Talk:Sectarianism

NPOV tag

I've put the NPOV tag on this, although perhaps general clean up would be better. A lot of this seem to be original research It's pretty difficult to be balanced in such an article, but that is the goal. . I thought a more substantive article would be useful. Most of the references concentrate on religious sects but sects can obviously also be political. If somebody wants to make the article more "neutral" this is of course always possible. The article aims to convey the kinds of mentality, habits and practices typical of sectarianism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jurriaan (talk • contribs) on 25 July 2005.

(As a lifelong English speaker, I can say definitely that I've never heard the term sectism! But no matter.) I think about 80% of this article needs to be thrown out, because it's written from the affected point of view of a psychologist analyzing the mentality of "the sectarian" – as though this fictitious single individual could stand for a whole phenomenon manifesting itself in such varied times, circumstances, and places. It also affects to offer a "remedy" for this unfortunate straw man, about which the least I can say is that it's unencyclopaedic.

I think what we should do is have an introduction to sectarianism in the abstract, followed by short sections on specific cases from around the world, each linking to a main article wherever a need for one is felt. In particular: Catholic/Protestant sectarianism in Ireland and elsewhere in the English-speaking world; the same in countries like France, Spain, Italy (where Catholics have had the upper hand); the phenomenon of "communalism" in South Asia (the same as sectarianism, more or less, under a different name); Shia/Sunni sectarianism in the Muslim world, especially in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan where this has erupted into substantial violence; possibly also ethnic conflicts in the Balkans which as a rule are tinged with sectarianism as well. And this brings up perhaps an important point: you don't need to be particularly religious (most people in the Balkans are not) to buy into an us/them sectarian mentality. Oh, and we should presumably mention anti-Semitism too (although for some reason this falls under a different heading in my mind...). QuartierLatin 1968 19:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if you abandon my article on sectarianism, I hoped somebody would do better, but I don't really think your article satisfactorily defines what sectarianism is. Talking about remedies is quite OK... if sectarianism is viewed as a human problem, though perhaps I did not phrase it well. I think you have to be able to read the definition and be able to identify and distinguish what it is reasonably well. And while we are on the subject, let us not forget the rich history of Christian sects (why just Ireland?), the Falun Gong, PNAC, the Moonies, etc. which have all been called sects. (User:Jurriaan 19 Sept 2005).

Yes, good, by all means! You're right, I haven't spent much time thinking of a definition of sectarianism in the abstract, because it's my own sense that it's better to look at it in the real world. However, it's quite possible that I've erred too far in that direction. If we could dream up a convincing, flexible diagnostic for what is or is not sectarian, it would be handy to put it front and centre. (I fear, however, that much effort might be wasted merely arguing over generalities. So by all means go ahead, but I'll probably stay out of most of it, it's not really my scene.) QuartierLatin 1968 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"As a pejorative term, accusations of sectarianism may sometimes be used to demonize an opposing group and thus serve as a convenient ploy to evade taking what somebody says or does seriously." Does this mean that accusing someone else of being sectarian is in fact a stance of sectarianism by creating a group in which to be in opposition to? If this could be discussed, it might lead to good information to be added to the article.(User:stevenwagner 3 Nov 2005)

Well, to return to Northern Ireland (hey, what can I say, I know much more about Ireland than about Falun Dafa), Unionists often complain that Nationalists complain excessively and falsely of sectarianism where it doesn't exist. (Of course, the Nationalists reply, that's exactly what you would say if you were sectarian and didn't want to face up to the fact.)

A lot of sects do seem to define themselves in opposition to some definite group of Others – an anti-sect, if you follow me, that serves as a focus of their opposition. I'm thinking here of Trotskyist groups for whom the "Stalinist bureaucrat" is the great figure of opprobrium, or of US Republicans for whom it is the "liberal élite", or of fascists for whom it was the "Jewish communist enemy of Western civilization". In each of these cases, the political "sect" appeals to and on behalf of the broad masses to uproot the supposedly cliquey and monopolistic grasp on power exercised by the 'anti-sect'. (These are just my off-the-cuff thoughts. We should really try to find somebody who can produce better documentation and more in-depth analysis than I can.) QuartierLatin 1968 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks for the discussion. I know that Rene Girard frequently speaks about what he calls "the scapegoat", which is similair to what we are discussing. Girard has written numerous books discussing scapegoating as a mechanism of culture, but really focuses on religion as his examples of explaining it. Interesting enough, the Rene Girard entry says "As a Catholic, he tends to be rejected by secularists." Might be worth finding a way to link to. Too bad the Rene Girard page doesn't yet say much about his scapegoat theory. - Stevenwagner 18:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sectarian conflict

A sectarian conflict usually refers to conflict along religious and political lines such as the conflicts between between Shia and Sunni Muslims, or between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster or western Scotland. A sectarian conflict may also refer to general philosophical or political conflict between different schools of thought.

