Category talk:Anti-abortion violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Consensus for[edit]

The discussion at NPOV yielded 2 arguments favoring Christian terrorism from Ros & Ian, and 4 arguments against from aprocl, Collect, TFD and Haymaker. Consensus is clear. – Lionel (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Binksternet and Blueboar, and you also counted aprock on the opposite side. This completely aside from the fact that no one interested in keeping it off has even attempted to cite a source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note: the NPOV noticeboard discussion was at Wikipedia:NPOVN#.22Christian_terrorism.22_supercategory_at_Cat:Anti-abortion_violence, circa 11 Aug 2011. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on supercategory[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion regarding if Category:Anti-abortion violence can be a subcat of Category:Christian terrorism is using elements of WP:SUBCAT and WP:DUPCAT, with supporters of subcating arguing that there are reliable sources which see a relationship between the two categories, and even if Anti-abortion violence is not quite a full subset of Christian terrorism there is enough relationship for a non-diffusing subcat. Opposers are saying there is not enough of a relationship because Anti-abortion violence can be motivated for non-Christian reasons. Points are strongly made on both sides, and while the supporters' argument that there is a relationship appears valid, it is firmly contested and does not have consensus. Because the majority view is against the subcating, if supporters wish to pursue the matter they would need to gain consensus through further discussion. The situation as it stands now is that there is no consensus for subcating. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC was reopened per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence. Cunard (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:Anti-abortion violence be a subcategory of Category:Christian terrorism? Editors supporting the use of the category argue that the many sources cited in the article as well as others not cited (which recognize anti-abortion terrorism as a form of Christian terrorism, observe that both the movement in general and specific perpetrators were motivated by their interpretation of Christian beliefs, etc.), and the absence of sources to the contrary, justify the use of the category. Editors opposing the use of the category say that anti-abortion terrorism is single-issue terrorism and is not motivated by Christianity, but rather by politics, and that those scholars who believe it is Christian terrorism are in the minority. This was previously discussed at NPOVN, but there is a disagreement over what the result there was; certainly there is no clear consensus either way.–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query What is hoped to be gained by sub-categorizing this way? siafu (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users interested in learning about the various manifestations of religious terrorism will find articles having to do with anti-abortion violence in the appropriate category, while users interested in anti-abortion violence would have an easy way of navigating to related material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent. Is there support in the sources that anti-abortion violence comes primarily or exclusively from Christians? -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Hoffman: "They are primarily fundamentalist Christians." The sources cited in the article also make basically the same point, but this is the one that puts it in the terms closest to your comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily is not the same as exclusively. I would say that we are engaging in original research when we make a move like this which pre-supposes that we can classify the motivations of every perpetrator. For all we know, some of them may be atheists, deists, agnostics, etc. Especially remember that this is a global project, and for all I know there may be equally violent Hindu or Muslim or Confucian anti-abortion terrorists I just don't hear about. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If non-Christian anti-abortion terrorists aren't mentioned in any sources, why are we required to refrain from applying a label that many sources have applied on the basis that they may exist somewhere? That seems exactly contrary to WP:NOR. (WP:SUBCAT says "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also" - sources classify all or nearly all individual incidents or perpetrators in the category as being Christian and as being motivated by their interpretation of Christianity, in addition to classing the general movement as an outgrowth of the Christian right and a form of Christian terrorism, so your concern would seem to be assuaged. If there's suddenly a rash of Hindus bombing abortion clinics, we can always revisit the category.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, keep as subcategory - I've found a few reliable sources that characterize much anti-abortion violence as Christian in nature. In addition, looking at material describing some prominant anti-abortion/pro-life activists, it appears (just making a superficial summary) that many are strongly motivated by Christian ideals. Based on those two factors, it seems clear that the sub-categorization is appropriate. Bear in mind that WP does not have fantastic indexing systems: Categories are about all it has. So, users rely heavily on categories to find articles that may be related to what they are interested in. Including a category in another (see WP:SUBCAT) is not a conclusion, nor a pronouncement: it is just an indexing technique. --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources - here are a handful of sources that associate anti-abortion/pro-life violence with Christian terrorism:
  • The terrorism ahead: confronting transnational violence in the twenty-first century ... By Paul J. Smith, p 94
  • Religion and Politics in America: The Rise of Christian Evangelists By Muhammad Arif Zakaullah, p 109
  • Introduction to geopolitics By Colin Robert Flint, p 172
  • Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective By Aref M. Al-Khattar, p 59
  • Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook By William E. Dyson, p 43
  • Encyclopedia of terrorism By Cindy C. Combs, Martin W. Slann, p 13
  • Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States By Jennifer Jefferis, p 40
  • Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence By Mark Juergensmeyer, p 4
  • Inside terrorism By Bruce Hoffman, p 116
... and there are lots more. I understand that some editors may not like the association, but if the reliable sources are making that association then WP needs to follow the sources. If there are sources (and there probably are) that present the alternative viewpoint, namely that anti-abortion violence is un-related to Christianity, that is okay, and should be addressed in detail in various articles (such as Anti-abortion violence or Christian terrorism) but that alternative viewpoint cannot justify the elimination of a subcategorization that is supported by dozens of reliable sources. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if reliable sources consistently describe anti-abortion violence as being related to an interpretation of Christianity and there are few or no reliable sources to the contrary, then Category:Anti-abortion violence should be a subcategory of Category:Christian terrorism. As Noleander said above, WP should follow the sources; going contrary to them would mean giving undue weight to a minority perspective. Ibanez100 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. State-sponsored violence (e.g. whipping, death penalty, incarceration) have substantial non-Christian elements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Is there a way in which this is relevant to the discussion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes there is. Many governments, both past and present, have committed anti-abortion violence. After all, governments exercise a monopoly on violence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see your point now - it's very interesting - but it's not consistent with the topic as Wikipedia defines it. The scope of the article doesn't currently include government action against abortion, but rather actions by groups and individuals acting outside the law, what is commonly referred to as anti-abortion terrorism. (I don't know if there's a history of a title debate here where perhaps some users didn't want it to be called "terrorism," but I very much doubt that anyone ever intended it to encompass government actions.) It wouldn't be right to make decisions based on the existence of a completely hypothetical article that classed government penalties for abortion and anti-abortion terrorism under the same heading, particularly as such an article will never exist. Let's discuss the topic in ways consistent with the sources and the topic that we have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't support making "Fictional characters created in Botswana" a subcategory of "Female fictional characters" merely because Wikipedia has not yet covered any male fictional characters created in Botswana.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your view that the main article should, or ever will, cover government action against abortion? Because there's always the possibility that there will one day be articles on male characters created in Botswana, but I see no possibility of us ever conflating judicial punishments and individual/group terrorism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the main article's title remains "anti-abortion violence" then it ought to include coverage of violence by governments. Alternatively, we could put a hatnote at the top of the article telling people where to go for that information, but I don't think a hatnote would affect the categorization issue.
