeigh, then I suggest any of the dozens of books and articles where the author actually researched the subject. This book does not even support the statement in the article. Roger (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Note: He is writing about the far right. They are all minor fringe groups. TFD (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

The author, Lt. Col Al-Khattar, Ph.D.[38], is a professor of criminology at an American university. In addition, Praeger books like this one are often used as textbooks in modern criminology courses. It is certainly RS. You just disagree with someone with a Ph.D. in the field. You haven't proved him wrong. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The facts that the groups are minor and fringe really don't matter: one doesn't expect terrorists to be mainstream. Arguing that the book fails WP:RS seems to have nothing to do with what WP:RS actually says. I followed the link to the source, provided just above by TFD, and it confirms what Bryon just said: the groups are listed under a heading of "Modern Christian terrorism". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Titles of sections are not rs for anything. The section begins "Most right-wing terrorism in the United States has a religious (Christian) component" (my emphasis, p. 29). He does not call it CT. Even the one writer who does (Mark Juergensmeyer) says that he represents a minority view. TFD (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've posted almost the same comment twice, so it's a little difficult to follow. Are you arguing that the book isn't an RS, or that the section title isn't? The book, by Al-Khattar, not by Juergensmeyer, is clearly an RS, and you haven't given an argument that it isn't. And nobody would claim that the title of a section is, itself, a source. It's obviously just a couple of words within a source. If the author (again not Juergensmeyer) of the source wrote those words, then they are part of what the source says, and the source is reliable for our purposes. As I've said all along, please provide other sources that you feel are majority views, and I'm very friendly to incorporating them in a manner that adheres to WP:UNDUE. And you chose to bold the words that you did, just above, but you could have just as easily bolded "a religious (Christian) component", which I would be happy to quote on the page, instead of the section title. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"And nobody would claim the title of a section is, itself, a source". Exactly. Nowhere does the writer identify any modern group as Christian terrorists, although he does identify groups as right-wing terrorists and Islamic terrorists. So whether or not it is rs (it is) it does not support your views. TFD (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the book is not an RS. I would take it more seriously if there were more specificity to its claims. Eg, it says "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh", and this has been copied into the article. What does it mean? Was there a Christian group that supplied McVeigh with explosives and was convicted of abetting terrorism? Or perhaps there was a Christian web site with some anonymous comments praising McVeigh after the bombing. It makes a big difference. Without any clue, the sentence should not be in the article as it only confuses. Roger (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor I is an RS. As mere editors, whether one of us does or does not take the book seriously has little bearing on the fact that it is a book that satisfies WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Errors in books or newspapers do not mean that they are not rs - almost all rs have errors. Al-Khattar was probably referring to the Aryan Republican Army mentioned in Juergensmeyer as the Christian Identity encampment at Elohim City. I only have access to Juergensmeyer's revised edition here. It does not say the group supported him, but the 1997 version used as a source by Al-Khattar may well have. His other source was Jeffrey Kaplan, “Leaderless Resistance,” Terrorism and Political Violence 9, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 80–95. (You can pay to read it.) When we find errors in rs, we should refer to revised editions and more recent scholarship. Much of what was believed about McVeigh following the 1996 bombings has been revised so the error is understandable. TFD (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: I wonder about groups supporting someone notorious post facto. For example, the Communists may have supported Hitler before he became sufficiently dangerous to them. They both wanted to replace the government. In India, Marxists have claimed credit for some apparently Christian terrorism, indicating "support" if not actual complicity. But we have (so far) not labeled the activities "Marxist terrorism."

Most likely a group that supported a terrorist before the fact should receive some prominence. After the fact, it may be hard to tell. Someone who is really a loose screw may actually appreciate their support, but that may not make those groups accessories after the crime. Nor may it make their particular agenda the motivation for the crime, the raison d'etre for the crime. Student7 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In circumstances like that, it's best to rely on secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Communist Party of Germany, unlike the German Conservative Party, never supported Hitler. TFD (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A "Violation of the Ten Commandments"

