Talk:Christian terrorism

Northern Ireland (Continued)

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

Uh, the problem is, almost all those attacks are attributed to groups with the stated aim of gaining political concessions, for want of a better word, in Northern Ireland. I'd narrow it down to targets that are definitely sectarian, such as Protestant or Catholic centres where the motive of the perpetrator is known to be religious. --Rowboatcop (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hemshaw, the material on England that you added most recently looks good to me on first reading. Thanks, and thanks also for taking this to the talk page. Expanding on Rowboatcop's comments, it is very important at this page to have secondary sources that establish that a specific event was "Christian terrorism", not political terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. Editors here tend to want to argue every jot, more so than at the typical Wikipedia page, because the material is inherently controversial. Some editors have partisan inclinations, while others take offense at any suggestion that a terrorist could possibly be Christian. The only way to put such disagreements to (something approaching) rest is to have high quality secondary sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism in Northern Ireland is normally seen as ethnic/nationalist between people of mostly Scottish and English ancestry who are loyal to the United Kingdom and people of Irish ancestry who are loyal to the Irish Republic. If there are incidents of religious terrorism, you would need to show that that is how they are normally described. TFD (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD quote your sources in the discussion and avoid OR, as in doing ad hoc metastudies of the issue. Also you are not the filter of what is and what is not in this article, the community is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevakiPaladin (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have presented multiple sources above but here we go again. See Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism, Chapter Five "Typologies of Terrorism" (p. 43): "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, lef-wing, right-wing, and anarchist.... 5.1 Nationalist Terrorism.... Some well known current nationalist terrorist groups are the Irish Republican Army...."[1] However it is up to people who consider it "religious terrorism" to provide a source. TFD (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with TFD here that this is primarily an ethnic/nationalist dispute. While those of Scottish/English ancestry happen to be predominately Protestant, and those of Irish ancestry happen to be predominantly Catholic, religion isn't the underlaying cause of the dispute like it was during the English Reformation. "Protestant/Catholic" is just basically a derogatory tag interchangeable with "Loyalist/Republican", as the dispute has more to do with British rule and unification with Ireland. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way, there could be many people who are of any of the religions, of any/mixed ancestry settled anyplace. Suggesting that it is better to go by reliable sources than some other understanding without consensus. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

After several months away I am really disappointed to come back and find that the section on Northern Ireland is still pretty-much all opinion. It's much better than it was at the beginning, but I notice that it is actually beginning to get worse again and some stuff which I seem to remember being deleted has crept back since I left. Overall, it doesn't really do any more than try to create casual links between Christianity and terrorism in Ireland. It is also still completely at odds with the main articles (including the one referenced as the 'Main Article'!) on the subject and doesn't attempt to weigh the issue or discuss it at all. I still don't see any real expert opinions or evidence for the subject. Given that the conflict in Ireland dates back around seven hundred years I would expect rather more evidence for this being a primarily (or even secondarily) religious conflict. I would like to repeat that there is a big difference between Christians who commit acts of terrorism and acts of terrorism committed in the name of Christianity. While both are lamentable, only the latter belongs on this page. As such, I have cut down one of the paragraphs and have also removed the following until someone can confirm or deny that the motivation for such was actually religious and that the use of the phrase "Roman Catholic" is not just the usual outsider-slang for Irish Republicans:

"Other notable individuals convicted for terrorism offences include Pastor Kenny McClinton, a convicted murderer who once advocated beheading Roman Catholics and impaling their heads on railings, and Billy Wright, a Born again Christian preacher who became one of the most feared paramilitary figures in Northern Ireland before being assassinated whilst incarcerated in prison."

I think we also need to clarify whether the Orange Order bombed Catholic churches because they were Catholic, or because they were assured of killing a lot of nationalists and none of their own side, which seems an like a much more logical and likely conclusion considering the fact that churches are sacred to all Christians regardless of denomination.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that needs to clarified , however your recent edit contains no proof and the references contain no mention of the Orange Volunteers . Very bad addition to the article . Maybe a POV statement ?Murry1975 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Breivik insane

Breivik has been declared insane[2], thus I have removed the section on Norway for obvious reasons. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted you. Nothing wrong with adding the new information to the page, instead of blanking the section, but being sane is not a requirement for something to be terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not being convicted under Norway's terrorism laws, upon what basis do you consider Breivik a terrorist, the writings of a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic? --Nug (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is the sources with which the section has been sourced. It isn't based upon his own writings, but rather, what secondary sources have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