Another thing that should be covered in the main article is violence by husbands and boyfriends in response to abortion; that was part of the rationale for the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these things would be interesting, but they're not within the scope of the article, which is really anti-abortion terrorism in spite of the name. The title shouldn't dictate the content; the sources should dictate both the title and the content. Would you agree with a move, following which these other subjects could be discussed elsewhere if someone chose to write about them? (I don't know if domestic violence related to abortion would necessitate its own article, but it could be discussed in one of the articles on domestic violence.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to limit myself to commenting here on the specific RFC question, and my "no" stands for the reasons explained. Additionally, there is a longstanding effort by pro-choice advocates to portray all pro-life advocacy as an attempt to impose Christian religious beliefs on pregnant women, whereas pro-life advocacy actually seems to be much more than an issue about Christianity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So...you're ignoring the sources which state it's a form of Christian terrorism, because you disagree? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategory under discussion in the RFC question does not include "terrorism" and I am not commenting about "terrorism", except to say that "violence" is a much broader term than "terrorism" (and a vastly broader term than "Christian terrorism"). Broader things should not be subcategories of narrower things, no matter how much it might serve a POV. I've given my opinion, based on policy, and have explained how my rationale applies equally to non-abortion categories. Cheerio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a good idea. It's applying our own interpretation to the material - sources don't say that "there is Christianity-influenced anti-abortion violence and other anti-abortion violence," they say that anti-abortion violence is motivated by an interpretation of Christianity and that it is a form of Christian terrorism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. I was just brainstorming, trying to think of a way to resolve the competing viewpoints in this RfC. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, it is surprising that the article Anti-abortion violence does not have a section discussing the relationship between Christianity and anti-abortion violence. The sources listed above indicate that there is sufficient information for a section on that relationship. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a brief mention in the first section with a bunch of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes It appears there are plenty of sources to support the categorization. It shouldn't be viewed as a judgment, just a search tool. Monty845 00:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but rename Category:Anti-abortion violence to Category:Anti-abortion terrorism. It has been reasonably argued that there are plenty of examples of violence related to abortion that has no religious basis (by boyfriends and perhaps governments). But it has also been argued that Category:Anti-abortion violence currently really only covers terrorism. So rename and create a new, broader, cat for Anti-abortion violence if needed. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Updated, see below Hobit (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is also a title change proposal for the article? They should match. Since my exchange with AYW, I've done a bit of looking back in the page history, and IIRC it was never called "anti-abortion terrorism" - it was moved from "pro-life terrorism" to "anti-abortion violence" - so I don't know if there was an objection to the phrase "anti-abortion terrorism" that we should consider. But anyway, consensus can change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: do not subcategorize. There is ambivalence here and in the NPOVN discussion, and for good reason. It is as impossible to exclusively link Christians and anti-abortion violence as it is to link suicide bombing and Muslims; just because one is primarily perpetrated by the other is not a statement that others cannot join in the act. For example, Scott Roeder is a militiaman, an extremist, and a murderer of an abortion doctor, but only tangentially a member of a Christian movement. There are many possible reasons to oppose abortion, and many possible reasons to murder, and only one of them is being part of a lunatic Christian-based organization. (As a side note, the suggestion to make the category into Category:Anti-abortion terrorism seems extremely well founded, but needs to be brought up on WP:CFD rather than, or in addition to, here.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion reopened following review on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence. Happy‑melon 15:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary: it was advertised as an RFC, but it ran so long that a bot removed the template. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the bot has actually just removed the template again. Damned automatons! :D Happy‑melon 15:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot removed the template because the first signature in the thread was over 30 days ago. I have fixed this by adding today's timestamp at the top of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorize (since discussion has reopened). Wikipedia content is driven by what reliable sources say. Noleander has presented a list of sources above that state that anti-abortion violence is a form of Christian terrorism. This is not about POV pushing, this is about reliable sources. As for the objection that not all such violence is Christian in nature, WP:SUBCAT does allow for some exceptions. Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize this as a Christian phenomenon, it would be dishonest not to draw this out. In fact, not to reflect reliable sources in the categorization to avoid the appearance of POV pushing is, effectively, POV pushing itself. eldamorie (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • decategorise The point is that this kind of violence is not Christian, and Christian teaching opposes such terrorism or violence. Various authors may well be doing some point of view pushing to label such criminal acts as Christian by associating Christianity with terrorism. Wikipedia does not have to follow such an attack. It can certainly mention the fact that the authors say this in the article, but actually putting the article in the category is point of view pushing by categories. The vast majority of Christian people would denounce anti-abortion violence, even if they have an anti abortion viewpoint, but we don't add a category to say denounced by Christianity either. unsigned comment by User:Graeme Bartlett