Hemshaw's edit-warring about adding the bolded part of this sentence: "As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on idiosyncratic or literalistic interpretations of the tenets of faith—in this case, the Bible whilst ignoring the Commandments." is about the most textbook definition of "Original Research" that I can think of. If that's "acceptable, you might as well add that phrase to every single Christian figure ever convicted of a crime. This is not the forum to decide who is and is not adhering to Old Testament decrees, especially when there are plenty of contradictory exhortations to rape, kill, and commit genocide, all attributed to the Judeo-Christian "God," all through the Old Testament. (Perhaps Breivik was following those instead?) Who knows? Either way, such ruminations are clearly OR, and have no place on this page. Furthermore, someone should really take a look at the massive deletions he keeps making to the Norway section. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the Old Testament (Leviticus 24) instructs "Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Yet Jesus himself would tell you (Matthew 5) to ignore this: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hemshaw, I realize that you are making these edits in good faith, but please realize that WP:CIRCULAR is the reason that you cannot cite another Wikipedia article as an argument that you are not making original research. Even if it is arguably true that terrorism goes against some passages in the Bible, you cannot make that statement in Wikipedia's "voice", although if you can find a reliable secondary source that says so, you may quote it—because making the connection between the Bible passage and the content here yourself violates WP:SYNTH. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As a minor point to all of this, it is not all ten of the commandments that are being violated anyway. It would be one or two of them, actually. But a scholarly researcher would have known that and quoted the correct one. Or two. Which again indicates WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to avoid making subjective points as a weight to have consensus, as subjects such as 'loyalty', etc. could be later twisted against unsuspecting bystanders. I think sources considered reliable have good enough neutral policy so as to avoid such subjective issues and are more clear on topic under consideration. Just a suggestion. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A terrorist being Christian does not make his act "Christian terrorism"

Else the scope of the article would be exceedingly large indeed. The lede does not appear to be that all-encompassing. John Wilkes Booth was a Christian. Collect (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop your blatant and abusive attempts to delete practically everything on this page. Your POV is blinding, and you obviously have no interest in reading the sources that you are deleting, or do any research whatsoever. A lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian, have spent a lot of time hunting down sources and improving this article. Discuss things on the talk page before going through the article with a flame-thrower, deleting everything that disagrees with your POV. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF Ionly deleted material which was only marginally related to theology (including one example where Islam was also part of the cite, of all things). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the line from the citation used to invoke the idea that the Uganda section shows an "Islamic influence."

"Mr. Kony's fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle, but some Islam is mixed into their beliefs as well." [39]

It's clear that the "Islamic influence" mentioned in this article is quite minor, and it really is WP:UNDUE to even mention it, given the fact that this sentence is all that is being used to back it up. The above makes a far more convincing argument for "Christian Terrorism" than anything else! Also, regarding Eric Rudolph and other terrorists that Collect is trying to delete out of here: I get that certain elements are clearly "wishy-washy" in terms of whether they can be classified as CT on this page. The sections regarding England/Ireland/etc., are way out of my areas of expertise, and I don't really mess with them. But when you have a guy like Eric Rudolph...who CLEARLY has based his entire motivation for terrorism on his peculiar brand of Christianity...then it is nothing but POV to delete him. In fact, that particular guy is one of the most clear-cut "Christian Terrorists" in recent memory...and there are scholars who have used that very definition to describe him. The End. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism requires religious motivation. However, since some scholars claim that Christianity is the motivation for some terrorism, e.g., in Northern Ireland, Lebanon and the Oklahoma bombing, we may report their opinion as long as we are clear that it is a minority view. TFD (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the IRA origins included Protestant, Catholic, Atheist and Jewish members <g>. Are we to include all terrorist groups with any Christian members then? Somehow I think that is a bit of a stretch! <g> Especially with McVeigh specifically denyong Christian theology and the government never using it as even a tiny part of the prosecution case. Collect (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on the IRA and the Oklahoma bombings reflects the consensus of the majority of scholars. However, per WP:WEIGHT, we should also report significant minority opinions. The challenge is to do that while maintaining neutrality. TFD (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The current wording on McVeigh appears then to be UNDUE as giving more weight to the minority view than to the clear majority view (heck - I can not find a single reliable source dwelling on McVeigh being motivated by Christian theology, and some which note he specifically did not base his acts on theology!) The Uganda bit is weird - as the "religion" seems quite non-theology based, and (noting that Mohammed accepted the Ten Commandments, and indeed cited them in the Qu'ran) even including pagan and Islamic elements, it is obvious that it is more "Nut terrorism" than it is "Christian terrorism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is one thing that is absolutely clear here: edit warring isn't going to solve anything. I've just reverted the page to where it was before the most recent round of arguments, with the exception of retaining Collect's deletion of the Norway section, which is still new and in need of thoughtful presentation of secondary sources. Now, with respect to anything else that Collect proposes to delete, let's regard it as being in the discussion phase of WP:BRD. If I see more edit warring, I'm going to request full protection. Anyone who is new to this page, it's a good idea to read the talk archives, because these things have been discussed, and edit warred over, before. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, we shouldn't include anything on the page on the grounds that it was terrorism that just happened to be committed by a Christian. It also doesn't necessarily matter whether there were non-Christians in the group. Furthermore, there are going to be cases that are Christian terrorism at the same time that they are another kind of terrorism, because there is no reason to expect terrorists to have a single, logical motivation. What does get something on this page should be secondary sources that characterize the events as Christian terrorism. The "Christian" and "terrorism" parts have to be connected in the source without resorting to WP:SYNTH, but common sense trumps sophistry in determining whether the source says that. We can recognize that there are majority and minority views amongst sources, without omitting either view. And common sense can also apply to balancing the view that WP:BURDEN allows deletion of inadequately sourced material, against WP:SOFIXIT. Since we're discussing these things, ask for other editors to find sources when they are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting with the IRA - the primary impetus is Irish Republicanism and not Catholicism as far as all the sources indicate. The fact that many of its early leaders were emphatically not Roman Catholic reinforces my position that it is not "Christian terrorism" at all. The other issue is the Ugandan strangeness where the group itself also self-identifies as a group with Islam - making any ascription of it to "Christian terrorism" to be exceedingly moot. Where Christian theology is not a primary basis for the terrorism, it strikes me that we open the door to listing every single terrorist (including those of the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Parti Quebecois in Canada, etc.) as belonging in the article which, I suggest, is not warranted by the considerably more limited description in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! So, we have: (1) the IRA, and (2) Uganda. What are the secondary sources identifying these as Christian terrorism, in the opinions of the sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it nobody is interested in these any more? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: No sources. Would appreciate it if you did the honours. Collect (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric Rudolph