I have never once heard the term "sectarian conflict" used for anything other than a war, certainly not attributed to the situation in Scotland or the general differences between Shia and Sunni. This is completely POV. In addition, unless evidence can be provided, I am not aware of any conflict along "political lines" between Catholics and Protestants in western Scotland. 82.13.187.66 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the discussion. (Why don't you log in or make a user-name for yourself? 'Tis free and easy.) I think you're right; perhaps "sectarian rivalry" would have been a better phrase. However, there are instances where Shias and Sunnis do violently clash, for example in Pakistan and Iraq (though I believe neither of those conflicts is wholly or even primarily sectarian); elsewhere Shias may be persecuted or harassed by Sunnis, as in Saudi Arabia or in Afghanistan under the Taliban (these would be instances of state violence, if you like). QuartierLatin 1968 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I really think its a stretch to link Calvinism w/ sectarianism.

Yes, and I'm starting to wonder what the point is of having articles on such broad, nebulous topics. Wiktionary would be more appropriate... There may still be hope here though. Compare border and etymology, which is also manage to be useful in spite of being articles on nothing specific. QuartierLatin1968 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

From Sect: "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group." The sectarianism article lists, among others, protestant/catholic, chritian/muslim conflicts... Not exactly small groups. Sect and Sectarianism obviously have the same etymological root, but really deal with quite different topics. They should best stay separate. Caoilte

taking the merge tags down to reflect the lack of support for a merge. --Guinnog 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed merger

I see there's now a proposal to merge this article with sectarian violence. I'm neutral for now. Sectarianism includes discrimination and prejudice as well as outright violence, so it's not wholly the same... on the other hand, the fewer articles about abstractions the better, most likely, so instead we can jump right in and link to articles about real things (i.e. instead of having a structure where we siphon off into sections like {{Main|Sectarian violence}}, we instead merge everything and then point to {{Main|Sectarian violence in Iraq}}). Maybe I've talked myself into a weak support. QuartierLatin1968 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

definition

i thought sectarianism is only between denominations within religious traditions, therefore conflicts between religions (between hindus and muslims for example) should not be classified as sectarianism. Yiyun 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism is one of those things with a very vague definition. The PSNI define sectarianism in the following manner

The term 'sectarian', whilst not clearly defined, is a term almost exclusively used in Northern Ireland to describe incidents of bigoted dislike or hatred of members of a different religious or political group. It is broadly accepted that within the Northern Ireland context an individual or group must be perceived to be Catholic or Protestant, Nationalist or Unionist, Loyalist or Republican.

(Taken from page 22 of the "HATE INCIDENTS & CRIMES - PSNI Statistics: Annual Statistical Report" [1]

In the Northern Irish context, is it safe to assume that sectarianism refers to any "bigoted dislike or hatred" towards the other section and side of the divide? That's how the term is used here, not entirely religious. PatrickC (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at several different dictionaries, and none of them support the definition presented here. This entire article is unsourced, and should be rewritten. If no one else fixes it by Saturday, I'm going to come up with some new title and create a stub at the "sectarian" page.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this article may rely to heavily on examples of religious sectarianism

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Guinnog 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging with sectarian violence is a bad idea

I linked to this page from another Wiki article (Guy Fawkes Night) which linked the word 'sectarian' to sectarianism. To merge would be a bad idea. The definition of sectarian is '... a characteristic of a sect, a religious group adhering to a distinctive doctrine...'. Not all sectarian groups have violent characteristics, and some are specifically NON-violent. Mfields1 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that - sectarian religious groups can have nothing to do with violence. I also disagree it's usually a pejorative - at least it doesn't seem to be used that why in an academic article I was reading. Perhaps it's a slang pejorative - to US liberals for example? 04:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Sectarianism?

From the very first line this article assumes that the reader already knows what Sectarianism is.

The first line tells me:

The ideological underpinnings of attitudes and behaviors labeled as sectarian are extraordinarily varied.

Perhaps I can reverse-engineer from this that sectarianism is anything "labeled" as sectarian, but even if that's true, it seems to have fallen into a Fallacy of definition (in particular Defining with a synonym).

Not having the article-subject defined in the header (or anywhere else) is probably against guidelines (E.g. First Sentence Style & WP:NOT which says: "An article should usually begin with a clear description that summarizes the subject as described in the rest of the article"). All the good articles I've read on Wikipedia do take this approach of firstly introducing & defining the subject. I suggest that this article does the same.