    • "We should ignore the reliable sources that call it Christian terrorism, because it doesn't accord with my interpretation of Christian doctrine" is pretty much the opposite of a policy-based argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Absolutely not extremely prejudicial POV categorization. As Orange Mike said above , "Primarily is not the same as exclusively" It's a very frequent issue in the US at present, but there is no necessary connection. There are no reliable sources for that, merely individual examples. I have considerable doubt over many of the other items in the category: to be qualified, it needs not to be just terrorism perpetrated by a Christian, but terrorism done in furtherance of what the perpetrator thought to be the Christian religion. If it is done because abortion is regarded as a more generalized moral outrage, it is not in this category, As the WP article on Christian terrorism correctly says "Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions" There is much else to add to the category over the last 1500 years or so. The prejudicial nature of the category-- as it is used at present is shown by its concentration upon the last 50 of them: there's nothing older than the KKK, not even the Crusades. I could use much stronger terms than prejudicial, but there's no need to do so; I in any case do not mean an implication about the motives of any particular editor, whom i will suppose charitably to be confused. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the other content of the category bears on this; surely if reliable sources describe other things as Christian terrorism, you could also add those things - to put it another way, if you think the category is bad because it leaves out some incidents of Christian terrorism, improve it, don't make it worse by leaving out even more instances of Christian terrorism. Addressing the rest of your comment, the "categorize" argument has rested and continues to rest on the fact that a whole lot of experts describe the phenomenon as Christian terrorism (see sources currently in the article as well as additional sources cited by Noleander). It isn't synth based on the motivations of individuals (although all or most of the individuals can also be cited as motivated by their interpretation of Christianity). Now that this has been cleared up for you, is your opinion on the matter different? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While some terrorism experts classify this as CT, most do not. We would be endorsing a minority view over mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked you to prove this, and I'll ask it again. Where is this "most"? It's all very well to wave your hands about and claim that there are hundreds of sources that support your opinion, but if you can't even produce one, that rather belies your claim of "mainstream" scholarship agreeing with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB this comment should not be taken to mean that producing one source will vindicate your claim –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aubrey's book,[1] which I have presented to you before, explains how terrorism is normally categorized. "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist.... Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring sweeping changes". Or search Google books for abortion+terrorism and check out how it is normally categorized.[2] TFD (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aubrey doesn't mention anti-abortion violence at all, so claiming that he says it isn't Christian terrorism can charitably be described as bizarre. Don't cite a Google search, please provide sources that support your opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorise, the sources are reliable and clear. There's no POV issue here, all of the points of view in the sources appear to be adequately represented, and the dominant point of view in the sources is that this subject is a type of Christian terrorism. The point of view of editors that this is biased is irrelevant to the decision-making process. If there are scholars out there stating that anti-abortion violence isn't a form of Christian terrorism, by all means bring them forward for evidence, so they can be weighed against the scholars stating that it is a form of Christian terrorism. That is how you prove something is POV, by providing sources to the contrary, not by simply insisting it's true. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. A great many reliable and scholarly sources describe anti-abortion bombings and killings as Christian terrorism or terrorism driven by Christian extremism. Below I will list the sources I can find quickly online. I'm sure there are more than this. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose subcategorization The use of such implies that anti-abortion violence is primarily associated with "Christian terrorism" (which I rather doubt is a valid claim at all) and certainly opposition to abortion is not peculiar to Christianity, nor are all cases of anti-abortion violaence connected to Christianity, and enough cases exist where the violaence is connected to other religions and beliefs that connecting the entire topic to one religion is contrary to common sense, and absolutely contrary to Wikipedia policies about NPOV as a minimum. [3] does not predicate anti-abortion violence on Christianity but on a multitide of factors (including a religious belief that life begins at conception). The "Anti-Saloon League" and "WCTU" were similarly "Christian" but as the groups opposing them were also primarily Christian (just as a large part of the pro-abortion movement is Christian) it would be silly to link them as Christian terrorists" either. Any remotely religious issue in the US is going, by simple demographics, primarily going to be a "Christian" issue. Pro and anti slavery groups in the 19th century were pretty much equally "Christian." Just as I would oppose "anti-woman violence" being categorized under any religion, I think this use of subcategorization is wrong. [4] Dalai Lama is opposed to abortion (which is illegal in some Buddhist countries, IIRC). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the sort of argument that led to the initial close being overturned.
      • 1. "What if a non-Christian commits an act of anti-abortion terrorism one day in the future" is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, nothing to do with sources or policy.
      • 2. The source that you claim illustrates a multitude of motivations for anti-abortion violence...doesn't actually mention anti-abortion violence, far from proving any of your points about it.
      • 3. The point that the pro-choice movement contains many Christians is true but completely irrelevant. Islamic terrorism is frequently committed against Muslims, that has never affected how we categorize it, because we categorize based on the motivations of the perpetrators.
      • 4. Related to 2, trying to make it about anti-abortion sentiment in general is a strawman. Get back to me when the Dalai Lama bombs an abortion clinic, will you?