Add in the Eric Rudolph example just reinserted into the article. I find nothing to make it "Christian terroorism" other than a claim that he committed an act of terrorism, and that he is a Christian. That would basically open the floodgates for every single person who is Christian, or is "influenced" by Christianity (the Uganda claim) into being placed into the article - including John Wikles Booth <g>. Collect (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC) [40] But there is compelling evidence that Rudolph actually wasn't motivated by religion—perverse, heretical, or otherwise. Charles Stone, a retired Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent who supervised the bombing task force, says that Rudolph was really upset that the Food and Drug Administration didn't approve ... Collect (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rudolph attacked numerous different sites, ALL because of Biblical motivation. He attacked a lesbian nightclub...based on Biblical motivation. He attacked an abortion clinic...based on Biblical motivation. He released a statement, using Biblical verses to "justify" his actions. [41] The ONLY way that someone could conclude that he is anything OTHER than deserving of mention on this page is either ignorance of the facts, or POV. It's like going to the page for "Islamic Terrorism" and arguing about the inclusion of Osama bin Laden, and/or invoking the "No True Scotsman" defense. And the Ugandans...again...are basing all of their motivations on the Bible, and there are plenty of references there. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah...and a blog from Christianity Today magazine is hardly a "neutral" source, when being used to claim that Rudolph is not a CT. Would you accept a blog from a magazine called "Islam Today" as RS if they claimed that Osama bin Laden wasn't really an Islamic Terrorist? Of course not. Nor should you. Get real. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Stone wrote a book which is where the statement came from. See also [42] for a newspaper which does not ascribe Christianity as the rationale for Rudolph's acts. [43] is an NYT cite for Charles Stone, who told The Associated Press that investigators believed Mr. Rudolph had acted out of anger with the government. MSNBC is also "not a blog" and has [44] The young man described as quiet and shy was a classic stoner with a lucrative business selling marijuana; he reportedly wrote a high school paper denying that the Holocaust ever took place; and the quiet young paramour with a Southern accent harbored anger and sadness, life's twists and turns leading him to beliefs that may have metastasized into hatred. and Charles Stone, a former Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent, told The Associated Press how investigators thought Rudolph acted out of anger with the government because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refused to approve the drug laetrile, the controversial, highly suspect concoction made of apricot pits that was officially discredited as a cancer treatment in 1982. Rudolph is said to have believed the drug could have saved his father. No sign of church affiliation or attendance in any source - only that his mom when he was about 18 briefly went to a church which may have been vaguely connected to 'Christian Identity", though no facts connect Rudolph to it directly at all. Sorry -- grossly insufficient reason to label him a "Christian terrorist" when he did not even appear to attend any church (though he was quite likely anti-Semitic, but that is not proof of much about a theological basis for a crime). Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bryon, I trust that all editors here are real, no need for that. But the quote from the source that you provided does say: ""Based on what we know of Rudolph so far, and admittedly it's fragmentary, there seems to be a fairly high likelihood that he can legitimately be called a Christian terrorist," said Michael Barkun, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who has been a consultant to the FBI on Christian extremist groups." Collect, why do you not find that sufficient? And Bryon, if there were a better source claiming that Rudolf did not have Christian motivations, would you be willing to cite both arguments? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

