Talk:Christian Identity/Archive 2

Adam and Adamites
I'm not clear how much of this section applies to all CI adherents and how much to the Two Seed adherents. 'Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA''By George Michael says:

"There is no single book or document that is accepted as the authoritative doctrine of this theology. Some subscribe to the so-called “two seeds doctrine,” which posits that the biblical character of Adam in the Garden of Eden was preceded by inferior races designated as “pre-Adamic.” According to this doctrine, Eve was seduced by the snake (Satan) and procreated with a representative of the pre-Adamic race. Hence was born Cain, the progenitor of the Jews, who would go on to procreate with other pre-Adamic races. The non-White races of today are considered to be the descendents of these pre-Adamic races and are referred to derisively as “mud people.” By contrast Abel was putatively born a pure offspring and was the progenitor of the “Aryan” or “White seed.” Thus Identity believers trace their conflict with Jews back to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Other variants of Christian Identity see contemporary Jews as impostors, and claim that they are actually the descendants of a long-lost Eurasian tribe, the Khazars. 109"

More useful stuff at the link. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Identity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050729014548/http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp to http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222054659/http://www.gaymangate.com/JoplinGlobe1-28-2001-1.pdf to http://www.gaymangate.com/JoplinGlobe1-28-2001-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported categories removed per WP:CATV
Hello, I noticed there were a TON of categories added here, and I took a look at that which is actually supported by the article and its sources. Many of the cats were not mentioned at all, some were wholly contradictory to the topic, and so I have pared them down to those that are discussed by the article and backed up by reliable secondary sources, as required by the WP:CATV guideline. Thanks! 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories again
Hello,

I noticed that the article and  have a very different set of categories. Some apply (and should probably be placed in both the article and the category, with exceptions), some are redundant as already implied by another category, and should be removed per WP:SUBCAT, and some are not backed by any claim in the body of the article, and should probably be removed per WP:CATV and/or WP:CATDEF. A similar topic was raised above, without much discussion.

Categories currently found in, besides the eponymous Category:Christian Identity: Category:Antisemitism in the United States Category:Anti-black racism Category:Christian fundamentalism Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent Category:Identity politics Category:Late modern Christian antisemitism Category:Nordicism Category:Politics and race in the United States Category:Pseudohistory Category:Racism in the United States Category:Right-Wing Militia Category:White separatism Category:White supremacy in the United Kingdom Category:White supremacy in the United States

Categories currently found in : Category:Apocalyptic groups Category:Christian new religious movements Category:Christian terrorism in the United States Category:Heresy in Christianity Category:Late modern Christian antisemitism Category:Neo-Nazism Category:Nordicism Category:Religion and race Category:White supremacist groups in the United States Category:Wikipedia categories named after ideologies Category:Right-Wing Militia