On a practical level, the article isn't very useful to me, as I'm genuinely unsure of the implications in this word(having been given a variety of definitions from mostly meaning 'intransigent' to mostly meaning 'emphasising petty differences'). Wiktionary:Sectarianism defines the word as:

Rigid adherence to a particular sect, party or denomination

If 'sectarianism' doesn't have any special characteristics beyond that, I think it should be included in the first paragraph (so that everyone knows what the article is about). I also realize that defining the precise meaning of this term is very difficult, but I don't think that's a reason not to try.

Wragge 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting..."In places where more 'moderate' forms (such as Anglicanism / Episcopalianism) prevail, the two traditions do not become polarized against each other, and usually co-exist peacefully. However, in western Scotland, where many people have some Irish ancestry, sectarianism can frequently be found between Catholics and Protestants". I'd like to change this a little if I may, as it suggests that the root cause of the problem is that many people in W Scotland have some Irish ancestry (although I doubt that is what the original author meant to say!). I come from NW England, where there is also quite a cluster of people of Irish ancestry, but I can honestly say that (despite being of obvious Irish ancestry AND being raised RC as a child) I have never in my 50 years encountered any form of sectarianism from the (largely Anglican) majority there. I have no idea which religion my neighbours are, and I can't remember ever being asked. If nobody objects, I'll amend it to "In places where more 'moderate' forms of Protestantism (such as Anglicanism / Episcopalianism) prevail, the two traditions do not become polarized against each other, and usually co-exist peacefully. Especially in England, sectarianism is nowadays almost unheard of. However in Western Scotland (where Calvinism and Presbyterianism are the norm) sectarian divisions can still frequently be found between Catholics and Protestants." I'll hold-off for a bit for comments before changing anything. ChrisRed (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As to 'What is Sectarianism' I would suggest that the word 'Sectarian' is one of a number of 'prefixes' that you can put before other words such as 'Bigotry' / 'Discrimination' / 'Division' / 'Intolerance' / 'Hatred' etc. to indicate the motive for them. You could take out 'Sectarian' and substitute 'Racial' / 'Inter-religious' / 'Sexual' / 'Class' etc as the prefix instead, and make up your own identikit hate list. So, I would define 'Sectarianism' as "Bigotry, discrimination, intolerance or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between denominations within the same religion". Maybe a start, at least :-) ChrisRed (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Going on the space allocated, it's starting to look as though Australia is the world epicentre of Protestant/Catholic sectarianism. This can't really be true, can it?. ChrisRed (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More "What is Sectarianism". After thinking about it for a while, I think that I will amend my own definition of Sectarianism (as improved by 147.252.92.71...thanks) to: "Bigotry, Discrimination, Prejudice or Hatred arising from....". The list previously included "Intolerance", which I now feel is redundant as it is practically synonymous with "Bigotry" - certainly the wiki page on 'Bigotry' says that. So now it's "Bigotry" (i.e. = "Intolerance", "xxxxxphobia" etc); Discrimination (i.e. treating people differently because of their religious denomination/politics etc); Prejudice (i.e. thinking of/pre-judging people differently because of...) and Hatred. I'll just change it, but if somebody with a better command of English disagrees, please feel free. ChrisRed (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think tyhe definition is quite bad. Definining sectarianism as bigotry and discrimination and hatred is a far cry from the way the term is used forexample with in sociology of religion. I don't believe the current definition is scientifically adequate or NPOV. Specifically sectarianism is mostly a phenomenon found in MINORITY groups and as such it can also be a reaction of a group to defend themselves against prejudice and bigotry in a larger, dominant society. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why so much info on Australia?

Shouldn't it have it's own page like the ones for pakistan, the mid east, europe, etc? it sort goes on and on and doesn't seem right for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section on Australian sectarianism forms an interesting 'case study'; in this case about how sectarianism can be transferred from (literally) one side of the world to the other. Presumably there was no such thing in Australia before then (unless the Aborigines were prone to it within their own religion(s). I believe that it is of value and should not be deleted, but agree that it should be moved to a more appropriate place (maybe a page called 'Sectarianism in Australia', with links from both this page and from one dealing with the darker side of the history and culture of Australia. ChrisRed (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsectarianism

There should maybe be an aditional note on the concept of nonsectarianism. For a long time, Protestants refered to themselves as nonsectarian because they did not claim to belong to a Church, such as members of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church do. This sectarian definition of nonsectarianism paradoxically led them to exclude Catholics and others from their own institutions, which were quintessentially WASP, and not very tolerant of cultural and sectarian distinctives. ADM (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)