One person could be cited perhaps as "opinion" but recall that "opinions" are not recommended in BLPs. The issue is that there are a slew of sources which state that he was angry with Jews and the Govermnet - and that there is no need to ascribe a Christian theological basis for such, especially since he appears to have had no connection with a church. But heck, let's add John Wilkes Booth and several hundred others if we use such an incredibly lax definition of "Christian terrorism" then <g>. Rudolph was absolutely less religious than Booth, for sure. The "Son of Sam" can go under "Jewish terrorism" as well. He later became a Christian (if [45] is correct) so he can go here too. The point is that the article is ill-served by such marginal connections entirely. [46] Perhaps I should have found a peaceful outlet for my opposition to the government in Washington: maybe I should have been a lawyer and fought (for) decency in the face of this rotten system; perhaps I could have taken up teaching and sought to inculcate a healthy outlook in a decidedly unhealthy society," he writes. "But I didn't do any of these things, and I resorted to force to have my voice heard. However wrongheaded my tactical decision to resort to violence may have been, morally speaking my actions were justified. does not invoke religion at all. Many good people continue to send me money and books," Rudolph writes in an undated letter. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible." shows an actual distaste for Christians. Another myth, Pat Rudolph says, is that the far-right Christian church in Missouri the family attended when Eric was 17 made her son hateful. The family stayed less than a year. "We were exploring a lot of things then, and it's something we looked into. But it wasn't right for us," she explains. "Just because you look at porn doesn't make you a child molester." seems clear as well -- so the connection of Rudolph to that church seems very iffy. So we have rathger clear material refuting a claim that he was a "Christian terrorist" published by USAToday, and based on his own writings. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We aren't discussing Son of Sam nor John Wilkes Booth here. Back to Rudolph, Bryon, what do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I never object to well-cited RS that is used as a, "...though some sources like XYZ, disagree..." statement. But that's not what Collect is doing. He's just arbitrarily deleting huge paragraphs of information, based on his weltanschauung. Besides, the Eric Rudolph page itself contains a wealth of sources showing his Christian motivations. Just because Collect doesn't think he is a "good" Christian, is nothing more than the aforementioned "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. (And frankly, I'd love to hear of a single anti-abortion or anti-gay terrorist act that WASN'T committed solely based on the Bible or Qu'ran...as I have not heard much about Buddhists or Atheists blowing up abortion clinics. LOL.) This is not "good faith." This is an "agenda" to discredit the very concept of "Christian Terrorism," and this agenda is clear when you look at the totality of Collect's edits...which amount to adding nothing, while deleting entire sections, because of his own OR. Rudolph himself has stated his theological, Biblical "justifications." Scholars have called him a "Christian Terrorist." Therefore, he deserves to be here. I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, I could find many Imams saying that Osama bin Laden isn't a "real" Muslim, and that he doesn't go to mosque like he should...but that's no cause to delete him from the Islamic Terrorism page...and I'd say that anyone who even mentioned such a ludicrous idea...would also not be acting in "good faith," and from the position of an "agenda." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, are we getting close to keeping the Rudolph sentence (or something like it), while adding a disputing source(s)? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

However, I'm not too eager to add any disputing sources, based on what I've seen so far. I've looked at each of Collect's links, and (excluding the blog), several of them do not discuss the "kind" of terrorism, one way or another. (The New York Times link is only a correction of Stone's affiliation, not saying anything about Stone's analysis, but maybe the original article might show otherwise.) Of those that do, the USA Today piece attributes the "not Christian" argument only to Rudolph's mother, not to any academic source, and the MSNBC article actually highlights Rudolph's affiliation with Christian Identity. If all we have is Mom and a blog, I'd say that comes up short. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