Summary:
 * Category:Antisemitism in the United States: already a mother category of Category:Right-Wing Militia, useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:Anti-black racism: already implied by Category:White supremacist groups in the United States.
 * Category:Apocalyptic groups: the only claim in article is the unsourced statement that many adherents are Millennialist, which is too short to be a defining characteristic per WP:DEFINING. It is even written further down, with source, that Christian Identity adherents reject the notion of a Rapture, which is clearly an eschatological concept.
 * Category:Christian fundamentalism: OK, definitely a part thereof.
 * Category:Christian new religious movements: this category is for actual religious movements, sects or cults, while Christian Identity is defined in the article as an interpretation of Christianity, not an organized religion, and not connected with specific Christian denominations, so this other already present categories apply better.
 * Category:Christian terrorism in the United States: terrorism is mentioned in the article, albeit for the South African branch, so OK.
 * Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent: presented in lede as a basic belief of the group, so obviously OK. However I would apply this category to the article only, not the eponymous category, because in my understanding it does not apply to the entire category tree. In other words, being an adherent of Christian Identity does not make oneself a descendant of the Israelites, as the claim is that Nordic/Germanic people descend from the Israelites. In terms of Wikipedia categories, it means that belonging to Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent is not inherited by the entire sub-tree below Category:Christian Identity.
 * Category:Heresy in Christianity: although sources say that the group is "Christian in name only", this is not enough to be labelled as a heresy. The term heresy is usually reserved to people and theologies that have actually be judged as such by an organization such as a Church council or a religious court, and this does not seem to be the case here unless proven otherwise.
 * Category:Identity politics: already implied by all the racism and white supremacist categories, so useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:Late modern Christian antisemitism: OK
 * Category:Neo-Nazism: it is claimed in article 1°) that The idea that "lower races" are mentioned in the Bible (in contrast to Aryans) was posited in [a] 1905 book by Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, a volkisch writer seen by many historians as a major influence on Nazism. Adolf Hitler, however, did not subscribe to the belief that the Israelites of the Bible were Aryans; and 2°) that The theology was promoted by George Lincoln Rockwell (1918 – 1967), the founder of the American Nazi Party. This is a bit weak for justifying a direct link between Christian Identity as a group and/or theology and Neo-Nazism. If you consider all White supremacist groups in the United States or all Right-Wing Militia to be Neo-Nazis, these categories themselves should be placed in Category:Neo-Nazism or one of its subcategories. Otherwise, Christian Identity could be placed in a more appropriate subcat, such as Category:Neo-Nazi concepts (but is it, really?), or Category:Neo-Nazi organizations in the United States, where Aryan Brotherhood and The Order (white supremacist group) already are.
 * Category:Nordicism: clearly applies, OK.
 * Category:Politics and race in the United States: implied by Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, so useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:Pseudohistory: if this is a reference to the Israelite descent theory, it should for the same reason be applied to the article only. However, a better move may be to place mother Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent in Category:Pseudohistory.
 * Category:Racism in the United States: implied by Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, so useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:Religion and race: seems to me a far-fetched linked to a loosely defined category. The topic is better served by inclusion in Category:Late modern Christian antisemitism, which is redundant per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:Right-Wing Militia: OK
 * Category:White separatism: implied by Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, so useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:White supremacy in the United Kingdom: no claim found in article of an actual presence of any group in the UK, so no basis for categorization there per WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF.
 * Category:White supremacy in the United States: implied by Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, so useless per WP:SUBCAT.
 * Category:White supremacist groups in the United States: clearly applies, OK.
 * Category:Wikipedia categories named after ideologies: OK.