    • –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fear your post implies that an RfC is an interminable debating society exercise. I would point out that my position about all categorization has been made abundantly clear in many venues on Wikipedia. Including categories of "criminals" , "religion categories", and so on. And making something which is intrisically not entirely with a supercategory into a subcategory is extraordinarily ill-advised no matter what the categories are. BTW, there has been a lot of violence recently in Tibet, just in case you missed it. Collect (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, there has been recent violence in Tibet. Is it in opposition to abortion? No, so it's completely irrelevant here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed yes - that is one of the issues for Tibet - 'including the forced abortopns of practicing Buddhists contrary to their religious precepts. So it is, in fact, quite relevant. The result in Tibet was the waiving of fines in most of those areas where Tibetans control policy now. Cheers - it is wonderful when the other editor makes the point needed. Infant mortality for "indigenous Tibetans" is on the order of 13%. [5] implies that some of the "infant mortality" is less-than-incidental. And the "extra" children are denied schooling - with The Guardian [6] reporting that 61% of Tibetan children getting zzero secondary education. [7] states that the Chinese government feels the penalties are not severe enough for having extra children. Is the point clearer now? To a Buddhist, abortions are a religious violation (Bap). Collect (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, that's very sad, but it's also still irrelevant, because the sources you linked don't indicate that the violence has anything to do with forced abortions (nor, even if they did, could we possibly say that opposition to forced abortion was equivalent to opposition to abortion). It's really not too much to ask that talk page discussion be relevant - do you have anything to say that's actually about anti-abortion violence? Because I'm sure there are many internet forums where you can display your expertise on Tibet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's an intellectual straight jacket, which is over and under inclusive, as Collect notes, and as the proposers and sources admit: it's not a subcategory in all its manifestations. There is anti-abortion violence motivated by things other than a particular religious viewpoint, or that has a mixed motive. 'Misogynistic terrorism' or 'save human embryo life terrorism' are just some ways it maybe viewed too, but not if you label it ALL just Christian. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care about how it "may be viewed," I care about how reliable sources describe it, and that is as Christian terrorism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No reliable source only describes it as Christian Terrorism. If you can produce even one, do so. Whereas, any thinking person knows there is a multiplicity of causes, such as those described in, "Politics, culture, and political crime: Covariates of abortion clinic attacks in the United States" Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 35, Issue 3, May-June 2007, Pages 323-336 ("some crimes against clinics are more likely in areas where female empowerment is weaker, female victimization is more tolerated, and the anti-abortion movement has failed to reduce abortions")
          • On the contrary, Noleander and I have cited a large number of sources that describe it as Christian terrorism (and your source doesn't contradict this at all). Take off the blinders and actually look at what the sources say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have cited no sources that describes it as only Christian Terrorism. Just give me one quote that says that is its only cause. Whereas, the source I provided notes a multiplicity of other potentialcauses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why should it have to be described as only Christian? Source after source after source describes it as Christian without naming other motivations. We write based on what reliable sources say; we don't make up our own personal standards based on what they don't say.–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If it's a subcategory, it has to be only motivated by Christianity. Think venn diagrams, if there is any part of the circles that do not overlap, it is not a subcategory, its two overlapping categories, at best. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's not actually true (WP:SUBCAT guidelines are that most of the content has to fit) but, more to the point, there's still been a distinct failure to provide sources on any anti-abortion violence that is not motivated by Christianity, while on the other hand, those supporting categorization have provided a large number of sources about how it is motivated by Christianity, making your point moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Joshua D. Freilich and William Alex Pridemore, in the abstract of their paper "Politics, culture, and political crime: Covariates of abortion clinic attacks in the United States", state plainly that a handful of factors they studied were not "significantly associated with the cross-sectional variation of overall crime or overall violence against abortion providers." In terms of Christian extremism, however, they seem to have looked only at "traditional fundamentalist religious culture" as observed in a geographic region rather than in individuals "who travel from place to place", so they admit a gap in the study. They allow for freely moving individuals who are Christian extremists and who carry out the most extreme anti-abortion violence. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pretty much per DGG (this is an update of my !vote from before, now struck, above). There are lots of problems. Not all anti-abortion violence is terrorism and not all anti-abortion violence is Christian based. The majority? Quite likely, but I'm not certain of that if we include abortion-related domestic assault in there. And is a forced abortion abortion-related violence? I'd have to say yes. And that certainly isn't Christian terrorism but appears to be fairly common [8]. Maybe I could support "anti-abortion terrorism" being subcatagorized this way, but [9] for example makes even that questionable. Basically, this categorization is way too US-centric. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the sort of argument that led to the initial close being overturned. "Let's speculate, with no evidence, about what's in people's heads or about what might happen in the future" and "a completely hypothetical article that will never exist wouldn't belong in the category, so this article doesn't belong in the category either" are ludicrous arguments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may note I've actually provided RSes for my claims. Are you arguing that A) these things aren't abortion-related violence, B) don't matter because we currently lack articles on those topics or C) something else? It looks like "B", which seems to be a fairly weak argument especially considering the systematic bias (Western-centric) that would account for the limited coverage. But if I'm misunderstanding your argument, please feel free to clarify. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • D), things that aren't violence or that aren't directed against abortion cannot possibly be described as anti-abortion violence. What is this imaginary "abortion-related violence" article you keep referring to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closing admin. Please make sure to check arguments for reliable sources that back up the argument, and discount those that do not. Too many arguments here are hypothetical, lacking a sound basis in current scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scholarship isn't required to create reasonable categories. Common sense plays a real role. Are you seriously claiming that all notable abortion-related violence is Christian terrorism? If so, please see/address the RSes above. If not, could you please explain why it makes sense to list something as a subset of something when it isn't? Hobit (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, saying "WP:TRUTH trumps reliable sources" is not exactly helping dispel the impression that "don't categorize" voters are motivated by politics rather than policy. By all means, if you find sources showing that a significant minority of anti-abortion violence is motivated by something other than Christianity, we can talk, but not only have these voters not found such sources, it seems like most haven't even tried. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Hobit, I am specifically saying that nearly all anti-abortion violence in the USA is motivated by extremist Christian beliefs, all but perhaps a few exceptions that nobody can actually name. Your simple assertion "when it isn't" is not found in the reliable sources, all of which say that Christian extremism is the driver behind anti-abortion violence. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And outside of the Western world? There is no anti-abortion violence? Or we just don't document it here? Hobit (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • For Wikipedia purposes, it doesn't exist if sources on it cannot be found. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One of the reasons cited for objecting to the proposed categorization is that it carries an inaccurate implication: that all anti-abortion violence is related to Christianity. But subcategories are not intended to be interpreted that way. Categories are simply an indexing system that helps readers find related articles. For example, Category:Automobiles contains subcategory Category: Vehicle insurance. Is insurance a kind of automobile? Of course not. Category:Flowers contains subcategory Category:Flower artists‎. Are artists a kind of flower? No. Why are those subcategories permitted? Because the subcategory is merely related to the parent category, and including it helps readers find related topics. Anti-abortion violence is strongly related to Christianity-related violence. If WP were to hide this association, we would be caving in to political correctness. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one is telling you to hide anything; you put relevant, reliably sourced information in the articles. Second, IMO you misread category instructions. ALL anti-abortion violence must be "defined" by Christian terrorism to fit in the Christian terrorism category; that other catagory pages are done incorrectly, is no argument for it to be done here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the relevant part of WP:SUBCAT where it says that? I'm not seeing it. eldamorie (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining characteristic "A central concept used in categorisation is that of the defining characteristics of a subject." For the present proposal, this would have to be true: 'All anti-abortion violence is defined as Chirstian terrorism.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is quite proper since that is how sources define it. I think Eldamorie was gently guiding you towards the part of WP:SUBCAT which says "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also," ie. since the overwhelming majority of this is Christian terrorism, the category is still appropriate even if one or two exceptions are found (which, however, no one has yet managed to do anyway). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First no relaible source says what you claim and second, since everyone here agrees that not all anti-abortion violence is Chirstian Terrorism (although you seem to be going back and forth), there is little basis in the consensus of editors to catagorize it as such. It would be plainly illogical to claim the bombing of an abortion clinic by an atheist, is not anti-abortion violence because it is not Christian Terrorism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when an atheist bombs an abortion clinic and the dozens of sources that call it Christian terrorism subsequently revise their views, you can get back to me then. Or, to put it another way, it would be silly to avoid categorizing Category:Snoop Dogg albums in Category:Gangsta rap albums because the artist might one day decide to record some opera. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After reading over the arguments, I have to agree that this categorization is inappropriate. The fundamental problem I see is a conflation of rules for article content and for categorization. It certainly would be relevant to note in the article what the sources say re: the overwhelming Christian fundamentalist nature of current anti-abortion violence, but the categorization is not so determined. As noted by Hobit, common sense does play a real role here, since categorization is about the logical sorting of topics and is not locked to the current "real-world" instantiation of the topic (Life and Biology are not in Category:Earth nor its subcategories, e.g., even though all known life exists only on Earth). I also object to the claim that For Wikipedia purposes, it doesn't exist if sources on it cannot be found. -- this is not true. If sources cannot be found, it cannot be said to simply not exist, as this is OR (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence); the only conclusion we can draw is that there is no evidence for it at present. The categorization that is being suggested would make the stronger claim, which is inappropriate, whereas not categorizing it this way would not be making any crystal ball predictions at all, contrary to what has been suggested. siafu (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We certainly couldn't write "there is no non-Christian anti-abortion violence" without a source, but it's original research/CRYSTAL to say that we can't apply this completely valid (per a whole lot of sources) categorization because of what might happen in the future or what might be happening without being picked up in any sources. We work based on sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to still be missing the difference between content and categorization, and also overlooking what might have happened in the past, and what might be happening right now. Casting this category is different from making a sourced assertion in an article-- for starters, there is not generally a list of references in a category description, and on top of that the categorization is a blanket generalization, rather than a explained ande justified assertion. Categorization does have to be restrained based on what is logically possible, not just what currently is. siafu (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's also "logically possible" that a member of Hamas could be a non-Muslim, but that doesn't stop us putting Category:Hamas members in Category:Palestinian Muslims, because that's what sources say. It's also "logically possible" that James Dobson's conversion to Judaism might have happened in the past or might be happening right now in spite of the total absence of sources, but his article is in Category:Christian religious leaders etc. all the same, because that is the extent of what we know. Categorization is always based on sources in article text - why is it so very important to break with policy now in order to avoid calling this what sources call it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not so possible for Hamas members to be non-Muslim, and James Dobson is a Christian religious leader and not, say, a Jew, in a way that categorically and universally true; even if he were to convert, he would still have been a Christian religious leader and would still belong in that category, just as would be the case if he were to die and cease being a present religious leader of any kind. The reason this case is different from your examples, and the reason it is "so very important" to hold off on this is that it would require only a single intrusion into the subcategory to invalidate the categorization, though the generalization can be made in the article itself even with several such intrusions (e.g., "All/almost all/most known anti-abortion terrorists have been fundamentalist Christians"). Categorization would still be guided by what the sources say-- it would not, in fact, be going against that to not subcategorize anti-abortion violence under Christian terrorism in the same that sense placing anti-abortion violence in an unrelated category like Category:Butterflies would be counterfactual since there is nothing counterfactual about maintaining a possible and not at all implausible distinction by simply not making an assertion. The other problem is the defining characteristics, and Christianity is not necessarily a defining characteristic of anti-abortion violence, it is only a coincidental characteristic of it because of our limited set of examples. It is quite logical, and even expected, that this set would include any number of non-Christian members and incidents since there is nothing inherently Christian about anti-abortionism or terrorism. siafu (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is a defining characteristic of anti-abortion violence that it is driven by Christian extremism. The sources in my list emphasize this all-important aspect. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that they happen to be coincident is not defining. Just all creatures with vertebrae all have kidneys as well, but being a rhenate is a not a defining characteristic of being a chordate. siafu (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC) -- And vice-versa. siafu (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The difference is that reliable sources overwhelmingly call it a defining characteristic. eldamorie (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The problem with that is that the sources listed in this discussion don't actually seem to make that claim-- that is, that anti-abortion violence is inherently Christian. Several are arguing that such violence is terrorism and not just random violence, and others point out that the recent anti-abortion violence in the US is motivated by Christianity. These are not at all the same claims as saying that anti-abortion violence is defined by being Christian. As I said before, it's important here not to conflate the guidelines for article content with those for categorization. I imagine that many or even all of the current articles in Category:Anti-abortion violence could and should be cross-listed in Category:Christian terrorism, but that's quite different than subcategorizing the one into the other, which is tantamount to saying that this is an inherent and defining characteristic. siafu (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The sources do make it a defining characteristic - see, among others, Juergensmeyer, Bryant, and Flint. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • None of the quotes that have been pulled out make this assertion, can you be more specific (e.g., page #)? I'm afraid a whole book is a bit TLDR for me to read for just a wikipedia RfC. siafu (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I'll tell you now that "I refuse to believe a book makes this claim, because I haven't bothered to look at the book" is not going to win you any arguments, but: Bryant, "Antiabortion terrorism in the United States, in which fundamentalist Christian terrorists, acting without conventional moral restraints, bomb abortion clinics and assassinate abortion providers at will, stands as a perfect example [of religious terrorism." Anti-abortion violence is defined by Bryant as an act carried out by Christians with a religious motivation. Flint, "The assassination of doctors performing legal abortions is the extreme manifestation of Christian right lobbying and protest to change the laws of the land and ban abortions." Flint is describing a system in which the set {anti-abortion violence} is contained entirely within the set {Christianity}. Juergensmeyer's chapter introduction (the chapter, incidentally, is called "Soldiers for Christ") discusses the principle in general, but one quote that could be excerpted is "This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. Attacks on abortion clinics, for instance, have been viewed...as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • 1. This is an RfC, you can't expect everyone who comes to comment to spend 20+ hours to research the sources primarily because most of us have jobs and other work to do for wikipedia already as well. Wikipedia doesn't pay my salary, or anyone's. 2. You should, moreover, be expecting this argument since the burden of proof lies on you (the party making the assertion), not on those who are skeptical; it is you who is not going to convince anyone without properly referencing or elucidating the sources that you claim support your position. 3. I don't "refuse" to believe it, I decline to believe it because there is, so far, no reason to believe it the same way that I decline to believe that any book or source I'm not familiar with makes any claim. It does not mean I am somehow unwilling to believe it. 4. The quotes you are presenting are doing exactly what I said they are doing-- they are describing the existing cases exclusively. They even use such language-- "Antiabortion terrorism in the United States..." (Bryant), &c. What they are saying is that the anti-abortion terrorists that they are investigating turn out to be Christian in nature, not that anti-abortion terrorism is necessarily Christian in nature. The closest you are getting here is the Flint source, but even that seems to be misreading his thesis, and Bryant is not making any such defining claims beyond the specific cases he's investigated (i.e., those in the United States in recent decades). All of the sources you're discussing do clearly indicate that these are examples of religious terrorism, and that they are specifically Christian terrorists who are conducting these acts, but they are not providing any support to the idea that anti-abortion terrorism is by necessity Christian. This is exactly the difference between a defining and incidental characteristic, and this is exactly the disctinction between categorization guidelines and article content guidelines that I have been stating here. It is simply not enough to point out that all the extent cases fit within this category, though this knowledge is certainly enough to cross-list all of those examples in both categories, because categorization is based on defining characteristics and not coincidental ones. It is significant that a hypothetical Muslim or Jewish extremist, schools of thought in both being highly resistant to abortion and prone to violence, could well bomb abortion clinics in terms of categorization, and WP:CRYSTAL is not a helpful guideline here because it works just as well both ways. siafu (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So I just looked into Mr. Jurgensmeyer's book, or at least the sections on anti-abortion terrorists Bray, Rudolph, and Hill, and it certainly doesn't seem like he's making any such claim. He is, however, investigating several cases of Christian terrorism, including anti-abortion terrorists and identifying their motivations as most certainly Christian. He does not, however, seem to claim that there is something inherently Christian in nature about anit-abortion violence in general. I get the impression that some editors seem to believe that by not subcategorizing Category:Anti-abortion violence in Category:Christian terrorism wikipedia would somehow be denying the Christian nature of the anti-abortion violence that is detailed in the articles within that category; this is simply not the case. Subcategorization implies that A is a definite subset of B, not just in terms of the existing instantiations of A all being also within B, but in terms of the inherent characteristics of A placing it by necessity in B. This is not at all satisified here, and no amount of case studies (even if it applied to all known cases) can make that point, and this is why the hypothetical suggestions of non-Christian anti-abortion violence are actually important. The fact that they can exist, and that the reason they don't exist is most likely also due to happenstance (e.g., abortion is illegal in Muslim countries) make this an illogical categorization. siafu (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Mark Juergensmeyer does not discuss any anti-abortion violence that is not based on Christian extremism. All of it is Christian. He says, for instance, that Christian extremism drove Michael Bray and his followers to launch "anti-abortion crusades" combining with "like-minded Christian activists." (page 22) Likewise, Juergensmeyer describes killer Paul Hill as driven by extreme interpretations of Christian dogma. Randall Terry is shown to be motivated by Christian extremism... All of the anti-abortion violence is defined as Christian extremism. Your assertion that Juergensmeyer does not "claim that there is something inherently Christian in nature about anti-abortion violence in general" is not correct. He absolutely does claim an overarching strain of Christian extremism in all anti-abortion violence. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Then you will have to show where he makes that claim, because none of the quotes you have presented, nor the text that I read, does so. What he is doing is delving into the particular motivations of the individuals in question and identifying a common thread of Christian extremism. As I mentioned multiple times, the individual cases are not speaking to actual question at hand. siafu (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Juergensmeyer is not going to satisfy your request for one succinct quote which captures the whole picture. Juergensmeyer instead requires a full reading of his work after which normal reading comprehension will answer the question: is there anti-abortion violence in the USA which is not motivated by Christian extremism? No, there is not. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Right, because abortion violence is not the subject of his book. For Wikipedia, we need a direct source (a direct quote), not various editors interpretations of someone's work, where the author does not explicitly say something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Sources were provided at the very beginning in which all these authors referred to anti-abortion violence as Christian terrorism. Now you claim that that's not enough and that the authors have to say it is inherently Christian. I've provided more quotes, but I really don't know why I bother, because you're going to come up with another special standard to justify keeping it out of the category. Perhaps your next argument will be that the authors don't say that the perpetrators' interpretation of Christianity is correct, so we can't claim they're inspired by Christianity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I think many objectors including me made this same point all along. At any rate, the closing admin can read all that for her or himself. As to the interpretation of Christianity, that doesn't sound like an argument I would make. I would be open to putting Category:Christian Terrorism, in Category:Christianity, if we were discussing that.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I'm not looking for one succint quote so much as one quote, or, in reality, many because just one source is not usually sufficient, that actually makes the distinction that needs to be made, i.e., that being Christian in nature is an defining characteristic of anti-abortion violence. All of the sources put forward, at least to the extent that they've been explained, do not do this but rather detail the specifics of anti-abortion violence as it happens to exist in the United States right now. This has also been my position all along, and I maintain that the misunderstanding here seems to be about the difference between guidelines for inclusion of article content and the guidelines for subcategorization. siafu (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Mark Juergensmeyer makes the point you are looking for. Ziauddin Sardar makes the point, classifying abortion clinic violence as Christian terrorism. Andrew Sullivan makes the point, singling out anti-abortion violence as Christian terrorism. Aref M. Al-Khattar makes the point, writing about the USA: "Many Christian organizations rely on their special interpretation of the Bible in committing violent (terrorist) acts. These include anti-Semitic attacks, anti-abortion acts, and violent anti-black movements." Jennifer Jefferis makes the point, connecting all American anto-abortion terrorism to Christian extremism stemming from 1981's A Christian Manifesto. Professor Muhammad Arif Zakaullah makes the point that Christian fundamenalists make up the Christian terrorists who use violence against abortion providers. Patricia Baird-Windle and Eleanor J. Bader make the point in their scholarly book Targets of hatred: anti-abortion terrorism: they write that American anti-abortion sentiment is specifically based on interpretations of Biblical law and historical Christian theology. The authors write that Americans are hard-pressed to accept that Christianity is the root of this violence, they write about media coverage, "Then, still unable to accept the fact that an allegedly Christian political movement had turned deadly, they began to focus on the pathology of individual fanatics. Repeatedly we were told that the killings were 'isolated incidents'..." The authors continue proving that American anti-abortion terrorism is Christian extremism. Milan Rai, Loretta Hall, Anan Ameri, and Bridget K. Hall all make the same point, that Westerners are unable to admit that Christian extremism is the root of all anti-abortion terrorism, though it is. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Again, describing all the existing cases of anti-abortion violence in the United States as Christian is not at all the same as defining anti-abortion violence as inherently Christian. Categories are not articles. I've made this point numerous times now, so I'm not going to repeat myself further beyond this post. It seems to me that the reason we are even having this conversation is that there has been such a very small amount of clearly anti-abortion violence in history to look at, which would just be sampling bias; as I mentioned, the fact that abortion is simply illegal in most (I believe all, actually) Muslim countries is the main reason we don't see any Muslim anti-abortion acts of terrorism. One could, however, make a strong (though OR) case that many of the Islamic extremist attacks on Western targets have been anti-abortion as well, though they are not characterized as such since they are anti- so many other things at the same time. Ultra-orthodox Jewish organizations frequently characterize abortion as genocide, and many Hindu extremists claim that abortion is murder. The difference is that abortion is actually legal and relatively easily available in the United States, and not clouded by other more pressing issues. One could, on this basis, also make the same sort of misguided case you are making vis-a-vis Christianity applied to anti-abortion violence being American in nature. You may note, at the very top of this discussion, I came in from the RfC page with a question, which is: what do we actually gain by this categorization? I think the answer is basically nothing, since it's just as possible to have each article in Category:Anti-abortion violence listed also in Category: Christian terrorism and Category: American terrorism, but subcategorizing would cost us something in that it pigeonholes the topic of anti-abortion violence to be not just exclusively in instantiation, but inehrently Christian or American by its very nature, and this is simply logically not substantiated. siafu (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • Unfortunately for you, the argument about its being American is easily disproved, since not only could we have an article on Peter James Knight, we do. (Incidentally, Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States‎ is in Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States, among other things.) We've been begging you to find sources that say it isn't Christian or that provide examples of non-Christians committing it, but no one has obliged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                                • So, basically, Bryant, who specifically notes that he is talking about anti-abortion violence in the United States, isn't even talking about all the known examples of anti-abortion violence as you claimed? Additionally, you must realize that you are asking others to prove a negative. I'll not further restate the reasons why it doesn't matter if we can find examples of non-Christians committing anti-abortion violence. siafu (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                                  • Quite the opposite. I'm asking you to prove a positive. You claim that non-Christians commit anti-abortion violence; find some sources that say so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                                    • Obviously, you don't understand the problem here, so despite my previous claim I'll try one more time. Categories are not articles, and subcategorization is based on the defining characteristics of the subcategory being within the supercategory. Some logical examples of subcategories that could exist would be things like Category:Christian terrorism in the United States (or Category:Christian terrorism by country, to follow the common format), Category:Catholic terrorism, and the like. For the former, because Christian terrorism in the United States is inherently Christian, and the latter because Catholics are Christians, and therefore Catholic terrorism would inherently be Christian terrorism. An example from what's in the cat already is Category:Aryan Nations, because the Aryan Nations are Christian organizations by definition this follows the same logic as the hypothetical Catholic terrorism cat. There is nothing inherently Christian about anti-abortion terrorism-- it just so happens that the examples that we have in the sources are all conducted by Christians. I am not at all trying to prove that anti-abortion terrorism is commonly, or at all, conducted by non-Christians. I am pointing out that just because that's the way it has happened so far (as far as we know) does not mean that this is a defining characteristic. siafu (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • Note to closing administrator. Putting aside whether the description of the debate in the sources is accurate, reread the last sentence of Binksternet's 11/11/11 16:46 comment and note that it wishes you and Wikipedia to take a side in what the comment describes as an active disagreement about events in America. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • There's a difference between lay persons saying 'no way, that can't be true' and scholars saying 'yes, it is true even though lay persons do not admit it'. The latter case is what I was pointing to. I know that Wikipedia's sourcing policy favors the scholarly view even when it goes against the lay view. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: [10] siafu (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That story has already been linked, and my reply now is the same as it was the first time: if it's not violence, it doesn't belong in our article on anti-abortion violence and we cannot make judgments based on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another conflation of categorization and content guidelines. This link demonstrates that there have been threats of violence against abortion activists in Pakistan; it isn't even necessary to post it, but I had hoped it might make you reconsider the position you are putting forward since it demonstrates that the evidence you are leaning on (i.e., all examples of anti-abortion violence being Christian in nature) is itself quite flimsy, in addition to not even being appropriate to the standard in question. siafu (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There haven't been threats of violence, in my reading of that article. 'They have warned the organisers that they are at risk of reprisals' is a simple warning. If I tell a drunk 'be tactful in what you say or you might get in a fight with someone', I'm not threatening him, I'm simply warning him. In any case, I agree with Roscelese that a warning that reprisals might happen (or indeed even a threat of reprisal) is not violence until it manifests and can't be characterised as such. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I didn't even notice Siafu had responded to this. Fail! But yes, words =/= actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • A threat, aka, assualt is, indeed, a crime of violence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. "Assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence". "Fear of violence" does not equate to "violence". Actual violence is prosecuted as battery (crime). And this is irrelevant, since there were no threats of violence mentioned in the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Causing someone to fear violence is still crime of violence, and assault is a crime of violence. And the warning of reprisal in the article is a true threat.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The term 'crime of violence' refers to crimes relating to violence, not crimes involving violence. And warnings are not threats, your logic is absurd. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I disagree. I think you should re-read that but I am happy to let the closing administrator judge.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both ways: Anti-abortion violence should have a section on Christian fundamentalism-inspired anti-abortion violence -- and Christian terrorism should have a section on anti-abortion violence. The reasoning is straightforward: Anti-abortion violence does not stem exclusively from Christian fundamentalism. There are governments and various religious leaders who espouse and support anti-abortion terrorism, whether these actions are legitimate in that country (i.e. mandated by law, e.g. in Ceausescu's Romania) or not (e.g. Hindu or Muslim fundamentalists inciting acolytes to anti-abortion violence). At the same time, Christian terrorism takes many forms and is certainly not confined exclusively to anti-abortion violent acts. Hence, we should have the two articles crossing each other. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide any sources that back up these claims of anti-abortion violence by Hindus and Muslims? As for the claims that legal punishment for abortion is the same thing as anti-abortion violence, I addressed that idea above - there is exactly zero chance that the article will ever conflate legal consequences, however severe, with terrorism, and we can't make decisions about how to categorize this article based on a hypothetical article that will never exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're dealing here with an elemental premise of set theory: You yourself have posted a news item above (Bruce Hoffman: "They are primarily fundamentalist Christians"), which clearly signifies that the violence comes not exclusively from fundamentalist Christians. Note and underline, please, the word "primarily." The rest is trifle. The requested information abt fundamentalists of other religions violently suppressing women's rights over their own body is trivially available on the web. But this is not needed when your own sources indicate how the respective sets meet. My proposal stands on firm ground. -The Gnome (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be a valid rebuttal if the category were "fundamentalist Christian terrorism," rather than "Christian terrorism." If you read the rest of the book, it is clear that Hoffman does not use "fundamentalist Christian" as a synonym for "Christian," so I don't know why you're assuming that Hoffman is claiming some of these people are not Christian. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know of no religion-inspired terrorism but the fundamentalist kind. When we are referring to Islamic terrorism, for example, we are referring, by default, to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. There is no anti-abortion violence perpetrated by Christians who are non-fundamentalist. Non-fundamentalists do not have any motivation to act violently and commit terrorist acts, in any religion, because, by definition, the dictats of their religion (including the anti-abortion dictats) are not fundamental to their way of life. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as it is possible for anti-abortion violence to be committed by non-Christians. If committed by Christians, then the Christian category can be added. Simple solution; I don't see why there's so much fuss. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMON: anti-abortion violence is primarily connected to views on abortion, not necessary religious at all. Though Christianity plays a major role in European and American occurrences of this phenomena, it is prohibited by many religions and happens in the countries with insignificant Christian population. At the same time, the sub-category applies the relation in form of membership, which is not true, AFAIK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason that you think your personal beliefs about why people do or should commit anti-abortion violence, rather than the assessment of reliable sources, should have any impact on how we do things at Wikipedia? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a reason: I've seen no reliable source claiming that anti-abortion violence is conducted only be Christians, and thus these reliable sources are not actually sources for this discussion. I would appreciate, if You draw any example, that would prove I'm wrong. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about, oh, I don't know, the many cited sources that describe it as Christian terrorism? You yourself stated that we need to take the phenomenon as a whole, rather than individual participants, so why does that fly out the window when you want to claim that a source should describe all the participants as Christian? Is the answer to that question "because sources describe the phenomenon in general as Christian and I need to find a new excuse to avoid categorizing this according to the sources"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this seems very POV as elaborated on by a number of editors above. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite the contrary. WP:NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"; it doesn't state that an editor's personal disagreement with something overrides what reliable sources have to say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Anti-abortion_violence&oldid=1110102488"