While some scholars, such as Mark Juergensmeyer, may have called Rudolph a "Christian terrorist", i.e., someone who is motivated by Christian belief to commit terrorist acts, the majority of terrorism scholars do not. Therefore we should explain this, rather than imply that it is the majority position. (Collect, I think you mean the Front de libération du Québec, not the Parti Québécois.) TFD (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I rather had assumed that the PQ starting in 1970 had subsumed some of the FLQ membership (which pretty much ended in 1970 as the PQ started). Still you are right - the PQ is not regarded as terrorist, while the FLQ was decidely terrorist. Neither group is "Christian." I still feel that unless we draw a reasonable line as to what is a "Christian terrorist" that we open the floodgates to hundreds of people getting added. The suggestion I would make is that where the reason for the terrorism is found within some remotely mainstream "Christian theology" that it is more reasonable to consider the acts as Nut terrorism. This applies to all types of terrorism, in my view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I favor removing Eric Randolph. He does not have anything to do with Christian terrorism. Roger (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You favor removing the entire page. At least be honest about your bias, Schlafly (The Founder of "Conservapedia," and a Right-Wing Christian activist). There are multiple sources referring to Rudolph as a "Christian Terrorist," so...regardless of anyone's biased, POV opinion on the matter...Wikipedia policy requires him to stay. (And for the record, I'd love to hear someone explain how an anti-abortion, anti-gay, Christian...is NOT basing his terrorism on the Bible. I mean, that's like saying, "Well, I see that this Muslim guy just blew up a synagogue and a church...but I'm not convinced his terrorism is religiously-based." Surely nobody here is that ridiculous?) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to what TFD said about sources, I haven't seen what Mark Juergensmeyer has said specifically about Rudolph. So far, the only scholarly source that I've seen brought forward has been Bryon's citing of "Michael Barkun, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who has been a consultant to the FBI on Christian extremist groups", who concludes that Rudolph should be classified as a Christian terrorist. Everything else I've seen in this talk thread has just been talk. If there exists a "majority" of scholars who disagree with Barkun, I'd like to see some verifiable sourcing please. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, they are of less "validity" than the Michael Barkun, or even Mark Juergensmeyer [47] have to say about the blatantly "Christian" theological motivations for Rudolph's terrorism, but I did just find plenty of columnists, newspapers, books, and other sources referring to him as a "Christian Terrorist." Many of them were on LexisNexis, which makes them impossible to link here. Either way, Barkun and Juergensmeyer are clearly experts in their fields, and carry much more weight than the unsourced opinions of Wikipedia editors...especially ones who are openly hostile to Wikipedia in general. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring your usual ad hominem attacks) There are also multiple sources saying that Rudolph was not a Christian, and not a Christian terrorist. Roger (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Saying according to at least one newspaper article without citing anything is not encyclopedic. Please note that I have not made any attacks on you, ad hominem or otherwise. And I have explained above that we need scholarly sourcing that is conspicuously lacking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect came up with what I believe is a good solution: to attribute the characterization specifically to the person (Barkun) who made it. Are we done with this issue now? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not balanced to cite one preliminary opinion from one FBI consultant, when there are many others who say that Rudolph was not a Christian, and not a Christian terrorist. If you want an accurate portrayal of Rudolph's views, then just quote what he has to say. Roger (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Barkun is a professor, and this is his area of expertise. Juergensmeyer is also a professor, and this is also his area of expertise. Where are your "reliable sources" that claim the above? Another blog, maybe? Or why don't you just "cite" Conservapedia. All you do is state opinions...and never back them up with RS, because the very concept of RS is in opposition to your weltanschauung...and why Conservapedia exists (to give a voice to uneducated opinions, with no need for "references" other than other uneducated opinions). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bryon: Please focus on content, and not on the editor. Roger: Please provide a high quality secondary source. Rudolph himself has said contradictory things, not surprisingly. Most editors here would be happy to cite multiple academic sources, and balance them according to due weight, but academic sources contradicting Barkun have not been offered. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The same Wash Post article quotes Idaho State University sociology professor James Aho saying that Rudolph is not a Christian terrorist. You don't even quote Barkun correctly. It is not neutral to find a newspaper article on the subject, and cherry pick the quotes only on one side of an issue. I think that what Rudolph said was pretty clear about his motivations. Roger (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like all the Bible quotes he used to "justify" his actions? [48] LOL. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have Orissa Christians terrorizing Hindus with the supposed goal of "converting" them. This seems clearly religious terrorism. I'll call it "Type A."