All those secondary sources were written back in July, and were based upon Breivik's self description of "Christian crusader". We now know Breivik's writings are a result of a diagnosed mental illness. --Nug (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So? TFD (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, most of the sources were not merely based upon his writings, but also upon reporting of a great deal of other information, observed independently, such as what happened during the attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And they knew back then that he wasn't necessarily sane. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I imagine most religious terrorists have something wrong with their brain. N^oformation ^Talk 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually, he hasn't been found to be legally insane yet -- the doctors assigned to evaluate him have released their report. The next step is for the court to decide what this means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're deep enough into WP:BRD that I hope everyone will refrain from blanking the section until there has been more discussion and consensus. If I understand correctly, what we have is the news that he was evaluated and found by a clinician to be insane. I'm not aware of any finding declaring that the attacks were not terrorism. Going from the clinical finding to a conclusion about either Christianity or terrorism, independently of any sources, risks being WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The claim that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist" is based solely upon the interpretion of his writings by these commentators. Tryptofish's claim that these writers also used other information such as what happened during the attacks has no merit. All that can be observed from these attacks is that Breivik had an intense dislike of left-wing youth groups. The connection to "Christian terrorist" is based solely upon Breivik's delusional writings, where he also claimed to be a future regent of Norway pending a takeover by a non-existing templar organisation. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, those sources provide considerable sourcing for his actions being terrorism, and nothing about his competency to participate in his own defense at trial changes that fact. Beyond that, you are simply arguing that a delusional person cannot be Christian. No one is claiming the converse, that Christians in general resemble Breivik. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No -- and this article is not about "every terrorist who is Christian" - it requires that the religion itself be part of the reason for the terrorism (else it is utter nonsense as a topic). If the cause of the terrorism is unrelated to Christianity, then it does not belong here. I trust this is clear. Otherwise we could add every single terrorist who is Christian to this article, everyone who is atheist to "Atheist terrorism" and every Mormon terrirust to "Morom terrorism" etc. Which I rather suggest is contrary to Wikipedia policy ab initio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that religion (Christianity) should be part of the reason for the terrorism, for an incident to be included here. The sources say that, in this case, it was. The fact that the reasoning behind using Christianity as a justification was nutty does not negate that the justification took place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And as soon as you find some RS stating that he's insane and that the RS citing his religious motivations have been found to be incorrect, then you might have a case. Everything else is you making conclusions, and therefore OR. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So far, there is precious little to connect him to "Christian terrorism." If he is deemed insane, that precisous little evaporates. OR is not involved, I suggest you read what WP:OR is before tossing out that acronym <g>. Collect (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The same criteria used for ALL Christians: Their own personal statements of affiliation are enough to determine such a thing, and RS has determined that he certainly views himself as such. You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. We report what reliable sources say, being sure to explain the degree of support opinions have. The contention that a person who has been deemed to be legally insane cannot be a terrorist or a Christian is an exercise in original research. TFD (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A person who is a Christian but whose terrorism has zilch to do with Christianity is not an example of "Christian terrorism" by any logical process. In fact, it is "original research" to assert that an insane person has any motives not part of his insanity, much less asserting that his religion was the cause of his terrorism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All terrorists can be asserted to be insane, so therefore there's no such thing as radical Islamic terrorism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanity can be proven or disproven . Religion cant . In all logic anybody whose beliefs cant be proven are therefore insane .Murry1975 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Murray1975, insanity, in the lawful sense of the word, is determined by psychiatrists with skilled knowledge and set criteria. Here's one reason; with your proposal, all those living would be insane, because they believe the universe either had a beginning, or has existed perpetually, both explanations which follow no human logic. Are you proposing a wider criteria for insanity diagnosis? I would ask then for your basis for that. Moral imperative would not work to your advantage, for on the majority, terrorism is carried out by those with non-religious affiliation (extreme leftist groups). -chancet January 8, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.8.170 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted that was my point, other than that I was the only editor that responded to you above and now you reply only to a post over a month old. End of my specific conversation with you.Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most terrorism in the world is conducted by Right-Wing/Conservative Islamist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, LeT, and what-not. Where would you get such a preposterous idea that most terrorism is by "extreme Leftists?" Like who? The Red Army Faction? ELF? Jeez. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you should read WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." In other words we may report what sources say but cannot develop our own definitions. TFD (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And you should avoid talking down to people who actually understand the policy. Or is that too much of a truth? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the policy. We report what reliable sources say and do not question whether they are correct in calling people who have been adjudicated to insane terrorists or Christians. TFD (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Collect, there's clearly some mishap in communicating here, but I'm not sure what it is. It appears that we have sources saying explicitly "he's a Christian terrorist". We have no sources saying explicitly "he's not a Christian terrorist", which is what we would need to invalidate our other sources. If you can provide such a source, we can evaluate it, but short of that, no argument or commentary can or should change how we report what sources we have. We just need a link, that's it. You're welcome to ask at the village pump, or a noticeboard, or RSN, or somewhere listed in WP:DR if you want clarification on WP:OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