In this light, can you explain your reverts, and give your arguments for which categories you may wish to keep, move or otherwise improve? Place Clichy (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TL;DNR. I assume you have a point to make.  Please make it in a concise manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories were a mess, as shown for instance by the many inconsistencies between categories set in the article and . For instance, there is little point in placing the article in Category:White supremacy in the United States, and placing the eponymous category in Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, which is a subcategory, per guideline WP:SUBCAT. I made what I believe are improvements, which you blanket reverted  . Per WP:BRD, I invite you to discuss, for each category, if it is appropriate to have the article it in, or not. I also invite  who have recently shown interest in the article's categories. If you have nothing to say, I'll restore my improvements. Place Clichy (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not do that unless and until you have a consensus on this page to do so. Changes made when edits are disputed without a consensus behind them are subject to be reverted.  I'm awaiting your  ''concise' statement concerning that actual changes you made, not the theory behind categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this not concise enough for you? Each category inclusion can be challenged, and they can be discussed one by one, I see no way around it. You would help this discussion if you provided at least one example of why you think a category I added, changed or removed should remain as is or not be added. You're citing consensus, but consensus is not standing alone in the way of any proposed amendment. I'm waiting your arguments on how the improvements I suggest are not improvements to this article. Place Clichy (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Bad redirect?
Searching for "christian identity" in the search box redirects to the article "Christians". 108.200.234.93 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone changed it few days ago. I restored it back to this article as it has been for over a decade. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the redirect for changing. —Srnec (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is an outstanding question of e.g. whether this is the primary topic for the term Christian identity, but regardless of the result of that it doesn't seem like there is consensus for this particular move. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Christian Identity → Christian Identity movement – While Christian identity should be redirected to Christians as means of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Once upon a time, I would have opposed on WP:SMALLDIFFS grounds. But "Christian identity" has redirected here since 2007 (until I changed it today). Srnec (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It is more accurate to entitle this page "Christian Identity Movement," as that is what this is, a movement. It is folly to think of the topic/subject of "Christian Identity" as a "movement." Christian Identity is not related to a movement but more to a theological framework for the Christian church, whether catholic, protestant, etc. and their subsequent ecclesiology. So I support the name change for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiha (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about the religion known as "Christian Identity", not about a movement. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Christian Identity, capital "C" capital "I", is the name of the ideology. Blackguard  07:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support renaming to, capital "C" capital "I", because of the confusion with the notion of Christian identity, which for most users means something very different from this group (think Christian culture, Christendom for instance). I would also support alt or  as it is actually an ideology rather than a movement. Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the article states, "Christian Identity is not an organized religion, and is not connected with specific Christian denominations; instead, it is independently practiced by individuals, independent congregations, and some prison gangs". It really does not sound like a "movement", just a bunch of different people with similar beliefs. The fact that the phrase "Christian Identity" could be used to refer to other topics than the topic of the article and might conceivably confuse some people is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A Google Scholar search shows clearly that (i) the phrase "Christian identity" is often used to refer to more than just this movement and (ii) the phrase "Christian Identity movement" is also in use, as in the subtitle of the book Religion and the Racist Right. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * First point is irrelevant as noted. No one ever questioned that the phrase "Christian identity" can be used in various different ways. I noted as much myself. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on any of the other things that "Christian identity" could be used to refer to, so there is no need for disambiguation by moving the article to "Christian identity movement". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Christians, where it redirects? Srnec (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. It shouldn't redirect there and the redirect can easily be changed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You started with "that the phrase ... could be used to refer to other topics than the topic of the article ... is irrelevant", but of course it is completely relevant, since the issue of whether this is the primary topic for the term is only engaged because "the phrase ... could be used to refer to other topics". Hence why I pointed out that RS clearly do use the term in other ways and that therefore it cannot be taken for granted that this topic is primary. Whether Wikipedia has articles or not is, however, irrelevant. As WP:ATDAB says: "If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." Only one of the links on the first page of my Google Scholar search was for this topic. So where is the evidence that it is primary? And where should Christian identity redirect? Srnec (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Got Cite?
"Although they have never identified themselves as such, Westboro Baptist Church adheres to most, if not all, of the tenements of the movement. " This really needs an independent cite.--Cberlet 21:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Plus tenement. Just saying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC).