Then we have the 9/11 folks and suicide bombers who are clearly sent from terrorist groups but seem to target secular groups. They seem "Type B"

Then we had suicide bombers in Israel that were targeting Israelis. This seems clearly nationalistic and not religious at all despite the fact that the bomber was invariably Muslim.

Then we have Rudolph and this guy in Norway who terrorize/terrify people and are caught. There is no chance of repetition. They belong to no group because no group would have them. They are loners and found to have writings which support Christianity, Masonry, Carpentry, whatever. Who knows? Rudolph's claim of "being Catholic" seems particularly gratuitous. If not "Type C" in my rankings, they are off the chart entirely. Not motivated by anything. Just violent and trying to "be somebody" by claiming post facto affiliation.

If one of our editors goes off the deep end and then claims to "have done it for Wikipedia" do we then dumbly start a "Wikipedia terrorism" article? This does not seem reasonable IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see how someone can use Wikipedia to "justify" terrorism. One can easily find passages from the Bible or Qu'ran to "justify" all kinds of horrible behavior, including terrorism. I also agree that Rudolph's claim of Catholicism was less than sincere (which is why I didn't add it back in), and likely was made in order to draw attention away from his Christian Identity beliefs...and frankly, I don't see why mainstream Christians aren't just saying, "Well, he is Christian Identity, and they are racist heretics, so don't confuse them with us!" rather than...essentially "defending" Christian Identity from charges of Christian Terrorism. Also, you are ignoring the fact that both Rudolph and Breivik's aims and stated goals are based on "defending" Christianity, in one way or another. For Rudolph, it was attacking abortion clinics and gay bars based on his interpretation of Christian scripture...whereas for Breivik is was part of the "culture war" between Islam and Christianity. Say what you will about the two guys...but they clearly had agendas...as opposed to say, Jared Loughner, who did indeed to be a lone "nut" with no clear motivations other than being a "nut." Hell, both Rudolph and Breivik (especially the latter) put a helluva lot of time and effort into publicizing these agendas. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. Roger (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has POV. The only person pretending not to have one is you, yet you are the only well-known, anti-abortion, Christian activist making edits about an anti-abortion, Christian terrorist... To have the gall to say such a thing to me...when I clearly do not hide my affiliations or political stances...well... Let's just say that "they" must be enormous. However, I do NOT "POV edit." I use reputable sources to back up what I say. And if someone points out reputable sources calling mine into question, I often soften my position or retract. In fact, if you look at the history of this page and others, you'll see that there have been many times where I've "capitulated" in the face of RS. But you have a clear agenda, and no amount of RS will convince you of anything...even "agreeing to disagree." You refuse to even LOOK for RS to back up your positions...and all you do is post your own opinions, which are not backed up by RS...which is the entire backbone of Wikipedia. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please folks WP:NPAs. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not hiding anything. I post under my real name. You can easily find my views on a variety of topics. However, I am not what Bryonmorrigan says I am, and I am not going to debate my personal views on this page, or answer his false and abusive personal attacks. Roger (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too excited about calling a single person acting on his own beliefs a "terrorist" but Eric_Robert_Rudolph#Motivations makes clear that Christianity, or the version he understood, was at the basis of his crimes.

The DC sharpshooters kind of terrified everybody at the time. These one-crime (I know he killed an abortionist but this was not known at the time) events do not really "terrify" anybody afterwards. It happens. It's over. Fear seems to be a requirement (according to the Wikipedia article). That is, the fear must persist after a crime is committed. It did in DC. It didn't at the Olympics. Horrifying crimes but "terrorism" seems a bit much. Student7 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If we go by what editors think is or is not a bit much, the page will say whatever the editors passing through believe at any given moment. For Rudolph, we have sources attributing the application of the word "terrorist" to Rudolph by academic experts on terrorism. That's what we have to do: go by what the secondary sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[1] "Exclusive: The Oslo Terrorist in His Own Words: Bomber Predicted "Europe soon will burn once again"". Washington Times. Retrieved 2011-07-24.

[2] De forumposts van Anders Breivik (in (in Dutch)), EénVandaag, 23 July 2011{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

[3] "Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War". New York Times.

[1]

[2]

[3]