There are references given stating that his actions were based on views from from his personal relegious beliefs as a christian , whether or not these views are corect and of coherent thaught process is not the question , it is the fact that he based his actions around these thaught that define him as a religious ,and in this case christian , terrorist .Murry1975 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I want to make it clear that no one is arguing that "any terrorist who is Christian should be part of" this article. What we are arguing is that inclusion is justified when the sources state that Christianity was part of the motivation for the terrorism (regardless of whether that motivation was rational). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's acts were motivated by a clinically diagnosed mental illness, not a political platform. Hence that disqualifies him from this article. Breivik is no more a "Christian terrorist" than Martin Bryant. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that supports your opinion, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Under that "reasoning," I guess we should conclude that Hitler had no ideology either. Illogical argument is illogical. Either way, you lack RS. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source will be the psychiatrists' report when it is released. BTW, Hitler never was diagnosed by a court appointed psychiatrist, he was bad, not mad. --Nug (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless the psychiatrists explicitly discuss his ideological motives, it would be OR to make any conclusions based upon them. If a psychiatrist had concluded that Osama bin Laden was insane...it would not have suddenly "negated" his religious and ideological beliefs. It would not have been reasonable to then conclude, "Oh! I guess he really wasn't a Muslim! Or even an Islamic Terrorist! He was just crazy!" Your arguments have no validity according to WP standards. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it the psychiatrists make no mention of his alleged ideological motives, then there aren't any that were relevant to his actions. I don't know how you can invoke OR, when you yourself continue to make up hypothetical cases of Hitler's or Bin Laden's sanity. --Nug (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The "psychiatrists make no mention of his alleged ideological motives." Exactly!! Therefore, to use the psychiatrists' report to discount other sources, that categorized him as a Christian terrorist, is WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, a court appointed psychiatrist would mention any factor relevant to Breivik's motivation. No? --Nug (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would expect they would be evaluating his medical competence to participate in his own defense at trial. But if you are saying that they addressed all of his motivations, then I would expect you to provide a direct quote in which they say that he was not motivated by Christian beliefs as he perceived them. Not a quote that he was insane. A quote explicitly speaking to his Christianity or the lack thereof, as a medical matter. All you are doing is making your own WP:SYNTH that, because they said he was insane, he could not really have had Christian motivations. The sources say he was deemed insane; what you conclude from that is WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then WP:CRYSTAL ends the discussion. Feel free to reopen it when you have a source which explicitly says he was not a Christian terrorist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing WP:CRYSTAL about it. There is already extensive reporting in the media about the findings of these psychiatrists which will be soon formally released. Then it will a case of a peer-reviewed medical report versus the personal opinions of politically motivated media pundits. --Nug (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's an interesting commentary from ABC News in Australia, [3], stating that people who want to argue that Breivik wasn't a Christian terrorist are misusing the medical report to try to support their claim, and that this misuse is attracting criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, interesting that Tad Tietze should make that claim, given that he seems to be misusing a tragic event in Norway to advance his political agenda on his left-wing blog called "Left-flank". I guess it is a case of perceiving others through knowledge of one self. --Nug (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When I used the word "misusing", I was basing it on what the source said, not on my personal opinion. You are doing the opposite. The take-home lesson: there is clearly a lot of spinning the news here, and Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources reliably report, and not to go beyond the sources based on editors' personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This source sums it up: "The truth about Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is bound to disappoint anyone on either end of the political spectrum who might have hoped to exploit his actions for propaganda purposes: he really was just a lone nut."[4]. If anyone hadn't noticed, all other terrorists mentioned in this article are a part of some organisation. It has been reasoned here on talk that Hitler and Bin Laden could be deemed "insane" too, but the difference is that these people were a part of real organisations, Breivik was a deluded loner who was a member of an organisation that only existed in his head. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are other examples on the page where there was a lone individual. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Under Nug's reasoning, were a Norway to tribunal to find that Bin Laden had been insane, then al Qaeda would not be a terrorist group. TFD (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if the Norwegian authorities discovered that al Qaeda didn't actually exist but was a part of Bin Laden's "own delusional universe where all his thoughts and acts are guided by his delusions", then yes he would likely be declared insane. --Nug (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, consensus appears to have formed. Your newest source still does not say "he was not a Christian terrorist". It's time to move on. If this continues, I'm afraid we're going to end up in WP:SHUN territory, which is no good for anyone. If you disagree, there's always WP:DR. Short of that, let's start doing something productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to me that editors really have listened to the arguments for blanking the section, but those who continue to argue for blanking it are getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples are too narrow

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

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

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

What About USA?

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

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

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