Tenets vs Beliefs
Why are there separate sections for "Tenets" and "Beliefs." These two terms mean the same thing. Additionally, the last two paragraphs of the Tenets section have nothing to do with tenets or beliefs. They more likely belong in the previous section discussing background. In order to achieve a better and more logical flow of information, I moved the first two paragraphs of "Tenets" to the beginning of "Beliefs" and move the last two paragraphs to close out the section above (which may need an additional subheading). It's not perfect, but it's better than what it was. Butlerblog (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Ezra and St. John
There was a mention of this book somewhere in this article but someone erased it, does anyone know what it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:4CD7:874F:1162:7B5C:CD49:5EC6 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit about William Finck and his "Christogena"
I explained to the editor that Nazis lie, and Finck's a good example. Here he makes it clear he wants to get rid of Jews and Blacks."When we get enough of these Negro and Jewish frauds out in the eye of the public, perhaps sufficient Whites may seriously ponder the necessity for their own survival, to rid the world of Negroes and Jews." It is possible an article could be written on the organisation but it would have to meet WP:ORG and although I can see mentions such as but that's just a mention of his racist forum. I also found his conviction for murder. Doug Weller  talk 11:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)  Doug Weller  talk 12:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing "Groups" section
Within the last 30 days or so, over a series of edits, the "Groups" section was pared down to basically nothing. Through these edits, a number of well-known Identity groups were removed as "unsourced." I have reverted it back to the previous state, with the exception of a couple that I could not verify as being Identity with certainty. If someone takes further issue with the list, please identify which group you feel needs a source. Every one of these could be cited, but that is going to make reading it rather tedious. Most of them are wikilinked to their own page where their Identity association is well documented. Butlerblog (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a further edit to this section that took out the Traditionalist Worker Party and Traditionalist Youth Network groups as these are not necessarily "self-evident" as Identity. They are white supremacist and nationalist, but that doesn't mean they are Christian Identity. I didn't see anything, including the SPLC and ADL entries that include them they are Identity groups. If they were Identity, I would expect SPLC and ADL to say so. I also took out Yahweh's Truth (James Wickstrom) as I do not think this is an active "group" following Wickstrom's death (I don't think it was all that active even before that). Matthew Heimbach and Thomas Robb were removed because they are individuals, not groups (and they're both in the "see also" list of individual anyway). The rest as far as I can see are "self evident" as Identity groups. Butlerblog (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Some additional removals were Tom Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance. Metzger was not a CI adherent, and although WAR's article lists them as CI ideology, I believe there is no supporting source for that. Steven Atkins The Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History specifically states that Metzger's ideology differed from other white supremacists because he rejected basic tenets of CI. For some, the fact that they're all white supremacist may make them all equal, but there are distinct differences. Neo-Nazis and KKK are not automatically the same as CI, so IMO dumping non-CI white supremacists into the "people" or "groups" lists would be like listing John Calvin in a list of people related to Catholicism, simply because they're both Christian. I also removed the Atomwaffen Division. There is no indication that I am aware of that they are Christian Identity. They may have members that are, and there may be crossover, but it a Neo-Nazi group, not CI. Butlerblog (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing Beliefs section
The Beliefs section has grown over time with a lot of "me too" references. This has resulted in some presentation of information in a way that is both disjointed (information does not flow in a related fasion), and redundant (where specific beliefs are stated more than once). I've been reworking it to move information into a more logical order as well as put related information into sections it is related to. The biggest change so far is the change of the "Opposition to miscegenation, homophobia, and anti-Semitism" section. After moving some of the info to other more related sections, this wound the section down to something that really didn't fit the current section title (which really wasn't all that well formed to begin with). It's still not a great section, but it will do for now. Hopefully, this move can be improved upon. Butlerblog (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing this thought, I wound the section mentioned above down to just homophobia - usury was moved to the section on banking and the Fed, anti-semitism (which actually was only a mention of why CI adherents do not see themselves as antisemitic) was moved to the section on Origin beliefs (since it is more related to that section - they see themselves as Israel, and hence do not see themselves as anti-semites). I think at this point, the Beliefs section is far less disjointed now and there is less redundancy in the various sections. Butlerblog (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Related topics
The list of "other related topics" has grown quite large over time (especially recently), and some of the topics in the list would be a stretch to call "related." I did some pruning of this list, but not before reviewing each of the articles that were removed. I'll point out some of the topics removed and why. The topics of "Christian(ity) and (something)" really were not related to Christian Identity. Most of them were specific to historical Christianity and what would be considered "organized" religion, something that CI is not (as actually noted in the article's lede). CI is not denominational Christianity. I also removed topics that are actually exact opposites of CI positions, such as Zionism and Supersessionism. Reconstructionism and its concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy are more closely related to denominational Christianity, and are not Identity positions. And Reptilian conspiracy theory - I think that might be self-evident? I do think there are additional topics here that could be pruned as well as they don't necessarily improve the article, they really are more of a "rabbit hole." If you think something should be added (or added back) or removed, it would be interesting to hear the case for it so we could know the reason. Butlerblog (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some additional (and severe) pruning of the "related topics" list. It is really far too long to be at all useful. Just a few months ago, it was less than twenty, and now it is nearly 40 (and that's after the links removed mentioned above). A lot of these are generally broad topics, and not related to Christian Identity in a direct way. Many are listed in the categories this article is part of.  7 links are terrorism, another 7 are antisemitism.  There are actually several links in the article already for antisemitism, and the article is in several related categories, so it is unnecessary to also link every article on antisemitism in the related topics section. I've trimmed it down to items that are directly related movements, or are somehow more tightly related. If you're adding something back, fine. But consider whether it's really a necessary link that benefits the article and isn't already something a user can get to elsewhere in the article. Butlerblog (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Related people
In addition to the above, the list of related people needs pruning. This does not need to be a comprehensive list of every CI adherent on Wikipedia as well as Neo-nazis and other white supremacists. Almost everyone that gets added to the list is already listed in the CI category this page is linked in, as well as other related categories. There is no need to duplicate information that is already aggregated elsewhere. Keep it to notable CI personalities who have had some influence on CI. Butlerblog (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)