Misplaced Pages

Talk:Christian terrorism

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 31 July 2012 (→Southern Baptists?: personal attacks of that sort can not be tolerated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:27, 31 July 2012 by Collect (talk | contribs) (→Southern Baptists?: personal attacks of that sort can not be tolerated)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian terrorism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCatholicism
WikiProject iconChristian terrorism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • SPEEDY KEEP, withdrawn by nominator, part of a multi-page AfD, April 26, 2010, see discussion.
  • KEEP, December 22, 2004, see discussion.
Archiving icon
Archives
  1. September 2004 – October 2005
  2. January 2006 – September 2006
  3. October 2006 – February 2007
  4. April 2007 – Dec 2007
  5. January 2008 – August 2008
  6. August 2008 – February 2011
  7. February 2011 – April 2011
  8. April 2011 – August 2011
  9. August 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


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 Misplaced Pages? 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. Nformation 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. Nformation 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, I've noticed plenty of anti-Islam and pro-violence attitudes among American Christians, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out that many Christians in the US think of the wars in Southwest and Central Asia as a sort of righteous crusade. I'm not sure what would constitute reliable sources, though...could somebody give a hypothetical example or two?
(BTW, what did the originator of this section mean by "everyone out there is gonna call me racist?" As the poster above (69.165.140.240) notes, Americans don't constitute a race. Did you mean something different?) Mia229 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Assam

While it may be different in nearby parts of India, the Insurgency in Northeast India so dwarfs everything else (media says "hundreds of thousands"), that mention of Christian terrorism in Assam seems out of place (WP:UNDUE). Sort of like saying that the rights of Buddhists are being trampled in Somalia. But since the rights of everybody are being trampled in Somalia, it's a bit hard to notice! Student7 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

India is not in Somalia. However, none of the sources relate the Assam terrorists to Christian terrorism and therefore I will remove it. Remember that many of the Arab terrorists in the 1980s were Christians, but we do not call them Christian terrorists. TFD (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't read the sources then... This was all battled out in the Talk section a year ago, and your deletion of the entire section, obviously without due diligence, seems way beyond "bold." I'm amazed, because usually you don't act so recklessly. Furthermore, the articles (including ones from the BBC) explicitly describe the group's use of forced conversions to Christianity as a key tactic. They are the most explicitly Christian Terrorist organization on the planet, next to the KKK. What more do you want? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see this issue come up suddenly. A recurrent theme through all of the source material is forced conversion to Christianity. Over and over again, the sources seem to characterize the motivations as being explicitly about Christianity. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) Sources describe the NLFT as a a nationalist terrorist groups rather than a religious terrorist group.

  • The NLFT "is a separatist insurgent group...." (The Politics of Terrorism, Taylor & Francis, 2006, p. 191)
  • "Nationalist terrorist group...." (Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, M.E. Sharpe, 2008, p. 378)

TFD (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

One can be both. The NLFT has specific goals regarding the creation of a Christian State, and they forcibly convert people at gunpoint. If an "Nationalist" group, composed of Muslims, did this...we'd have no problem calling them "Islamic Terrorists," but because of Pro-Christian partisans at WP, we have a higher standard of proof for Christian Terrorists...even when plenty of people refer to them as such. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Your are showing a clear case of "knowing" the "truth" and it appears that reliable sources do not agree with what you know. As a result, you are edit warring to re-insert material which does not have a consensus for inclusion here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COLLECT:I'm not "edit warring," and you damned well know it. The India section is extremely well cited, and the RS clearly DOES agree with me. Like I said, this was already settled a year ago, and neither you, nor any of the other Pro-Christian POV Warriors has shown anything to the contrary. And deleting articles that explicitly state that these groups are Christian Terrorists does not mean that they are not. There was already a consensus a year ago. No one has presented ANY information that ANY of the cites are incorrect. You are clearly injecting your "Christians can do no wrong!" POV on this subject, just as you always do. Clearly well-cited information, deleted without good reason, should be kept until consensus is reached. THAT is how the WP policy works. We don't let people wipe out huge swaths of information without cause, and then say, "Well, you can't re-add it until everyone reaches a consensus!" That's absurd, and you know it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
They are distinct categories. One aims to separate from a state, while the other aims to carry out God's will. On the previous page of your source it says, "The separatist/secessionist ideologies in the North-East are of the following type: (i) Ethnic, (ii) Ideological/leftist/Communist, and (iii) Religious. Many insurgent outfits combine the above-mentioned ethnic traits." Notice that the title of the book is Problems of Ethnicity in the North-East India. Clearly the author groups the NLFT under nationalist terrorism. There are of course religious terrorist groups, the most well-known is al Qaeda. Of course if one googles ""christian terrorist"+" one will get hits. But that is the wrong way to conduct research. One should instead first identify sources for articles, then report what they say.
From your writing, I imagine you see religion as the cause of many of the world's conflicts. While that is an acceptable view, most sources, including the one you present, see conflicts as rooted in differences over control of land or other resources. While there are terrorist groups whose primary motivation is religion, they are relatively rare.
TFD (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone has a POV. And for the record, I'm a very religous person (just not a Christian). The information is well-cited, and this issue was already settled a year ago. Obviously, you are one of those people that don't believe Christian Terrorism exists, but that is not what the sources say. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly then this issue was not settled if only you make such an assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you are picking a fight, and nothing but intervention from moderators is going to fix it. You just, again, reverted the page to TFD's deletion, claiming that it's only me that is opposed to your "consensus," even though there are only FOUR editors who have commented on it, and TWO on each "side." (Take a look again.) This "consensus" was reached in a couple of hours??? Are you trying to be funny? This is not even CLOSE to the proper way to edit pages, and I'm going to be reporting this stuff to the appropriate venue. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The content in question sat here without controversy for many months before today's disagreement materialized. I've reverted it to the stable version, since neither "side" in this discussion is in a position to claim consensus, not that it hasn't stopped some people from doing so. If edit warring continues, I'm going to request full protection of the page.

And I have a question: Why did this issue suddenly spring up now? Has there been discussion of it elsewhere than here? It fails the smell test that a bunch of editors would only discover today that they don't like the sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Assam violence was recently in the news. Shrigley (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Shrigley! OK, that's an explanation of the interest popping up now. It doesn't, however, justify a revert war over violence that predates 2012, nor content that has been here since before then. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Current sources belie the claims made in this article - which means that the claims fail. BM, however, fails to accept what current sources state - and he accuses me at ANI of being "extremely pro-Christian" which means I somehow doubt that he is sans POV on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have current sources, that's very helpful. Do please bring them here, and discuss them in a manner that can lead to consensus. That's much better than summarily deleting the sources that already exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This absurd deletion nonsense has been reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts: --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Absurd deletion nonsense" is rather an attack on your part -- the fact is that there is doubt as to the strength of the claims made, and thus we must use best sourcing, and not wjay you personally know to be the truth here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a rehash of a comment I made in April 2011:

How about the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism? In the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, it begins with this paragraph:
"Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." (p. 963)
Here is another line from the article: "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." (p. 967) The only way to conclude that this group does NOT fit into the definition of "Christian Terrorism," is if one has an agenda to deny the existence of "Christian Terrorism." In light of the many sources that have presented here, no other conclusion can be drawn. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You have provided a source attacking the prevailing academic consensus. Notice that the textbook Chronologies of Modern Terrorism that was published the following year still classifies it as a "Nationalist terrorist group...." You need to show that this alternative view has gained acceptance. Has it never occured to you this group may be in dispute with others because they want land to support their population and do not like the central government telling them how to live? Or is resistance always the result of an irrational belief system? TFD (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another BBC article about the NLFT. Note what it says here:
"The NLFT is larger and better armed. It says it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian. The NLFT has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda."
Like I said, they can have more than one agenda...and they clearly belong on this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that only 90% of the NLFT's top cadres are Christian. Certainly one would expect that 100% of al Qaeda'a top cadres are Muslims. Does al Qaeda encourage non-Muslims to join? How many al Qaeda terrorists are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist? On the other hand, I expect that 100% of NLFTs agree with the organizations stated objective to "to establish an ‘independent’ Tripura through an armed struggle". TFD (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Highpoint cites (given on the ANI/ page) make clear that the "conversion" was mainly from the 1840s, that while there has been terrorism in the past, even the Hindustan Times does not link religion to terrorism there - the areas in question are, in fact, heavily Christian to begin with per the Encyclopedia of India. Collect (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Southern Baptists?

I see some talk on this talk page about the article supposedly saying that the Southern Baptists are supporting terrorism in India. Really? I see mention on the page of the "Baptist Church of Tripura". Is there something also about churchgoers in the US? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from, either. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Mentioned in at least two of the sources cited -- but indicative of how some appear to view it see

Just a year before the NLFT started all these atrocities in India, the Southern Baptist Church of the United States of America had given a clarion call to bring the light of the gospel to “millions of Hindus and Jews lost in the darkness” of their religions

Since the foundation of the NLFT, the Southern Baptist Church has been supporting this violent campaign by providing funding and arms for the group.

One of the sources currently used in the WP article for calling the Christians "Christian terrorists" says, in fact:

Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions

Which means we should ascribe the claim of "forced conversions" per that source to "Radical Hindu religious groups" and not assert it was a fact. Collect (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC analysis is entitled "Tripura's tribal strife" and calls the NLFT one of "the two main separatist rebel groups". Certainly nationalist terrorists expect citizens to unite based on ethnic, religious or ideological lines, but they are distinct from religious terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, that have religion as their guiding influence. TFD (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
...and yet the BBC article specifically states, "The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura," and the one I just added to the talk page states that, "It says it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian." Also, you put a lot of credence in the articles which mention that X% of the members are Christian...but those articles never state whether that means the others are non-Christian, or whether they are simply not available for classification. Given the nature of the tribal areas of NE India, and the politics involved, it might simply be a trick of language. Either way, none of the RS says that X% of the NLFT are "Muslims," "Hindus," or whatever... You give all this credence to this minor percentage issue...but absolutely nothing to all of the RS describing them as Christian Terrorists, engaged in forcible conversions to Christianity, picking targets based on religious faith, and working to create a Christian State? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And you ignore what one of the sources in the article clearly states - that the claims are by "radical Hindu" and not "fact, and you seem to think the Encyclopedia of India and the Hindustan Times are also wrong becasue you "know" that the evil Christians rape and murder Hindus there. Sorry -- your POV is showing far too clearly here. Collect (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles, both on the page and all over the Internet, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NLFT (and other Christian Terrorist organizations in the region) engages in forced conversions and the forced opposition to all non-Christian religions. Saying that they don't, in spite of news articles from the BBC and elsewhere , is no different than Holocaust Denial, and done for the same reason: Apologetics for murderers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
REDACT that attack on me as a "Holocaust denier" post haste please. It is not funny, it is grotresquely objectionable, and is contrary to all Misplaced Pages policies on its face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so all of that argument is about something that is stated in some of the source material, but that is not repeated here on the page. In other words, because one can find controversial claims in some of the sources, it's not good enough to leave the controversial claims off the page, in deference to the preponderance of sourcing per WP:UNDUE, but we have to delete the entire section for fear that our readers might actually go and look at some of the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Nagaland and Assam claims

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The artucle currenly asserts that "liberation groups" in Nagaland and in Assam are "Christian terrorists." Do reliable sources allow using the Misplaced Pages voice to make such claims? The claims include assertions that Hindus are forcibly converted, that they are supported as terrorists by Southern Baptists, etc. Current events noted in reliable sources do not support the charges of "Christian terrorism" nor does the "SATP,ORG" used as the reference for some of the claims make any claim of "Christian terrorism." 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I found the current sourcing to be insufficient for the claims made about political organizations, and note that prior discussions have been fairly evenly split thereon. Collect (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Note the reading I have of the SATP.ORG page is insufficient to warrant the claims made. (That one group is 90% Christian in leadership, but not in membership != "Christian terrorism", nor is the claim that the Southern Baptists are a terrorist organization.) Collect (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment from involved editor. The characterization as "fairly evenly split" is a bit, um, imprecise. There are numerous sources documenting forced conversion to Christianity, and the word "Christ" in the self-given names of the terrorist groups. I hope that uninvolved editors will simply read what the page says and look at the sources cited, and not be misled by what's on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
IOW, any organization with "Christ" in its name is "Christian terrorist" by your standards, whether or not the "terrorism" is related to the Christianity of its leaders? Collect (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And I'd bet that if the organization had the words "Muslim," "Pagan," "Hindu," or "Atheist" in their name, he'd have no issue with referring to them as "XXX Terrorist." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That has to rank with the most asinine posts on any topic in the history of Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nor was that response particularly helpful. As I already said, I hope that uninvolved editors will look past the unpleasantness of this talk page, and look directly at the page content and the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any need to make that bet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment from involved editor. There are numerous news reports, from local Indian entities, as well as outside ones like the BBC, noting the various organizations' Christian objectives (forced conversions, establishing a Christian State, prohibiting non-Christian activities, assassination of non-Christian figures, etc.). This is nothing more than a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh yeah, and the SATP article clearly states that the NSCN manifesto includes the goal of a "Nagaland for Christ." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The NLFT's main objective is to "to establish an ‘independent’ Tripura through an armed struggle". There is no restriction on non-Christians joining and 10% of its top cadres are not Christian. Sources describe it as a nationalist or separatist group. TFD (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Similarly the "National Socialist Council of Nagaland" has as its objective, "to establish a ‘Greater Nagaland’ (‘Nagalim’ or the People’s Republic of Nagaland) based on Mao Tse Tung’s ideology. Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a spiritual outlook – ‘Nagaland for Christ’." Since Nagaland is 90% Christian, it makes sense that the group accepts Christianity but their main objective is independence. TFD (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories: