Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism

Christian terrorism

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party
 * 2) -- Has withdrawn from the mediation and article due to a topic ban.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- Banned on June 3, 2015 for sock puppetry-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Banned on June 3, 2015 for sock puppetry-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Banned on June 3, 2015 for sock puppetry-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Banned on June 3, 2015 for sock puppetry-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Christian terrorism and following talk sections.
 * Talk:Christian terrorism
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 48
 * Also, Talk:Christian terrorism, where three of us, sufficiently many to represent all views in the dispute, have already agreed that mediation is worth trying.

Issues to be mediated
Editors have two conflicting views about the available source material for defining "Christian terrorism" and for determining how widely or narrowly the term has been applied to specific individuals or groups. This debate concerns scholarly sources; we all agree that popular sources are comparatively imprecise. The two views:
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * The preponderance of reliable scholarly secondary sources define Christian terrorism specifically as a form of religious terrorism. Under this definition, terrorists who are Christian but who are motivated by factors other than Christian scripture or theology are not Christian terrorists, but instead racists or political terrorists. The academic literature on this subject is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, but is settled, and this typology is established as mainstream scholarship. When editors cite scholarly sources as applying the term Christian terrorism more broadly, either those sources are minority, fringe, or dissenting sources, or the editors are misreading the sources.
 * The available reliable scholarly secondary source material about Christian terrorism is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, and although there are some broad areas of agreement in the preponderance of sources, there are still differences amongst expert sources as to how to apply the term Christian terrorism to particular individuals or groups. Some sources limit the typology to terrorists who are motivated only by Christian scripture or theology, while other sources say that Christian terrorists can be motivated by Christianity in the form of "ethnoreligious identity" or other, not strictly theological, factors, and may have complex motives. At present, there is no dominant consensus amongst expert sources about the latter point. We should treat these sources as having a variety of views, and editors should not limit the page to those sources that apply the definition of Christian terrorism most narrowly.

Some editors perceive the sources as #1, whereas other editors perceive the same sources as #2. The problem we are having is that editors who feel one way have not been able to change the minds of editors who see it the other way. We have all looked at the same sources, and yet opinions seem entrenched. We hope that a structured discussion will help us to sort out how to correctly understand the sources, in this difficult topic area.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree Collect (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree TFD (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree Bladesmulti (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: The RfC has been suspended so that this mediation may take place. If the mediation is rejected due to anyone failing to agree to the mediation, that RfC may clearly then take place. I hope there will be no refusals to the mediation, however. Collect (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I thank Collect, TFD, and Jytdog for their prompt agreement. TransporterMan, I'm dope-slapping myself for not noticing that rule about the RfC, sorry! For what it's worth, it seems to me that, although Bryon's participation here would be helpful, his views would likely be well-represented here by some of the editors already in agreement, and so this mediation process would likely be very productive with or without his active participation. Consequently, what he decides probably has less to do with whether the mediation would be useful, than with what will happen with the RfC, and by extension, whether the requirements for mediation can be satisfied at this time. It's up to Collect, as author of the RfC, and TransporterMan, on behalf of MedCom, and not me, to decide how to proceed if Bryon declines to take part, but I hope that we can find a way to make mediation work in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is that Bryon has very specific and strong views, and that mediation in his absence would likely result in a very short lived series of compromises. I also note that his views are somewhat stronger than the editors here who come closest to representing his views.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are understandable concerns. At the same time, you may, perhaps, want to consider whether his participation in the RfC would be any more productive than his participation in mediation. I would imagine that a consensus in mediation would be supported by the four editors here, and I will personally commit to supporting such a consensus from here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Bryonmorrigan has not posted any edits since before he was notified of the request, we should not assume he has rejected mediation. His last posting was 00:43 23 October.  Perhaps someone could notify him by e-mail.  TFD (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bryon has now gotten here, and has agreed, so we seem to have all editors in agreement to have mediation. Hopefully, we are now good to go. Thanks everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to let MedCom, as well as the other editors here, know that I will be away from editing approximately Nov. 14–20. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Chairperson's Note: I see that there's an RFC pending. I'm afraid that it can't be both ways, this application fails prerequisite for mediation number 8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums" since RFC's are considered a DR proceeding. By rights, I ought to refuse this at this time, but I'll leave it open for another 24 hours or so to see whether Collect's acceptance might indicate that he's willing to drop the RFC. Understand that I'm not pushing that, I just giving you all a chance to decide which way you want to go. If the RFC continues, you can still come back here or to DRN if the RFC doesn't work to solve the dispute. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RFC withdrawn. I would ordinarily go ahead and accept this case at this point and put out a call to the Committee for a member to mediate it since a clear majority of editors have already accepted, but Collect has indicated that the RFC will be refiled if Bryonmorrigan does not accept mediation, which refiling will cause the request to be rejected, so I'm going to let the acceptance/rejection period run until he either accepts, rejects, or the period expires at the end of the day on October 30, 2014 (which will be deemed a rejection by him, but the case will still be accepted due to the number of editors who have accepted prior to that point; if the RFC is refiled after that point, however, the acceptance will probably be revoked and the case rejected). For the Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Accept. This case is accepted for mediation. A call will now be put out to the Committee for a mediator to take the case. Please continue to watchlist this page for updates. For the Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Opening remarks and roll call
My apologies on behalf of the Committee for the long delay in processing this case. Thank you all for your patience.

I've read the request page as it appears thus far and I offer my compliments to Tryptofish for providing a well formed request. In addition I salute all of the participants for stepping forward and agreeing to mediation in spite of prior differences and significant discussion. The process of consensus on Wikipedia can sometimes be drawn out and frustrating. It can become heated and positions may become entrenched. My goal here is to facilitate an environment and process whereby everyone can relax a little bit and explore the possibility of common ground, compromise and potential consensus. Keep in mind that even if we are successful not everyone will get everything they want.

I remind everyone that this is a content only forum and that we will not be addressing any behavioral issues nor will we consider the past actions or editing of any participant. Our sole focus will be to assess where we are now and where we want to be. So please keep your thoughts and discussion moving forward and I thank you in advance for your continued civility and respectfulness to all the participants. Even those that disagree with you. :-)

This case is now open. Tryptofish, Jytdog, Collect, TFD,  Bryonmorrigan and Bladesmulti can you please indicate that you are ready to proceed? Cheers!-- — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) ready. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Collect (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC) with a short hiatus at Thanksgiving for sure
 * Yes, I'm here and ready (albeit I could use a good night's sleep after my airplane journey earlier today). Thank you to Keithbob for the kind words, and for taking on this voluntary task, and thank you to all the other editors who agreed to participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Red 5, standing by. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Ready.  TFD (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Ready. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute
Great! Everyone is here. Certainly we will give some consideration for the Thanksgiving holiday. Now. I'd like us to agree on the core of the dispute. My understanding is that the dispute is over the scholarly definition of the article's subject: Christian terrorism. Is this a fair assessment of the core of the dispute? If not, what would you add or change? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some editors have a narrow definition of the term and maintain that the article should only include information about terrorism performed by Christians who were motivated by Christian scripture or theology. In their view, this narrow definition is the predominant view of scholars on the subject.
 * Other editors have a broader definition of the term and maintain that the term also includes acts of terrorism motivated by "ethnoreligious identity" or other not strictly theological factors. In their view there is no clear consensus amongst the scholarly sources as to the narrowness of the definition and therefore the article should represent the entire spectrum of scholarly views.


 * Rather than seek a "scholarly definition" (In short, I demur that the only issue is the "scholarly definition of 'Christian terrorism', as we seem in concord that no single definition of that ilk exists) I would suggest the issue is how to delimit the topic for the purposes of Wikipedia, including the historical period to be used, and the definition of "Christian terrorism" to be consistently used for all the topics therein. Right now, we have no solid basis for historical delimitation, and no consistent definition which is applied uniformly.  If we allow every example where a "Christian" of any sort has engaged in "terrorism" of any sort, we will end up with a totally meaningless and massive article for our readers.   When we start discussing this, I would suggest we limit the topic to post-WW I, and to examples where an organized group of some sort engages in terrorism for the specific purpose of advancing a theological objective associated with Christianity. I would trust discussion would result in some sort of rational delimitation of the area to be covered. Collect (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would hope that the mediation process could begin with examining the question of how to define "Christian terrorism" – not as editors would define it, but as reliable scholarly secondary sources do. After that, I suspect that editors may want to discuss whether or not to include specific examples on the page, and I would welcome discussion of anything and everything that participating editors would raise in that regard. But I think that the discussion of definition needs to come first, because that, in turn, determines scope. In regard to specific examples, Collect just raised the possibility of setting a post-WW I timeframe, and that seems to me to be at odds with the content currently on the page, although it's true that most early examples have been non-controversial whereas most later examples are controversial.


 * I tried very hard in my request for this mediation to accurately capture the two kinds of definition, and I stand by the way I stated it there. So, in the numbering I used, and that was also used by Keithbob in his briefer summary, number 1 is a narrower definition (or really a narrower application of the definition), and number 2 is a broader one. More importantly, the disagreement is whether there is an established consensus in the source material for number 1, or whether no such consensus exists in the source material. If such a consensus exists, then sources that adhere to number 1 represent the scholarly mainstream, and sources presented by editors as adhering to number 2 are either minority views or are being misread by editors. Logically, then, we should ask what is the evidence in the source material for such a scholarly consensus. I think such evidence could take two possible forms:


 * Statements in the sources that apply the definition broadly, that they acknowledge that they are minority or dissenting views. For example, if someone like Jeurgensmeyer says something like: "Although what I am saying here goes against most scholarship, I am making this argument because of xyz."
 * Statements in sources that actually delineate the existence of mainstream and minority views, identifying the narrow application of the definition as an established mainstream, and broader applications of the definition as a minority position.


 * If we get such evidence, then we would have good reason to believe that a narrower application of the definition is what should guide inclusion or exclusion of material on the page. But I want to point out that we need to be careful in identifying the second kind of evidence, so as not to fall afoul of WP:NOR. We need to be careful to determine that the source is identifying a mainstream, rather than editors reading it into the source without the source really saying it. Specifically, a scholarly source that says something like: "A review of all the evidence clearly shows that my narrow analysis is correct and that other person's broader analysis is mistaken" is exactly the kind of argument that happens in academia all the time, but does not constitute evidence that such a consensus exists, merely that the argument exists. We need evidence that the sources recognize such a consensus, because otherwise we would have original research by editors claiming the existence of the scholarly consensus. I think that would be a good starting point for this mediation discussion.


 * By way of illustration, an example of a page where there is a consensus about mainstream and minority amongst reliable sources can be seen at Cancer. An example instead of where competing theories have roughly coequal status in the source material is at Neural coding. Of course, those pages are about science, whereas here, we are dealing with a less established and more subjective source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a good summary, but I think there are as many views as there are editors. I prepared a summary of what I think, and ask that each editor be allowed to present in a separate section what they think.  On a positive note, most of these editors have come across one another in other articles and this is not the typical dispute of two groups of editors who are in broad disagreement with one another throughout the project.  So I think all of us are assuming good faith.  TFD (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bryon's Discussion (Separated solely due to length, to avoid confusion):

My take is that "Christian Terrorism" should include all groups that INCLUDE an objective that is aimed at: (1) advancing the Christian religion through terrorist means (i.e., "forced conversion"); (2) promoting the idea of Christians combating non-Christian religions through terrorist means (i.e., "Christian violence against Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc."); or (3) advancing some kind of Christian/Biblical objective through terrorism (i.e., "bringing about the 'end times'" or something"). I don't think anyone here is going to argue that an agenda of either 1, 2, or 3 is not necessarily an example of "Christian Terrorism".  I believe the main issue comes out when: (A) people argue that Group X cannot have more than one ideology; or (B) people propose the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

(A) is often used as a way to "negate" the existence of "Christian Terrorism", and/or remove certain groups, on the basis that Group X also has a "nationalist" or other political agenda, in addition to a "Christian Terrorist" one. I believe this is completely absurd, as it proposes the idea that all groups have a single agenda, and can only be defined under that single agenda. To use the Nazis as an example, this kind of reductionist thinking would have one believe that the Nazis can only be defined based on one of their ideologies. Under this thinking, Editor X could reduce their ideology to their "National Socialism" economic positions. By doing this, the reductionist would then say that they cannot be included in a definition of "Anti-Semitic" groups, because their main ideology is "National Socialism" economic positions, and "Anti-Semitism" is not included in those specifically economic agendas. It's just silly. Just as any political organization can have religious, economic, and governmental positions, so can terrorist organizations, which are essentially just political organizations supported by violence anyways. I see this agenda proposed by both: (I) editors who wish to "defend" Christianity by proposing the idea that only non-Christian religious groups (i.e., "Muslims") can be "terrorist"; and (II) editors who dispute the existence of ANY religion-based terrorism.

(B) is often used by "drive-by" editors, claiming that "terrorism" cannot be "Christian" because of certain Christian scriptures or teachings. This argument is rarely presented by the more experienced editors, but they occasionally "egg on" the instigators.

I would further argue that inclusion on this page should be based upon any group meeting any of the following elements:
 * Forced conversion to Christianity
 * Advocation of terrorism aimed at promoting a Christian agenda
 * Advocation of terrorism aimed at non-Christians because of the victims' religious identity
 * Limitations upon membership in a terrorist organization solely to Christians

Obviously, not every group fulfills all 4 of the above elements, but if RS establishes that Group X engages in any of them, and/or RS specifically describes the group as "Christian Terrorist" or engaging in "Christian Terrorism", then they should be included under the definition of "Christian Terrorism". If there is dispute as to whether the group fulfills those criteria, and that dispute is backed up with RS, then a statement(s) describing that dispute can be added to the discussion of that group (as opposed to the some editors' attempts at deleting any mention of any group where there is a dispute).

I would also agree to Collect's proposed limitation of examples to recent history, as I think discussions of whether Charlemagne's beheadings of Saxons who wouldn't convert to Christianity, the genocide against Native Americans, and even the Goa Inquisition (examples that would not normally be referred to as "terrorism" in modern language) would qualify as "Christian Terrorism" would be counter-productive. (Just as The Holocaust is not usually referred to as "terrorism".)

Hopefully, that was coherent. ;) -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I just want to clarify what you are saying. Do you mean that the war between the U.S. and Ba'athist Iraq was an example of religious violence?  Both presidents claimed to be religious.  TFD (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't see how a conventional war could be considered "terrorism"; (2) I don't know much about what Saddam Hussein may have claimed, but I don't remember even "W" claiming that Christian scripture "justified" that conflict. Maybe you misunderstood my last paragraph, as I was specifically agreeing to Collect's proposed limitation against bringing up distant historical conflicts and applying the term "terrorism" to them.  (I've attempted to clarify that statement, as it did appear a little "clunky" on second read.)  As neither the USA, nor the former government of Iraq were "terrorist organizations" under any RS definition of the term, your comparison falls apart pretty quickly.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about motivation for violence, but it is alright if you do not wish to address that example. In any case I disagree with Collect on history. Mainstream sources identify historical examples of Christian terrorism (in the Crusades, the Gunpowder Plot). That makes sense though since the mentality of contemporary religious terrorists is pre-modern, and explains why it died out in Europe but has had a revival in the Islamic world. TFD (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand your position, based on what you've argued in the past, compared to above. You think the Crusades and Gunpowder Plot were acts of "Christian Terrorism", but NOT any of the violence in modern Northeastern India where Christian groups use terrorism to force people to convert to Christianity and scare them into staying away from temples, assassinate Hindu religious leaders, plot to blow up temples, etc., all in order to establish independent Christian states?  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You link your comments to "cognitive dissonance." That is sarcasm meant to deride my reasoning, and I would like to ask you to avoid that approach.  I find it irritating and it is not persuasive.  Please remove the link.
 * If their motivation were to set up a theocratic state run on (what they consider) Christian principles, then they would be religious terrorists. OTOH, if they want to set up a state for their ethnic group, then the motivation would be ethnic/nationalist.  These groups, while majority Christian, include Marxists, atheists, and people of different religions, as well as Christians who are not particularly religious.  There is no indication they would welcome Christian immigrants outside their ethnic group.  That sets them aside from the Gunpowder Plots, which were entirely made up of devout Catholics who thought that England should return to the nation of Catholic Christendom.
 * So we return to this issue: Is our disagreement over the definition of Christian terrorism, or is it about which groups fit the criteria?
 * TFD (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if you believe that the Crusades fit the definition of "terrorism", "Christian" or not, then yes, we disagree about the definition of "Christian Terrorism". And frankly, I would be very surprised if you were able to present RS showing that the general scholarly opinion is that the Crusades were "terrorism", much less "Christian Terrorism".  Furthermore, the arguments that you make against the Northeastern India groups completely fall apart when you compare them to the Crusades.  You claim that because the NE Indian groups seek ethnic nationalist goals, IN ADDITION TO their Christian goals, then they cannot be considered "Christian Terrorist"?  Are you not aware of the many economic, political, etc., goals of the Crusades?  I mean, this is basically World History 101, and I don't think I'm presenting anything that isn't widely known.  Heck, in the Fourth Crusade, you had Christians fighting against Christians for Pete's sake!  And are you seriously arguing that every. single. person. involved in either side were either Christian or Muslim, and both sides were 100% of either?  There were no Jews involved?  No Christian-on-Christian violence?  No Atheists, Agnostics, or otherwise non-believing people who just happened to see that there were non-religious goals that they could realize through participation in the Crusades?  (And you wonder why I linked to "cognitive dissonance"?)  Bottom Line: The fact that a group has more than one ideological goal is immaterial.  A group can be both "Maoist" (or "Nationalist", or "Socialist", or "Racist", etc.) and "Christian", and the fact that a tiny percentage of Maoist Atheists are able to overlook that Christian agenda, because they support an organization's other goals, does not make those goals disappear.  Your argument is a fundamentally illogical position.  It's like when people claim that slavery was not a cause of the American Civil War, because other causes existed...or that the Confederacy cannot as a whole be held to be "pro-slavery" because there were black soldiers who fought on the side of the Confederacy.  A tiny exception does not negate a group's stated goals and actions.  The RS is clear, and overwhelming.  Your personal WP:OR on the subject is immaterial.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say the Crusades were Christian terrorism, but that there was Christian terrorism "in the Crusades". Gus Martin and other writers have mentioned this, and he has an entire seciton on the Crusades in his book Essentials of Terrorism, p. 140. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some individuals committed acts of terrorism based on their religious beliefs. But there is general agreement that the Crusades were an example of religiously motivated violence. The fact they killed fellow Christians is a red herring. You consider the Northern Ireland conflict religiously motivated, yet both sides are Christian. The Christians killed by the Crusaders were not Catholic and it is probable that the Crusaders were not aware they were Christians, or did not consider them to be such.

Certainly a group can be both Maoist and nationalist. The issue is what is their motivation for terrorism. Does their group include non-Maoists do they lay down their weapons when independance is acheived, or do they attack fellow nationalists and only lay down their weapons once socialism is achieved? If the Indian goverment suddenly became Maoist, would they pledge allegiance to it?

In your U.S. example, the question is what was the motivation of the South. Individual motives may vary, but when they form a group, the group itself has objectives, regardless of the individual objectives. So fascist, socialists, communists, Catholics, Protestants and atheists may differ on what an independant Ireland would be like, but they come together as a group to pursue a joint objective - the independence of Ireland.

Odd btw that you would reject my example of the Iraq War because war is not terrorism, then introduce the U.S. Civil War. But if you want to explore the analogy, the objective of the Civil War was the independance of the South, even if supporters had different views. Simiarly the North refused to recognize the CSA because it thought the CSA should remain part of the USA. " If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. " (Lincoln, 1862) Once the issue of independance of the South was settled, the war would end.

But we are digressing. Are you agreeing that the motivation must be religious? If so then there is really only one definition and we are in agreement on it.

TFD (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To address these issues, I will separate them:
 * TFD: "Are you agreeing that the motivation must be religious?"
 * Bryon: I am agreeing that A motivation must be religious. If the entire organization has a distinctive religious agenda, even if combined with other political agendas, then that organization meets the definition.  Most organizations have more than one agenda, or combine a variety of political positions into that agenda, while still holding all of those positions.  A group can be both "Maoist" and "Nationalist", just as it may be both "racist" and "anti-Communist", or in this case, "Ethnic Separatist" and "Christian Terrorist".  I really don't see what the problem is, here...
 * TFD: "Odd btw that you would reject my example of the Iraq War because war is not terrorism, then introduce the U.S. Civil War."
 * Bryon: I was only using it for a discussion of logic, not as an example of "terrorism". The point was that the issue of slavery was a significant part of the motivation, but not all of it, but most RS has no problem with describing it in that fashion.
 * TFD: "You consider the Northern Ireland conflict religiously motivated, yet both sides are Christian."
 * Bryon: You are confusing me with someone else. I have repeatedly stated that I am woefully uninformed in regards to that issue, and therefore have opted out of discussing it.  Any contributions to that issue that I would have would be based on watching movies.  LOL.
 * TFD: "I did not say the Crusades were Christian terrorism, but that there was Christian terrorism "in the Crusades"."
 * Bryon: Well then I apologize. I misread that sentence as saying that the entirety of "The Crusades" was "Christian Terrorism" on the part of the Crusaders.  You can then understand why I felt that was ridiculous, correct?
 * TFD: "The issue is what is their motivation for terrorism."
 * Bryon: Well, I think that is best viewed when compared with other Northeastern Indian ethnic separatist terrorist organizations. For example, the All Tripura Tiger Force fights for many of the same ethnic separatist goals, but without the goal of a Christian state.  As the BBC in 2000 stated, comparing the two groups, "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." .  So basically, the ATTF is simply ethic separatist, but the NLFT is both separatist and Christianist.
 * Like I keep saying, I really don't understand what the "problem" is here. If a terrorist organization was killing people who would not convert to Islam, and openly stating its intent to create a Muslim state...but also happened to be Communist, I don't think anyone would be like, "I'm sorry, but you can only refer to them as 'Communist Terrorists'."  You seem to like the phrase, "religiously motivated violence".  Well, how about the following:
 * "...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, ..."
 * That's from the Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, peer-reviewed journal article that is cited as a reference. I've also pointed out numerous Indian sources which even specifically use the term "Christian Terrorist".  These groups are largely ignored in the West, so it's not surprising that there's not a lot of non-Indian RS on the subject.  But that's no reason to let this group "off the hook", as it were.  Answer this question, if you please: "Do you think that 'Christian Terrorism' exists currently anywhere in the world?"  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, again, most of these authors discuss nationalist violence, then state that national identity can have ideological, religious or racial dimensions, which form sub-groups. One author refers to it as "religious communal terrorism", which is a sub-category of communal (or nationalist) terrorism, which is distinct from religious terrorism.  And to be clear, no one referred to the IRA as "Communist terrorists", even though they were officially Marxist at one time.  Because their objective was the re-unification of Ireland, not world revolution, and they accepted non-Marxists and of course were able to abandon Marxism when it no longer met their objectives.
 * I am sure Christian terrorism exists and agreed that the Maronite Monks were Christian terrorists. However, religious terrorism has been rare in the past few centuries and only made a comeback in the 1980s "Fourth Wave" that followed the Iranian Revolution and even then only in the Islamic world.  Unfortunately, there is little more than passing mention of Christian terrorism in sources.  Of course Christians commit terrorist acts too, but more often in the name of nationalism or left or right ideology.  More significantly, they hold the power in the world and are able to carry out violence through states, which is not normally considered terrorism.  It's like my saying that rich people are less likely to beg than poor people.  It does not mean rich people are better, just that they have better ways of raising small sums of cash.
 * TFD (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute part 2
These are good posts with valuable insights and information but we are getting off track here. Which is easy to do. What I want to accomplish first is to set down and agree upon the core of the dispute. Something we can refer to periodically that will keep us on point. What I'm looking for is a concise summary of the dispute encapsulated in a few sentences or a single paragraph. The summary should delineate in general terms what are the parameters for this mediation. Please keep in mind that even agreeing on a summary or defining the core of the dispute will require some compromise and consensus building. This is because there will always be nuances or related aspects of the dispute that some participants want to include which others do not see as important or germane to the discussion. So the purpose of creating a 'core of the dispute' statement is to align ourselves in agreement as to why we are here and what the limitations and parameters of this moderated discussion should be. So in this first stage of mediation we are not substantiating or arguing our respective positions (mine being neutral) but rather agreeing on what the disagreement is about. To put it in more positive terms. What is the issue(s) that we hope to resolve in this mediated discussion? With this in mind could someone please propose an amended or replacement version of the summary I submitted?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * from my perspective, Tryptofish said it concisely and fairly in his initial request for mediation. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

While I understand the first alternative, I am having difficulty understanding the second. How broad is it? TFD (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, I guess I'm starting to become confused, but which two alternatives are you referring to? I'm guessing that you are referring to "1" and "2" in my original request statement, and as subsequently summarized by Keithbob. If that's what you are asking, then I guess one way to think about it is that "1" is basically what you have been arguing for on the article talk page, and "2" is a broader application of the definition. As for how broad it is, assuming that it is even correct, I think that's very much open to discussion in this mediation process. If, for example, someone sees the sources as going a little broader than "1", but not broader than [fill in the blank], that would be exactly the kind of thing I'd be happy to discuss here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And, in trying to respond to Keithbob's most recent questions, I guess I want to make a strong plea that the mediation process start with discussing the broadness/narrowness of the definition, and that would be pretty much as you summarized it. In summarizing it, you left out some nuance: it's less a difference between how sources make the definition than in how the sources apply the same definition – but that's not a serious problem with your summary. What I would strongly prefer not to do is to either (1) get bogged down in specific examples at the outset, or (2) base any decisions on individual editor opinions. Thus, where Bryon wrote those four bullet points, my reaction is that we need secondary sources for them, to avoid WP:OR. For that reason, I proposed above that we look for two kinds of evidence in the source material, as to whether there is or is not a mainstream consensus in the sources for the narrower applications of the term. I would really like for us to start with that. If we can come to an editorial consensus about that, then we will have a much easier time dealing with specific examples. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How broad is it? If someone was raised a Christian but joins the Weather Underground, are they a Christian terrorist?  TFD (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My answer to that question is that it is answered by what the sources say, not by opinions held by me or by anyone else here. As for the Weather Underground, I am unaware of any reliable sources that call them Christian terrorists, but if someone wants to correct me, go ahead. But my more important reply is really what Jytdog said some lines below: we are here for mediation and not to keep rehashing old arguments; we should focus on replying to what Keithbob has asked us. I've replied to Keithbob, that we should start by looking for evidence as to what the consensus is in reliable sources about how to define "Christian terrorism" and how to apply that definition to specific groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Weather Underground were trying to establish a "Christian Nation", or engaging in forced conversions to Christianity, you might have an issue. Otherwise, most likely no.  But I don't see any of the editors involved in this dispute alleging that someone's mere background as a Christian makes that person's terrorism into "Christian Terrorism", unless the aims or ideological reasons for the terrorism are based in some kind of Christian religious belief.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I find your "if any condition is met" to be quite overbroad, and unlikely to be accepted by any consensus. Further, the "forced conversion" claims so far presented do not show anyone being killed for "failure to convert" and, in some cases, the offended group engages in specific acts of violence against those who do convert ("apostate conversion"  commonly found in Hindu and Islamic areas, among others) -  I suggest that therefore we start off by deciding that the "if any accusation is made" is insufficient to label any group as "terrorist" from the get-go. Collect (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "At least 20 Hindu tribals, including a senior priest of the Jirania Ashram, Santi Kali Maharaj, have been killed by NLFT rebels in the past two years for disobeying orders." . That's from a 2001 article on the NLFT that is already cited on the page.  (Note: The rest of the article establishes that the "orders" deal with forced conversions.)  If you want to get into a discussion of the alleged actions of non-Christian groups, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate venue on WP for that.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan, if by Christian state, you mean a state where citizenship is dependant on Christian religion rather than ethnicity, then I would agree with you. But if it merely means a state where citizenship is based on ethnicity, and most members of the ethnic group are Christian, then I would disagree. As for the forced conversions, it depends on the motivation. Are they carried out to extend the Christian religion, do the terrorists carry out forced conversions against their own members who are not Christians, would conversion to Christianity allow one to be a citizen of the proposed state? Or is it just a way for one ethnic group, most of whom are Christians, to terrorize another ethnic group, most of whom are not?

The Naga are a distinct Sino-Tibetan ethnic group, while their neighbors are Indian, and speak unrelated languages. They have been in conflict with their neighbors forever, while their conversion to Christianity came only in the 19th century. Some writers say that religion is the cause of the conflict, but most put it in the context of ethnic conflict.

TFD (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

hey guys. we are here for mediation - we all agreed to this. please don't just rehash the dispute here. In my view this process will have the best chance of working, if each of us tries to answer the mediator's questions as best we can, and then steps back and lets the mediator do their thing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like Bryon Morrigan is arguing that the groups he wants to include meet the first definition, so it could be the dispute needs to be re-stated. TFD (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * my reading, is that Bryon is saying if a group does any one of those four things (and not all four are "religious" but include notions of identity), they come in. It is another way to state the broad idea of #2.  It is my understanding that you, TFD, have been saying that only if the group's overwhelming motivation is religiously christian, should they be defined as christian terrorists; that is what #1 is.  Do I have your interpretation wrong? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Byron Morrigan wrote, "You claim that because the NE Indian groups seek ethnic nationalist goals, IN ADDITION TO their Christian goals, then they cannot be considered "Christian Terrorist".  But I am not saying that at all.  I am saying that the goal of their terrorism is nationalist.  As nationalists, the Naga group will stop when they achieve independence.  If they were religious terrorists, they would stop when they had converted the world to their version of Christianity.  We appear to be in agreement that the goal of Christian terrorists is religious, but disagree about whether specific groups meet that criterion.  TFD (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to offer a suggestion to Keithbob, partly on the basis of my experience with these discussions, and sort of from the Department of Herding Cats. Perhaps at some point you may find it necessary to "hat" discussions that are going off-point. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute part 3
OK folks, please stay focused. Step 1 is to identify the core of the dispute (not every side issue --just the core issue). Our working model is this case summary:


 * Editors have two conflicting views about the available source material for defining "Christian terrorism" and for determining how widely or narrowly the term has been applied to specific individuals or groups. This debate concerns scholarly sources; we all agree that popular sources are comparatively imprecise. The two views:
 * The preponderance of reliable scholarly secondary sources define Christian terrorism specifically as a form of religious terrorism. Under this definition, terrorists who are Christian but who are motivated by factors other than Christian scripture or theology are not Christian terrorists, but instead racists or political terrorists. The academic literature on this subject is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, but is settled, and this typology is established as mainstream scholarship. When editors cite scholarly sources as applying the term Christian terrorism more broadly, either those sources are minority, fringe, or dissenting sources, or the editors are misreading the sources.
 * The available reliable scholarly secondary source material about Christian terrorism is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, and although there are some broad areas of agreement in the preponderance of sources, there are still differences amongst expert sources as to how to apply the term Christian terrorism to particular individuals or groups. Some sources limit the typology to terrorists who are motivated only by Christian scripture or theology, while other sources say that Christian terrorists can be motivated by Christianity in the form of "ethnoreligious identity" or other, not strictly theological, factors, and may have complex motives. At present, there is no dominant consensus amongst expert sources about the latter point. We should treat these sources as having a variety of views, and editors should not limit the page to those sources that apply the definition of Christian terrorism most narrowly.
 * Some editors perceive the sources as #1, whereas other editors perceive the same sources as #2. The problem we are having is that editors who feel one way have not been able to change the minds of editors who see it the other way. We have all looked at the same sources, and yet opinions seem entrenched. We hope that a structured discussion will help us to sort out how to correctly understand the sources, in this difficult topic area.

So far Tryptofish and Jytdog have endorsed the above summary. My question to the other participants is: Do you also endorse this summary? If not, please propose specific changes or additions that would allow you to endorse this summary and adopt it as the core of the dispute. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT using Questia etc., no "scholarly sources" support the second position. Blackwell does not support number 2. Hicks (OUP) specifies "The challenge is to identify such persons as religious terrorists without suggesting that others with that religious affiliation are also terrorists."  Havel  : "Terrorism is terrorism. There is no Islamic, Jewish, or Christian terrorism. "  Christian Century: "The religious adjective doesn't tell us much. Pamela Taylor, a Muslim activist in Cincinnati, argues, "The idea of Christian terrorism is ludicrous, in terms of theology, just like the idea that Islamic theology is responsible for terrorism is also ludicrous." ,  etc.

The Islamic terrorism article is primarily devoted to explaining that Islam is not an intrinsically terrorist religion, and then appends a short list of examples where the specific acts are all in the specific context of promoting "jihad" where no such parallel nexus connects the examples in the current article on Christian terrorism. Using a parallel construction would result in the removal of most of the current "examples" of "Christian terrorism" at issue. Collect (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've said earlier, I agree with Keithbob's assessment of where the mediation discussion should start (and I will be interested in a mediated discussion about the kinds of evidence that might differentiate between the two possible understandings of the source material). If I understand Collect's reply correctly, Collect will argue that the second possible understanding of the source material is incorrect, but is not arguing that we must not have a discussion about the two possible interpretations. And per Collect, as another type of evidence for us to consider, I will be happy to offer sources that do support the second position, at such time as Keithbob might ask for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that all editors accept the first definition, but disagree over which groups, if any, meet it. In the article talk page, Bryon Morrigan has presented the views of Mark Juergensmeyer, who classifies the terrorist Christian groups in Northern Ireland, India, and other places as religious terrorists, the same category in which he places al Qaeda and says all these groups are motivated by religion.
 * The dispute then is what weight to provide this classification. If there is general agreement in the literature on his view, then the article should define Christian terrorism and provide descriptions of the IRA and all the other groups he mentions.  If however it is a controversial view, then the article should only provide outlines of agreed Christian terrorist groups, then explain why some writers consider the IRA etc. to be Christian terrorists.
 * TFD (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I did not "present" Juergensmeyer on this page. I only defended him a couple times as "RS", and did not add the citations to him on the page.  I have primarily presented peer-reviewed articles, newspaper stories, and books, focused on India.  I haven't really touched the page, apart from the India section, in years.  If RS describes Group X as "Christian Terrorism", then it is not up to us to second-guess the RS, particularly in the section on India, as there is not a lot of RS out there on those groups in general, due to the Western world not really giving much of a damn about India.  A Western-focused book on terrorism that mentions a group like the NLFT in passing, and describes them as "Nationalist" or "Maoist", should carry much less weight than a book focused on that part of the world that does refer to their Christian ideology.  In any case, every single group described by RS as "Christian Terrorism" should be at least mentioned on the page, with the caveat that some mainstream sources may disagree with that classification.  (As in, for example, Anders Breivik...)  There is a distinct bias against Indian sources and Indian opinions on this subject that has been pretty prevalent on the page for a long time.  But back to the original point of this entire "Mediation": If we adopt a criteria for which groups get to be labeled as "Christian Terrorist" on this page, and then apply that criteria to various groups, then we are engaging in exactly the kind of WP:OR that is frowned upon here in Wikipedia.  If we have sources referring to the group as "Christian Terrorist", "terrorism motivated by Christianity", or any similar phrasing, then those sources trump the personal opinions of any editors, or their personal "favorite" definitions of types of terrorism.  The.  End.  I don't see why we're even having this argument, as it appears to be an attempt to subvert the very principles of Wikipedia. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  01:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that any time a reliable source uses the adjective "Christian" to modify "terrorist" or "terrorism", that it fits the criteria for the article? In Gus Martin's book, Essentials of Terrorism, he distinguishes between religious and communal terrorism.  He then subdivides communal terrorism into "Ethno-Nationalist", "Religious" and "Ideological".  About the second, he identifies it as "conflict between religious groups" and writes, "Many of the world's ethnic populations define their cultural identity parly through their religious beliefs...." (p. 118)  If he then truncates the term to "Christian terrorism", are we supposed to assume that despite distinguishing "religious terrorism" (terrorism motivated by religion) and "religious communal terrorism" (ethnic terrorism where religious is part of ethnic identity) that he must mean the same thing?"
 * The relevant policy is "disambiguation": "the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." It would be incorrect to conflate two different concepts in one article without explanation.
 * TFD (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr. Martin's book doesn't even discuss any of the Northeastern India groups, so you've inadvertently proved my point about how ignorant Western academia is in regards to these issues. Nobody here is advocating the idea that terrorists who "just happen to be Christian" should be lumped in with Christian Terrorists.  But if there is RS describing them as such, and attributing at least part of their ideology to Christianity, then they fit the criteria for being included on a Wikipedia page titled "Christian Terrorism".  If you disagree with that, then I suggest that you feel that the criteria for this specific page be much more strict, and I cannot see any reason for that, other than bias.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  03:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources ignore something, that is a good reason for us to ignore it too. But the source your presented, B.B. Kumar's Problems of Ethnicity in Northeast India, presents it in terms of "ethnic conflict" (hence the title of the book), rather than religious terrorism.  And the Western sources that mention it describe it that way too.  What is your criterion for Christian terrorism?  Is it that the motivation is religion or just that they are Christians who engage in terrorism?  TFD (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed where he pointed out that some of these groups are "indulging in forced identity formation not only by ethnic and communist terrorism, but also by religious terrorism by forced conversion to Christianity." (p. 25). These groups have at least one of their motivations in forced conversion.  They don't just happen to be Christians.  This is just becoming laughable, and I'm sure than any non-biased 3rd party can clearly see that there is plenty of evidence in regards to the NE Indian groups, whether they fit your personal WP:OR definition or not. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  12:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And where there is equal or greater forced conversion from Christianity, as is found in all the Indian articles, is that also "Christian terrorism"?  Sorry - I find that particular position less than convincing if we use it to define "Christian terrorism" ab initio.  Sigh. Collect (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that forced conversions go "both ways", then I would suggest you find an appropriate WP article for that position, and go there. It's extremely off-topic for "Christian Terrorism".  (And such allegations are most certainly NOT "found in all the Indian articles", for the record.)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

everybody, please stop rehashing issues in the mediation. please let the mediator guide the discussion and just respond simply and directly to questions the mediator asks. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I found your post on my UT page offensive, and urge you not to do so again. The aim is to reach a consensus, and your tone is not going to make me desire to continue collegial discussion here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the same message. -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not let the mediator tell participants what they should or should not do? In any case, I think it is helpful to identify what is in dispute.  TFD (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you all will do as you will. sorry to have offended. striking my note all around. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * hatted Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In terms of trying to stay focused, I'd like to reply to what TFD said just after my previous comment: "I think that all editors accept the first definition, but disagree over which groups, if any, meet it." Please let me try to expand a bit on that, and see whether or not what I say can help us to agree about what Keithbob asked of us. Myself, I think that all editors accept that the first definition is, at least, part of the accepted definition in the source material – in other words, we are unanimous in agreeing that there are reliable mainstream secondary sources that employ the first definition. Where editors disagree is about whether or not there are also sources that treat the subject according to the second definition (or, at least, apply the definition in the second way), and if so, whether or not those sources are mainstream. And – if I correctly understand what everyone else has said here – nobody has disagreed with the premise that a big part of where we disagree concerns just that. Some editors here disagree with the second definition. But can we all agree that, since some other editors read some of the sources as following the second definition (I'll raise my hand for that one!), we all recognize that a big part of that disagreement is over whether or not that second definition is applicable? You can say that you think that the second definition incorrectly describes the source material – but can you still recognize that some editors agree, to varying extents, with the second definition, and that is a big part of where we disagree? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If what Bryon Morrigan says about the Naga terrorism is correct, it meets the first definition. What examples are there of groups that meet the second but not the first definition?  If Bryon Morrigan is wrong, and Christianity is merely part of the ethnic identity of the Naga, not a motivation for terrorism, then do we still categorize them as Christian terrorists?  Unless we resolve this, we are not going to find a resolution.  Incidentally, are there any reliable sources for the second definition?  TFD (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As you and I have discussed at the article talk page, there are sources that I think are reliable, and that I think apply the definition in the second way. I've said at the article talk page that I think that there are a number of groups that might not meet the first definition, but that I think that some reliable sources classify them as Christian terrorists; I've named those groups on the article talk page. Do you deny that I (and perhaps some other editors) think those things (whether correctly or incorrectly)? You say: "Unless we resolve this, we are not going to find a resolution." I agree with that completely. I would like for Keithbob to mediate a discussion in which we seek to resolve it. Are there any editors here who do not want Keithbob to mediate a discussion in which we seek to resolve it (in which case, please explain why you agreed to the mediation)? Assuming that we all want Keithbob to mediate a discussion in which we seek to resolve it, then, there we are. That's what this mediation is about. I hope that we can all agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying "I've named those groups [that meet the second definition] on the article talk page", it would be helpful to be specific. I do not remember a second definition being used before this mediation.  TFD (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to name them and discuss them specifically, at the appropriate stage of the mediation, and it is certainly not my intention to be unhelpful. I wonder if part of the difficulty in this discussion arises from differing understandings of how mediation works. My understanding is that Keithbob will direct the discussion, and that, at this point in time, the only thing he is asking of us is to agree about what he calls "the core" of the dispute. Not to discuss it back and forth amongst ourselves, but rather to say, explicitly, "yes" or "no" to his question about whether he has summarized our disagreement correctly. Jytdog and I have agreed to Keithbob's statement of "the core", and I think that Keithbob has been asking TFD, Collect, BryonMorrigan, and Bladesmulti to answer yes or not to that as well (and I note that Additional issues (added by other parties) remains blank). That's why I'm trying to get you and the other editors to address what it is that we disagree about, instead of discussing our individual positions within that disagreement. If you would like, for example, for us to discuss the existence or non-existence of sources that use (or, more accurately, apply) a broader definition, then say to Keithbob that you want that to be part of the core of the dispute – and that would be fine with me. And when Keithbob says we are at that stage of the discussion, I'll be delighted to discuss these things specifically. But not before. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In support of including Northern Ireland terrorism, you wrote on the talk page that a source said, "The Northern Ireland conflict is a religious conflict.". Juergensmeyer agrees. And John Hickey says: it is "more a question of religion inspiring politics than of politics making use of religion." [18:00, 7 October 2014 ] That all meets the first definition.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quoting some things that I have said, and I will be happy to discuss those things when Keithbob says that it is time to do so. Are you willing to answer Keithbob's question? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I believe that there is general acceptance of the first definition, and the dispute is about which groups meet it. TFD (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! That's very helpful. So, it seems that TFD, Jytdog, and I have agreed to accept the "core" of the discussion, and we are waiting on Collect, BryonMorrigan, and Bladesmulti. And again, I promise that I will be happy to discuss specifics when we get to that step in the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with TFD that the issues revolve on which groups meet the first definition. We neither have the authority nor power to create a definition not found in a plurality of scholarly journals.  I do not back off from the position that the topic should be restricted to modern "Christian terrorism" as primarily secular warfare was pretty much the rule if one goes back far enough.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be happy to include a discussion of the time period for the page as part of the mediation discussion. And, assuming that Keithbob agrees, I'm comfortable with construing that comment as an agreement as to the core of the dispute. Happy Thanksgiving, to everyone to whom that applies! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The second definition was "acts of terrorism motivated by "ethnoreligious identity" or other not strictly theological factors." But no editors have claimed that.  Rather I said that described the Naga and Irish terrorism, while Bryon Morrigan and Tryptofish said they were indeed religiously motivated.  TFD (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, what TFD is saying here is consistent with TFD's stance on the article Talk page - TFD does not acknowledge that the 2nd option has any validity, and does not acknowledge that other editors find it expressed in sources, and has not agreed on the core of the dispute. That is what I see. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did make that argument of the talk page, but AFAICT, no one else has. So -perhaps we could treat that dispute separately as a secondary matter.  TFD (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will say it more simply. In my view TFD has not agreed to Keithbob's statement of "the core". Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly avoid making judgmental posts about others.   The purpose of mediation is to find "common ground" and work from there, not to start with the most extreme claims and try to insert them into the resulting consensus.   I suggest that any consensus which seeks to include material which has absolutely no connection with trying to advance theological claims is not going to gain consensus here.   Let us work from the centre and see what we can include, rather than making any sort of claim that fringe positions must be accommodated here.  I assure you that TFD and I are not any sort of "team"  on any articles whatsoever, and I suggest you understand that where we strongly agree here is that the "ethno-religious" bit is, indeed, quite WP:FRINGE in any search in scholarly books and journals. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say two things at this point in time. (1) It is my individual opinion that the second bullet point correctly describes the source material, and I am prepared to present reliable sources that define Christian terrorism the second way, as well as reliable sources that define it the first (narrower) way, and yet apply it to specific groups in a broader way. Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong. But let's please drop this stuff about no editors at all claiming that the second bullet point is the case. (2) Please, let's just all agree to discuss the issues according to Keithbob's outline – and, indeed, not speculate about other editors' motives or about who is on who's team – and enter into a structured discussion about it. You don't have to accept that the second definition is correct or real in order to have a discussion about it (because you can explain in that discussion why you reject the second definition). Unless we have a structured discussion, we will just continue to talk past one another, and we will never reach a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW you are arguing about whether the terrorist violence in Northern Ireland is motivated by religion, then claim it does not matter because the two sides are partly identified by religion. Do you at least acknowledge that reliable sources may not necessarily conflate the two?  It seems like a fall back position:  You think their motivation is religion but even if few sources agree we will say it is Christian terrorism anyway.  TFD (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be very happy to discuss what you ask me as part of a structured discussion. I have said that I think that the second bullet point correctly describes the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute Part 4
Hi everyone, I hope you all had a nice holiday break. It seems that a number participants are having a difficult time with the second part of the proposed 'core of the dispute'. So how about if we describe the core of the dispute like this: Thoughts? Comments? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many reliable, scholarly, secondary sources define Christian terrorism specifically as a form of religious terrorism. Under this definition, terrorists who are Christian but who are motivated by factors other than Christian scripture or theology are not Christian terrorists, but instead racists or political terrorists. The academic literature on this subject is not as developed as that about Islamic terrorism, but is settled, and this typology is established as mainstream scholarship. The issues that this mediation wishes to address are: 1) Which groups are included in the above definition? 2) Are there other scholarly definitions which could also be considered and included in the article?
 * in my view your first statement of the dispute was more accurate than this... there are two well developed perspectives on this. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on my readings of other editor's comments, Jytdog is the only one who is unhappy with the definition. On that basis of course we should address the topic.  But I think the main dispute has been whether groups such as the Northern Ireland, Lebanese and East India ones meet the first definition.  Some writers on religious terrorism, such as Mark Juergensmeyer say they do, while other writers on terrorism group them under ethnic/nationalist motivation.  The other disputed groups are right-wing terrorists who claim to defend Christian culture.  TFD (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * i acknowledge that this is a definition you would very much accept, TFD. And I add that there is little to no disagreement among all editors in this mediation that the definition provided in this Part 4 a) is valid; b) has good support in the literature, c) and there are groups that we all agree fit into it. The core of the dispute is that I and other editors also find clear expression of the original 2nd definition in sources and groups that fit into it, and TFD and some other editors do not acknowledge that. The dispute is all about the original 2nd definition.  Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (add "also" Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Keithbob, I think that makes it worse. However you parse it, some editors – and, TFD, I agree with Jytdog here – believe that there are reliable sources that define "Christian terrorism" more broadly than as terrorism motivated primarily by Christian religious tenets, or that apply the label "Christian terrorism" to groups more broadly than that, and that these sources are mainstream, and just as much mainstream as sources that define religious terrorism narrowly. The problem we are having in reaching an agreement about the core of the dispute is coming from the insistence of editors, who disagree with that categorization of the sources, that they want to argue right away that they disagree with that categorization. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: You can believe that the second bullet point in the previous statement of the core of the dispute is incorrect – but still agree that this is a question to discuss. Some editors think the first bullet point describes the source material. Some editors think the second bullet point describes the source material. We need to figure out which of those two bullet points really does describe the source material. Please, we need to get on with this! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trypotfish, can you mention any difference if would make to the article (other than the lead, where the topic is defined) if def 2 were rejected?  Are there any groups in the article or that you wish to add that do not meet def 1?  Can you explain why with pages of discussion and edit-warring, there has been no discussion or edit-warring over the definition in the lead?  TFD (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that, first, it does make a difference to how we should write the lead, as well as the introductory material that could come after the lead. Consider for example how, yesterday (I looked here first, so I don't know what has changed since then), you and I were starting to agree that the page should move in the direction of how various experts think about the concept of Christian terrorism and how to apply it to examples, and away from the current organization in which we list a litany of examples in ways that imply that editors have decided that those examples already are Christian terrorism, as opposed to examples where an examination of the sources indicates that different experts have reached different conclusions, and in many cases, there simply isn't a unanimous consensus that the particular example really is Christian terrorism. And I agree with you about that! Hurray! But, if you and I go directly to working on that right now, I'm going to say that, for example, Schbley says that numerous groups he talks about are, in his opinion, Christian terrorists, and you are going to disagree with me, and we will be at an impasse again. A structured discussion here will help us get past that impasse, and that would be a good thing. And when and if we get to all those country-by-country examples, it will be a lot easier if we have a consensus either to reject "definition 2" or to accept it, and we have no such consensus yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob - pretty close to the actual issue. Collect (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Am starting to feel hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I've been through so many discussions that feel this way, that I've learned never to feel hopeless about it! What I hope TFD and Collect will accept is that you and I (and maybe other editors in this discussion) do not think that the summary by Keithbob at the top of Part 4 accurately reflects the source material, whereas TFD and Collect (and maybe other editors) consider the summary to be pretty good. Let's just all acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion here! And we would benefit from a discussion that tries to resolve that difference of opinion. Keithbob, I think that you are creating a needless obstacle by framing the question as the "core". That's because editors have a lot of things that concern them, including Collect's point about time periods, and everyone's points about all the specific examples on the page. Nobody wants to get boxed in, and editors seem to be suspicious of any attempt to delineate this discussion, lest other perspectives be shut out. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please look back at the top of this mediation page. At, I posted a summary of some things where editors have been disagreeing. And at, every one of you agreed to participate in that discussion. It doesn't mean that you agree with my description of #2, just that you know that I said it and you have your own opinions about it. If you want to shoot #2 down, you will be able to do that. And let's stipulate clearly: anything else editors here want to discuss also, including but not limited to the time period we are considering and any and all specific examples by country, must and will be part of this discussion too. Can we agree that we are here to discuss all of those things, and just get on with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument was about whether to include the groups currently in the article. Do you agree that none of them meet the first definition?  TFD (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be an absurd opinion to have, as there is plenty of RS establishing that many groups in the article do indeed meet the first definition. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, I think some of them meet the first definition (example: The Orange Volunteers), and some of them meet the second (example: The IRA). Do you agree that we ought to discuss this, or would you say instead that you are unwilling to discuss it? Bryon, do you agree to discuss it, and do you both acknowledge that the two of you have different opinions? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate personalization of the discussion--please stop this

 * I don't think it's really possible to have a rational discussion with TFD, as that editor's personal opinion is that "Christian Terrorism" doesn't actually exist, outside of that one Maronite group. It's like trying to have a rational discussion about global climate change with a person who thinks it's all a "conspiracy", regardless of what scientists say on the issue.  TFD has a very WP:OR view on the subject, and refuses to consider the possibility of any other position having any merit whatsoever, even though it has been shown, repeatedly, that TFD is not very well-informed on many of the groups at issue.  Even editors like Collect and I can come to a shaky consensus on many of the issues, whereas TFD's response is akin to holding hands over ears and saying, "La la la!  I can't hear you!"  As long as that attitude continues, it's just not even remotely within the realm of mediation.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to try to discuss these things with TFD and even with you, so I urge you to retract that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, You'd have to take that up with TFD, who is reading #1 to mean that any terrorist organization that has ANY non-religious motivation whatsoever is not "Christian Terrorism", regardless of any evidence or RS to the contrary. It's a position intended to ensure that it's almost impossible for any group to meet that criteria, as there are few terrorist organizations in the history of terrorism that have not had multiple aims and ideologies.  That kind of criteria negates the basic existence of ANY typology of terrorism, because to apply it to other types of terrorism leads to similarly absurd conclusions.  (i.e., "These guys can't be Islamic Terrorists, because they're also Nationalist", or "These guys can't be Nationalist, because they're also Ethnic Separatist", or "These guys can't be Ethnic Terrorists, because they're Islamic."  Et cetera.)  Apparently, if TFD can find any writer describing any Christian Terrorist group without using the term "Christian Terrorist", then according to TFD, that group must be stricken from this page.  But then, remarkably, the same editor characterizes historical instances of conventional warfare or political intrigue (like the Crusades or the Gunpowder Plot) under the heading of "terrorism" (even though I'm not aware of that opinion being anywhere near "mainstream"), and doesn't apparently know enough about the situation in Northeast India to be able to distinguish between the different tribal groups (The Naga are just one of many ethnic groups in that area.)?  I'm just sick and tired of this person's "Crusade" to eliminate this page from Wikipedia, and refusal to acknowledge any RS that competes with that "mission".  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bryon I will emphasize and restate what Trypto said. We are here to try to reach consensus on content, with the help of a mediator; to the extent that you are allowing your frustration to lead you to discussing contributors not content (in violation of TPG) your behavior is becoming part of the problem.  It takes self-discipline to do this. Please strike both sets of comments.  If you believe TFD's behavior violates a policy or guideline, there are dramaboards for that.  This is not the place. Again, please strike and hat. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bryon, if you cannot agree with what Jytdog just said, I suggest that you withdraw from this mediation process, and agree to be topic-banned from the Christian terrorism page and talk page. Your comments are completely unacceptable, and I will not allow you to sabotage this mediation process. And, everyone else, please keep cool heads, and do not escalate the dispute further. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Decision on how to proceed (COD Part 5)
Three summaries of the dispute have been proposed. One by Tryptofish and two by me. These have met with only partial acceptance. Would someone like to propose a compromised version that might find universal support amongst all the participants? It could be something as simple as a list of the issues we are here to discuss.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion:
 * Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?
 * What is the time period we should be covering here?
 * Which examples (by country) on the page should stay there, and should any be removed? Or should the ways some of them are presented be changed?
 * I don't intend that as a complete list. I would welcome adding more items to discuss, as well as alternative ways to formulate the questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems good. Does anyone question what time period should be used?  I always thought one of the comments by experts on the rise of religious terrorism was that it was something from the past that has made a comeback.  TFD (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree on using a broad construct, which is what I think you are referring to as "#2"?  I would suggest, as I did before, that we limit the article to post WW I as avoiding huge problems including, but not limited to, the end of the Ottoman Empire,  the end of the Russian Empire,  etc.  I would therefore also suggest that we remove all sections dating before WW I, as well as any where the claim is not made by a majority of scholars that an example is actually  "Christian terrorism." Collect (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. TFD, my understanding is that what Collect just said is the issue with respect to the time period. Collect, I welcome discussing all the issues that you just named, and it seems to me (please correct me if I misunderstand) that everything you just commented on can be discussed as we discuss those three questions. (Again, I believe that Keithbob is asking us to name the questions we want to discuss; giving our views as to the answers to those questions will come subsequently, at a time and in a fashion that Keithbob communicates to us.) If that is something that the two of you can work with, then I hope that Jytdog, as well as BryonMorrigan and Bladesmulti, assuming that they are still interested in the discussion, will also agree, and then we can move on to the next steps. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm good with this. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD's analysis of medieval and difference between terrorist and terrorism is probably correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is disagreement on the time period, then I suppose it should be added too. TFD (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is good. Some consensus seems to be forming regarding a list of the various [items] we'd like to discuss in this mediation. If there is something missing from the list suggested by Tryptofish then please say what it is and we can add it now and then begin. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keithbob. That sounds good. Please let me suggest that we work on the question about time period first, because it is relatively self-contained, and might help direct what we discuss next. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, since I don't see any objections after three days. We'll just move ahead. If there are any additional points that folks would like to add to the above 'summary of the dispute' list over the next few days, please present them here in this thread for ratification by the group. If no additional points are added during the next few days then the three points listed above will stand as the general parameters that define this mediation. I don't want to box anyone in, but likewise I don't want an endless mediation with new topics for discussion constantly being added as the mediation proceeds. So we need to solidify the boundaries of this discussion in advance. If we don't ID our destination in advance we will never know when we have arrived. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Time Period
Ok, let's begin our discussion of the time period consideration. One editor has proposed that article should be limited to Christian Terrorist events that took place after WW II and suggests that any events that occurred before WWII should be removed. Thoughts and comments on this proposal?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll start with the parts that I agree with. I'm fine with saying that, for the remaining parts of this mediation discussion (about definitions and scope), we should focus on what David C. Rapoport has called the "fourth wave" of terrorism, from about 1979 to the present, because that's the time period of nearly all of the editorial disputes. And I'm in agreement that we don't want editors adding not-really-terrorism stuff (The Crusades, Just war, etc., etc.) willy-nilly to the page.
 * But in all the time I've been watching the page (now quite a few years), I cannot remember an instance of any editors wanting to add inappropriate historical instances to the page. It just hasn't been a problem. We have another page, Christianity and violence, that covers the historical non-terrorist forms of violence. As for what we do have on the Christian terrorism page, it's the section Christian terrorism, which has three subsections: the Gunpowder Plot in England, a pogrom in Romania, and some eras of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. It seems to me that these three instances are amongst the most clearly supported (by sources) of anything on the page. I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Gunpowder Plot is seen by experts as a sort of original example, a sort of prototype, in the history of Christian terrorism (and the section about it could stand some expanding). I think the page is very narrow in limiting discussions of pogroms only to Romania, where there is the clearest evidence of religious rather than economic motivations. I'm agreeable to any requests for more or better sourcing for the historical section, but I think that there is already more than enough sourcing to say that it should not simply be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would use WW I as a strong delimiter. Anecdotal instances do not really aid the reader in understanding the topic, and the fact is that most of the historical examples" are really poor -- the KKK was primarily based on economic and racial issues, and not on advancing any Christian theology at all -- and it was anti-Friends and anti-any group which did not seek to restore the prior economic and racial order.  The Gunpowder Plot can only be understood in terms of the political power asserted by the Pope at a time when he was a secular ruler.  Best to simply use scissors on those marginal sub-topics. Collect (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rapoport does not use either of the World Wars as a delimiter for religious terrorism; do you have another source for that? I looked for some more sources regarding the Gunpowder Plot and the KKK based on your comment. For the former, here are two sources that strike me as reliable for our purposes, and, respectively, define the Gunpowder Plot as Christian terrorism, and place it as having an historically important role in the emergence of modern terrorism: and . For the KKK, there are also multiple books that identify it as Christian terrorism:, , , , although I'm under the impression that there have been multiple successive appearances of the KKK over time, and some of the specific time periods are considered to be more religiously motivated than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only "strong delimiter", if that is what you require, is 32 A.D.  Wikipedia, however, allows a consensus to delimit periods of coverage of articles - we do not need a source saying "Christian terrorism did not exist until after WW I" in order for us to agree to using that as a delimiter.  The KKK was founded during Reconstruction primarily to retain political power - the number of Jews and Catholics in the South was not an issue of any weight, and the Blacks were indeed primarily Christian.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * just to weigh in, in case it is needed; I don't care about this issue. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any WP guidelines that shed light on or give guidance as to how to limit time periods in articles? Is this quote "delimit periods of coverage of articles" a quote from a guideline? It would help us to know what the guidelines say, if anything.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do not responsibly set boundaries for an extremely broad topic otherwise, then this mediation is, IMO, doomed. The first act of "Christian terrorism" was Peter chopping off an ear on Maundy Thursday.  I also suggest that where there is terrorism by other religious groups (vide the Turkish attack on Malta where Christian defenders were crucified and the Turks were beheaded by the defenders)  that we include the full story about the events, and not just focus on "Christian terrorism."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the article should reflect what writings about Christian terrorism say. To the extent they mention historical antecedents, they should be mentioned.  However, I would object to including all the various millenarian movements of the Middle Ages, which modern scholars of terrorism ignore, but conceivably could be viewed as Christian terrorists.  TFD (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll try to reply to a couple of comments in one place here. First, I want to say that I agree entirely with what TFD just said. I agree, first, that the page should not have, added to it, all the Crusades and so forth, but as I noted above, that has never been an issue in the editing history of the page. Consequently, there isn't a need to delete the historical section simply to avoid future spamming of the page (as opposed to for other possible reasons). I also agree with TFD about what is mentioned in the source material. And that seems to me to go to Keithbob's very good question. To my knowledge, there isn't a guideline specifically about defining time periods. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, any consensus we achieve here will need to conform to the core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. And for me, that points us, again, to what reliable secondary sources say, as opposed to the personal opinions of editors. As I've pointed out above, we have a source that says that the Gunpowder Plot was an important instance of religious terrorism, and another that says that "The beginnings of modern terrorism can be traced back to England and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605." Those can be added to the source already on the page, in which Peter Steinfels calls it "A day to think about a case of faith-based terrorism". I don't see how any reading of, for example WP:DUE, would lead us to completely omit that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The emerging consensus (and relevant WP guidelines) would appear to tell us that the article should be guided by the preponderance of reliable sources rather than an arbitrary time period decided by group of editors. Care and consideration should be given for due weight and if the seeds or beginnings of Christian Terrorism appear to be taking up too much of the article then per WP:SummaryStyle "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs) 20:31, December 10, 2014‎ --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's OK with other editors, it's fine with me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK this discussion seems to be winding down. If there are no further comments than on Monday I'm going to move on to the next segment of the mediation discussion. Enjoy your weekend everyone! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and a good weekend to you too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I do not see any consensus in this discussion, nor any WP guidelines that indicate we should limit the time period of the events in the article. So we will proceed to the next consideration.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I foresee horrid results if we do not delimit the topic of the article, alas. In general, Wikipedia practice is to define what the article is about in the lead.  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. is in the MOS, and is not mysteriously hidden anywhere.   The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list.  is fairly clear.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keithbob, please let me suggest that you anticipate some intensity of discussion in the next phase. I hope that you can structure it so that participating editors are not merely talking past one another. Perhaps you should have each of us direct our comments to you, rather than to one another?? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect, Sources on religious terrorism typically refer to the Crusades as an early and the bloodiest example of religious violence. For example, The Path to Salvation Religious Violence from the Crusades to Jihad, and see modern religious terrorism as a throwback to a pre-modern mentality.  In a sense it is anachronistic to call it religious terrorism, since the term "terror" in its modern sense derives from the French Revolution and AFAIK there was no study of religious terrorism until the Iranian Revolution.  So I think we should explain why scholars consider the Crusades relevant to the subject rather than outline the long history.  Readers are free to follow the links and read about them in other articles.  The Gunpowder Plot is similarly mentioned in most sources, and I think the article should discuss its relevance rather than its details.  And even if some articles have a cut-off date, it is not unusual to mention precursors and influences.  TFD (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "religious violence" the same as "Christian terrorism"? I doubt it - the ancient Aztecs, and, indeed, just about every religious group in history engaged in "violence" including fighting groups with other religions - but most of the time land and  commerce were behind the actual fighting.  I prefer that we delimit the topic in accord with the Wikipedia MOS and not open up an infinite can of worms where the meaning of "terrorism" is not even well-defined for such periods, and totally undefined here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC
 * Certainly religious terrorism is a form of religious violence. It would be overly restrictive to say we cannot mention religious violence because it is not the same thing.  While groups that happened to have different religions have been in conflict, it would not be religious violence unless that is why it was fought.  For example we don't generally see the barbarian attacks on the Roman Empire in terms of Christian religious violence - Arian versus Catholic.  TFD (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Houston, we have a problem. Unless the preponderance of reliable sources use "terrorism" I shall demur on such a grossly overbroad delimitation for the topic.  We can not say every superset of "terrorism" is "terrorism" sans strong sourcing for the claim - which is one reason we absolutely need to delimit the topic as the first step.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of sources mention the Crusades. TFD (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK let's stay on point. We are discussing whether or not the article should be defined as having a specific, limited time period. So far I don't see any consensus for this but just to clarify let's take a straw poll and see where we are at.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) The article should be limited to a specific time period. Please sign below as Support or Oppose:
 * Oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose TFD (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as required by MOS which is not "optional". Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was not even a matter. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:LEAD  provides a policy basis for limiting the time period of the body of the article because it says the lead paragraph(s) should  "define the topic" and "establish the boundaries of the topic". Please sign Support or Oppose
 * Oppose (to the extent that it does not mandate a particular boundary). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose TFD (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support No local consensus can abrogate the MOS on such a key matter. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sometimes a few words says everything. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)Specifically the article should only contain information on incidents and events that occurred after World War II. Please sign below as Support or Oppose:
 * Oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose TFD (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My suggestion was World War I as being after the end of the Ottoman Empire.  I decline to debate something which no one at all suggested  and which appears to be a Straw Man argument here. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whenever we provide historical prevalence, it becomes better for readers and editor. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Signing as mediator with no !vote on any of the above.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have a feeling that if we keep reopening discussions after they seem settled, this mediation will become difficult to keep on track. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do not delimit the topic in a rational manner, I shall decline any further participation. Delimitation is required by MOS and we can not abrogate that with a straight face.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that MOS requires that we delimit it in a particular way. Your participation is of course entirely your decision, but perhaps you may wish to consider how pulling out in this manner will appear later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not "requiring" it be delimited "in a particular way" - but it must be delimited or else be a vast morass of strawberry jam.  And if you are suggesting actually following the MOS is contrary to reasonable practice, I demur forcefully.   Further I point out that making personal asides during mediation is quite contrary to how the process is supposed to work per the pages concerning mediation, and that under no circumstances are mediation discussions supposed to be used elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Or are you suggesting that I have been in some manner "uncivil" here?  Elsewise, kindly avoid commenting on the other participants here in any such manner on these or any other pages.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Collect, my apologies, I mistakenly entered WWII instead of WWI. However, thus far in the entire Time Period discussion I have not seen any participant, except yourself, speak in support of limiting the article's content to any specific time period using either World WarI or II as a demarcation. User:Jytdog has said they "don't care" about the time period issue.User:Bryonmorrigan and User:Bladesmulti do you have any input on this? Meanwhile if anyone who has already cast an !vote feels that their response would have been different if the proposal had been WWI instead of WWII, please let us know.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer historical point of view as well as the modern. Sometimes there is more content for clarifying the historicity than the prevalence in modern times. Of course we have got content about the events or incidents that is relevant to this subject and happened before world wars. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any "cover the era from 1 BC on" concept would require coverage of all Christian and anti-Christian violence per WP:NPOV, as if we do not establish a rational delimitation, we will end up with an unholy mess of an article -- the Ottoman material alone would comprise a few hundred thousand words including the Armenian massacres as well as the anti-Ottoman material.  Do we really want to follow that route?  I am already finding masses of material of Hindu anti-Christian violence which would be needed to make the article conform to NPOV - much is truly horrifying.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I probably should know better than to prolong this discussion, but terrorism directed against Christians is not Christian terrorism, and NPOV does not require a tit-for-tat listing of everything for which Christians might be aggrieved – but it would be an improvement to note briefly that the violence in India has gone both ways, so as not to imply that it had been one-way. The page is about a very atypical and small subset of all persons who call themselves Christian, not about Christianity as a whole, so there is no POV issue of mis-characterizing Christians as a whole. As for the time period, it seems to me that the emerging consensus is to set the time period according to the source material on religious terrorism, as opposed to arbitrarily. And the source material seems to me to go back to the Gunpowder Plot. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After making the comment above, I did try to note that the violence in India has gone both ways, but it's worth pointing out that, on this contentious page, an IP editor has now reverted that edit: . --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires that where the "terrorism" is mutual in nature that we cover it in a neutral manner. The Armenian/Turkish issue is a complex one indeed,  as is the Israel/Palestine issue, where the definition of "terrorism" is going to be quite complicated.  Saying "We will only use facts about Christians killing others and ignoring the killings simultaneously going on the other way would be an intrinsic and blatant violation of the non-negotiable police of "neutral point of view" indeed. Collect (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Example:, which would have to be included per WP:NPOV here. Collect (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * can't help but ask this. are you saying that scope of the current article is invalid, ditto Islamic terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Jewish terrorism, and Buddhist Terrorism? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless we define the scope of the article, and I note the scope of the article cannot negate WP:NPOV on any articles at all, then we shall certainly have problems.    I would note that Saffron terror does include  opposing material,  Jewish terrorism includes balancing material noting the difficulty in differentiating religious and ethnic issues, and also notes that "Jewish terrorism" was targeted by the Nazis and Goebbels.  And the Buddhism and violence article specifically notes that much of the violence was between Buddhist sects and not directed against other religions.  Thus your cavil is nicely ill-aimed here -- the articles you cite do, indeed, seek to abide by WP:NPOV and so must this article.   Adding:  Islamic terrorism has a great deal of balancing material - I did not note this above, but at least half that article is, in fact, balancing material rather than accusations of terrorism and violence,  with a great deal of material based on the anti-terrorism Islamic position.   Collect (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you description of an article focused on content that negative about X as "attacking" is invalid. Negative material, NPOV stated, is not "attacking".  All these articles are clear splits off a main Terrorism article.  Very unhappy.  I am not even sure what to do with this.  Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Every example you give of other "terrorism articles" abides by defining the scope of the article and by following WP:NPOV. Every single one.  Nor do any of them devote virtually an entire article to (your word, not mine) "attacking" any sect or religion.   The fundamental tenet of NPOV is "balance" and I fail to see how that could make anyone "unhappy."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem is that we have not yet defined Christian terrorism. It would appear POV in the article to describe Phalangist terrorism but not Arab terrorism, which we would do if we saw the conflict in Lebanon as religious. But if it is seen as an ethnic/nationalst conflict, then both groups would be described in a section of the ethnic/nationalist terrorism article devoted to Lebanon.  TFD (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the terrorism in Lebanon is still disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

SUMMARY: It is clear from the straw poll and the discussions both before and after it that there is no consensus for limiting the time period that the article should cover. As I've mentioned before WP:Summary style gives clear instructions for creating sub articles for large topics. So fears that the article will be too large or its scope will be too big are unfounded. Also, the participants don't agree with the assertion that WP:LEAD provides a policy basis for limiting the time period in the article and I agree. We don't write the article based on the lead. We write the lead based on what the article says. The lead expresses the boundaries of the article because it is a summary of the body. But it does not dictate limitations to the body of the article. In conclusion, the proposal to limit the article to a set time period does not appear to be supported either by WP policy or by the consensus of the participants here in mediation. So I'm going to consider the discussion regarding the time period issue to be closed.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 03:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Examples of Christian terrorism currently in the article
Are there any examples of Christian terrorism that currently reside in the article that some editors feel should be removed? If so can we begin by listing them according to country? Then we can discuss them one by one.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing and sections are more descriptive than they used to be before. There was debate about removing the sections of Lebanon and Peru. Removed almost 1 year ago. Listing them by the country was a better idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How can we make any such decision when we do not even have a real definition of the topic? I would prefer we first define the topic, and then see if various pieces belong in the article.  And I would define "Christian terrorism" as "terrorism by Christian groups with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" as a simple start. Collect (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that Collect will be pleased that I agree with him that we need to discuss how the sources define "Christian terrorism" before we will be in a position to discuss specific examples. First things first. Please see my opening statement at the top of this mediation request, as well as the subsequent rewording of it from when we agreed upon the three main issues of the mediation, for the ways in which participating editors disagree about how the sources define the topic, and disagree about how the sources apply their definitions. This will, I expect, be the most complicated portion of the mediation discussion, and I strongly recommend that Keithbob plan on ways for us not to be talking past one another (perhaps by directing all of our comments to Keithbob instead of to one another). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is good feedback, thanks. So let's define the topic now.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Christian terrorism
Collect suggests that we define Christian terrorism as: Any comments? suggestions? discussion?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Terrorism by Christian groups with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions.
 * "Theological positions" sounds awfully vague, and exactly the kind of language that the people who oppose this page's existence would use as a "hammer" to delete it. I would add, at the very least, "...or the spread of Christianity", which would include the groups who engage in terrorism in order to coerce, frighten, or "terrorize" populations into converting to Christianity.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I oppose "us" defining anything. Obviously, per WP:NOR it's what the sources say that counts, not what editors think. In, I described the two views of the literature expressed by editors on the article talk page. Myself, I think that the second numbered point correctly describes the source material (so that second numbered point would be my answer to Keithbob's question). And clearly, other participating editors disagree. So, I propose that we discuss the question that we agreed to at :
 * "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?"
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion is about "theology" and I daresay that if we can not reach a logical definition, then we will end up with strawberry jam for an article. refers to "impose strict religious rules on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." seeks to define religion in general.

MonTREP defines terrorism "In marked contrast, bona fide acts of terrorism are triadic, i.e., they involve three parties or protagonists, the perpetrator(s), the victim(s), and a wider target audience (or audiences)" and distinguishes it from all general acts of dyadic violence. "groups relying heavily on terrorism that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (i.e., those who seek to “politicize” religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults" which appears the same at the other definition, albeit more verbose.

LawBrain is satisfied with the terse "Christian terrorism is motivated by interpretations of the Bible." which seems a tad short and misses the elements found in the other two sources. So reliable sources would indicate that we limit the "terrorism" to the triad formulation, and the motivation to either be "to impose strict religious tenets on society, insert religion into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse" - which is a tad less elegant than simply saying "theology" is the motivation.

I stand by my suggested definition, and would ask what compromises on that language would work. Note if we assert that seeking "the spread of Christianity" is "Christian terrorism" then Albert Schweitzer was a "Christian terrorist" -- that sort of position is wide enough for a herd of elephants. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I suggested adding "the spread of Christianity", it was intended to be added to the sentence suggested by KeithBob, which had already specified that it involved "terrorism". I am not aware of Albert Schweitzer participating in terrorism?  However, I would admit that your cited suggestion of "to impose strict religious tenets on society, insert religion into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse" would seem to "cover" the forced conversion, coercion, etc., elements that I was trying to address.  "Theology" sounds so vague to me that it sounds like it would be used by apologists to say it only applies to what could be "proved" to be theologically supported by Christian scripture...which is of course, open to interpretation.  For example, one editor might conclude that terrorism is "justified" under Augustine's philosophy, while another might take a more "no murder is ever justified" position, and both would be able to succinctly cite their positions with scripture, and we'd be warring about scripture, rather than simply adding cited examples without commentary or OR.  I just feel it's a Pandora's Box.  You get what I'm saying?  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Schweitzer was a missionary who proselytized for Christianity.  You have repeatedly counted "proselytization" as "terrorism" AFAICT in the Indian case.  Cheers.  I suggest we not use "spread of Christianity" in any way as a subset of "Christian terrorism."  Collect (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Holding an AK-47 to someone and forcing them to convert is not "proselytism", nor is threatening to rape someone if they won't convert, or threatening to murder people who take part in Hindu religious rituals. Terrorism that is conducted for the purpose of coercing or frightening people into converting to Christianity would seem to be a pretty reasonable example of Christian Terrorism, and I really don't understand why this is a "controversial" position. "Proselytism" is what happens when a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon knocks on your door, or a group of Hare Krishnas dance by, and then ask if you want a copy of the Bhagavad Gita.  When it crosses the line into violence or terrorism, it's not just "proselytism" any more.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- your favourite Hindu sources do not even allege anyone forces conversions at the point of an AK-47. I trust that you would consider the hyperbole as less than helpful here?  How many Hindus have been murdered by the way?  How many Christians murdered in the same areas?  Collect (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- you really should actually be familiar with the sources before making untrue blanket statements. It's not "hyperbole".  It's what the sources say.  For example, this one  says it in the opening sentence, and then discusses some of the murders and what-not.  Many of the other sources note similar things.  I won't even respond to your questions, as they are absurd and off-topic.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  23:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If we are just going to have each editor say what his preferred definition is, and complain that everyone else's definition is wrong, and go back and forth, back and forth, we could be doing that at the article talk page, as we have been doing for months now. If the mediation process is going to be useful, it needs to be a structured discussion. We need to have a structure here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: the question posed is what changes would work to reach a reasonable compromise if we start with this definition.  I would like to work from a starting point now than use seven different starting points <g>. Collect (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect's definition is pretty much on the mark, although I think there should be some minor changes. (Christian terrorists for example need not belong to a group.)  It is consistent with how experts such as David C. Rapoport, Mark Juergensmeyer and Ayla Hammond Schbley define it.  The dispute is about which groups meet the criteria.  When I have time (in about two days) I will post definitions from these experts and others.  In the meantime, if anyone objects to Collect's statement, could they please provide reliably sourced alternative definitions.    TFD (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions yes? Collect (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely reject any definition that is based only on "theological positions", as being completely at odds with the source material. And, since TFD has cited Juergensmeyer and Schbley as sources for the "theological positions", I will cite those same two authors, along with numerous others, as contradicting the "theological positions". See? We don't even agree on what the sources say. Now, let's create a wall of text in which some of us say "yes it is theological positions" and others say "no it isn't theological positions" and go back and forth until the mediation discussion is closed as "stuck".


 * This mediation discussion has already agreed that the "core" question for this part of the discussion is:
 * "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?"
 * I object to changing the formulation of the discussion as it goes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This section was, in fact, started by the mediator. Reject it as much as you like.  What change in the above definition would you actually propose in compromise?  Collect (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already replied to the mediator, in my first comment in this talk thread. I proposed that we set aside the above definition, and replace it with a discussion of the question: "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?" I still await the mediator's reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting it another way, at this point in the discussion, our definition is really something like: Christian terrorism is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" and is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal -- but if we say that any terrorism by a Christian is "Christian terrorism" then I find such a grossly overbroad definition to be risible.  It is like saying "any violence by a Jew is 'Jewish terrorism'" or the like, or "any violence by a Muslim is 'Islamic terrorism'" etc.  If reference to theology, the Bible or anything else which is particularly Christian is not involved, then I submit calling it "Christian terrorism" is not rational.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I think that it's fair to say that you disagree with me. Keithbob, can you help us resolve this disagreement? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediation is the attempt to find compromise - not for someone to say "Mediator, settle this because I do not want to propose any compromise" or the like. In short - that is not Keithbob's function here. He is here to facilitate compromise.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never said that I don't want to compromise, nor have I ever thought it. The history at the page is that I have been an advocate for compromise. I've never asked Keithbob to "settle this". I've asked him to help us settle this. That's a big difference. All of us agreed previously with Keithbob to address the question "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?" It seems to me that some participating editors have unilaterally decided that "#2" is incorrect and are trying to make that unilateral decision a fait accompli. And, to Keithbob, I hope that you can see from this discussion thread how easy it is for the discussion to get off track without a firm structure to the discussion. Please hear me when I say that I feel very strongly that we need to have a firm structure for this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitions proposed so far
SUMMARY Ok let me try to summarize a bit. We are trying to find a working definition for the title of the article: Christian terrorism. So far……… Collect has proposed: Bryon Morrigon has proposed: Tryptofish has proposed: TFD has said they also are preparing a proposed definition which I can add to this list when it's ready. Meanwhile is there any common ground between these proposals?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions
 * Terrorism by Christian groups with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions or the spread of Christianity
 * Christian terrorism is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" and is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions"
 * I'm not actually proposing that we say that two authors said one thing, and then say that the same two authors said the opposite. I'm saying that we cannot find, that we will never find, a common ground, when we cannot even agree as to what the sources are saying. Until we resolve this:
 * "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?"
 * we are never going to be able to agree about definitions. Never. Never. And we already agreed to discuss that question I have quoted. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * just want to jump in here, as this is the part of the mediation I care about. Keithbob, please know that on the Talk page, what has happened consistently is that the editors here have looked at the same sources and seen different things, exactly with regard to the definition of terrorism.  We reached an impasse, and we came here to get help resolving the impasse.  Please help us.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: My suggestion is backed by four eminently qualified reliable sources. I suggest that where that many major sources use substantially similar language, that using such language is a valid start, and then see if amendments may work in a compromise. Denying the primacy of the major sources, unfortunately, is not a great way to proceed. Mediation is almost invariably a matter of compromise if one has had any courses in negotiations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The following comment of mine was moved by me from the section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make some suggestions:
 * Let's discuss "Is #2 here an accurate view of the sources, or is it incorrect?" before we attempt to concoct a definition. It's what we previously agreed to do.
 * Let's adopt a structure for this phase of the discussion, in which we avoid editors getting into endless back-and-forths without resolution. One possible way would be to have each participating editor to present his views in a designated section, and have discussion of those views separate from it, perhaps like some pages in the processes used by ArbCom.
 * Editors including me should be asked to provide evidence of expert sources that define or apply the term more broadly. I'll try to get that together over the next couple of days, and I'd welcome other editors helping with it.
 * Editors who believe that there is a consensus in the sources for a narrower definition/application based only on theological positions should provide evidence that this is actually the consensus position of the available sources. Please see what I said here, because I'm going to insist on it, and not accept dodging and weaving about it.

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The only way this mediation or any mediation is going to be successful is through discussion, negotiation and compromise. Any participants that have come here thinking that their way is going to (finally) be shown to the right way will be disappointed. Positions are very entrenched at this point in a dispute. So we have to work together to find some common ground. And yes any accepted definition for the article topic will need to tied to good quality sources and I'm sure there will be a discussion on the analysis of those sources as we go along too. My job is to corral the discussion and try to keep it moving forward and not going in endless circles which is what often happens on talk pages. However, in the end the success or failure of the mediation depends on the willingness of the participants to negotiate a compromise. We'll see how it goes. I'm optimistic!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

View by TFD
The sources I have seen are consistent with Collect's definition. It seems the dispute among scholars is which groups meet the criteria. If there are other definitions, could editors please present them. Also keep in mind disambiguation - if different sources use the same words to refer to two different things, then we need two different articles. For example, Portland, Oregon, and Portland, Maine, are two different places and each has its own article despite having the same name.


 * Juergensmeyer: "But more often it has been religion-sometimes in combination with these other [secular] factors, sometimes as the primary motivation-that has incited terrorist acts. ("The meaning of religious terrorism", Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, p, 6)
 * Schbley: "almost all contemporary Christian terrorism, spanning the spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP; may be labeled as racism or political terrorism committed by a group with a strong ethnoreligious identity because their goals are not to bear witness against dogmatic antagonism or despotism but to consciously and forcibly redress a policy or political grievance.... All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following groups of monks.... [They] are the only true Christian terror organization."
 * Audrey Kurth Cronin (former Specialist in Terrorism at the Congressional Research Service): "There are four types of terrorist organizations currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or "sacred" terrorists....Currently, "sacred" terrorism is becoming more significant....Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas-but usually one ideology or motivation dominates." ("Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism"', International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58)
 * David C. Rapoport: "Christian terrorism, based on racist interpretations of the Bible, emerged in an amorphous "Christian Identity" movement. In true medieval millenarian fashion, armed rural communes composed of families withdrew from the state to wait for the Second Coming and the great racial war." (Terrorism: The fourth or religious wave. p. 17)

TFD (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of view by TFD
Let me note some points on which I see opportunities for agreement. TFD observes that sources often use pretty much the same definition, and yet disagree about how to apply that definition to specific groups. In other words, we can have two sources that state the definition very similarly, and yet source 1 says Group X are Christian terrorists, whereas source 2 says Group X are not Christian terrorists. I agree with that. I would argue, however, that it is WP:OR for editors to say that source 2 is correct and source 1 is incorrect and that we should therefore adopt source 2's classification of groups. I would argue, instead, that all we can do is to cite both sources and note the ways in which they agree and the ways in which they disagree, without taking "sides" in Wikipedia's voice. I will also attempt to show in my view that my reading of some of the sources cited by TFD is very different than TFD's reading of the same sources! – something that we will have to figure out. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This part of the mediation is about the definition. How we address the dispute about which groups fall under it is best left to another part.  TFD (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that distinction, but I was trying to find something where I could agree with you. I will also attempt to show in my view that the separation between definition and application, as it is presented to us in the sources, is not as black-and-white as what you just said to me. And I'll repeat my caution about not engaging in OR by deciding that some sources are "right" or "wrong" because their applications appear to some editors to agree with or contradict their definitions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition serves two purposes: it outlines the topic in the lead of the article and it allows us to determine when different sources using different terms are talking about the same topic and when different sources using the same words are talking about different things.  Cronin for example may not use the term "Christian terrorism", but is using the same definition as Juergensmeyer.  Again, I agree we should not engage in OR about which groups fit these definitions, but "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  That however is a discussion for another section.  TFD (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thank you for providing a detailed view backed up by sources. I'd like to follow up by asking you two questions about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

First question: In your reading of Juergensmeyer, do you find any place where he describes, in his own words, any aspect of his defining of religious terrorism as being something like a minority or a dissenting view, relative to other authorities on the subject? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Second question: In your readings of Cronin and Rapoport, do you find any places where they discuss what they characterize as something like majority or consensus expert views about defining religious terrorism, contrasted with something like minority or dissenting or fringe views about the definition? I'm asking specifically about that, and not about places where they might say that they disagree with other experts or present evidence that they say contradicts other experts' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see any disagreement between any of the writers on the definition. AFAICT, the writers imply that there is no controversy on the definition.  TFD (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And they all agree with the multiple sources I had already presented - I think we have pretty well established that this is the mainstream definition to work with. Collect (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked two very specific questions, and I don't think that either one of you actually answered them. It sounds to me like you are saying approximately that you do not see anything in these sources to indicate that there are opposing "schools" of thought in the scholarship on the subject – and that the available source material from established scholars includes numerous scholars who can be regarded by Wikipedia as being more or less equal as regards the due weight we should assign them, as opposed to presenting one subset of experts as mainstream and another subset as minority or dissenting or fringe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We each presented sufficient sourcing for a mainstream definition of the term. Gainsaying for the sake of gainsaying will not help as much as if you furnish a dozen or so mainstream scholars providing a substantively different definition at this point.  It is not up to TFD or me to do anything more than present reliable and noteworthy sources for the mainstream definition at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, the answers to your two questions are no and no. Juergensmeyer does not say he is using a minority definition and in fact he is not.  Cronin and Rapoport do not allude to a minority definition presumably because they were unaware of one.  Certainly there are opposing "schools" of thought in the scholarship on the subject.  But that opposition has nothing to do with the definition.  TFD (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TFD, for the direct answers, with which I agree (although I will be showing sourcing for some experts criticizing Juergensmeyer). It is helpful to simply provide specific answers based on sources, as you have now done. It's much more helpful than accusing me falsely of gainsaying or comparing me to Monty Python. And I could not agree more that the best analyses are those that are based upon reliable, mainstream sources, which is exactly what I am preparing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

View by Tryptofish
1. My view of the definition

Some sources define "Christian terrorism" narrowly as terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing Christian theological positions. Other sources define it broadly as terrorism that makes use of Christian language or symbols, and is motivated by any number of factors, including humiliation and alienation. Most sources treat it as including both theological motivations and motivations based on ethnorelgious identity.

There's no simplifying that down to a definition that fits neatly into a single sentence, without engaging in original research. If editors decide to exclude all sources other than those that employ the narrowest definitions, and then use that narrow definition to exclude content about Christian terrorism as identified by other sources, that would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

2. There are, indeed, sources that define it narrowly in terms of theological positions.

In his view, TFD cited David C. Rapoport (link) and Audry Cronin (link) as defining it this way. I agree. At the article talk page, TFD also cited Stefan Aubrey (link) in this way. I agree. Earlier in this mediation, Collect cited Jeffrey Bale of the MonTREP Program (link) in this way. I agree. (Collect also cited the LawBrain wiki (link). I disagree per WP:UGC because the source is a wiki. It does not meet our needs for academic or scholarly studies as reliable sources in this mediation. Collect also refers to John Koller (link), but I have not found any definitions of kinds of terrorism there.) It seems to me that we can also add Alex P. Schmid, editor of The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research (link).

I'd also like to add Bruce Hoffman, who is cited at the page:


 * Interview with Bruce Hoffman; "A Conversation with Bruce Hoffman and Jeffrey Goldberg" in Religion, Culture and International Conflict: A Conversation, edited by Michael Cromartie. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. p.30. Quote: "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role."

I point Hoffman out for two reasons, in addition to the fact that he clearly is an expert for our purposes. First, he very explicitly explains his definition of religious terrorism in these narrow terms. Second, he draws a distinction based on the conflict in Northern Ireland, and I will later cite other sources that define the same conflict in different ways.

3. Aghai: Language that goes slightly beyond just theology

V.D. Aghai, in Terrorism, an Unconventional Crime (link) (also cited by Collect) uses language to define religious terrorism, that at first read is very similar: "These groups seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." In this mediation, Bryon Morrigan argued that "advancing... the spread of Christianity" should also be recognized as involved according to some sources. I agree. One can read Aghai's language as about equally being about theological positions and about forcibly spreading or imposing those positions. The source does not treat the distinction between theology and "spread" as a significant distinction.

4. Schbley: "Spectrum" of Christian terrorism

In his view, TFD cited Ayla Hammond Schbley as a source. I understand the source completely differently than TFD does, and this mediation discussion needs to figure out how to read this source. Schbley was unquestionably an academic expert on terrorism and counter-terrorism (biographical information). He wrote a chapter, called "Toward a Common Profile of Religious Terrorism: Some Psychosocial Determinants of Christian and Islamic Terrorists", in a book about terrorism (link). At the bottom of page 74, he has a footnote, number 25, that reads: "Political terrorism may be distinguished from religious terrorism for the latter is perpetrated to communicate a perceived divine message by zealots who are unconscious of the maliciousness of their terrorism." That's a very strict statement of the "narrow" definition in my part #2, above, about as clearly stated as one can get.

However, the footnote comes after a sentence that refers to "all contemporary Christian terrorism, spanning the spectrum of affiliations from the IRA to the PP". (The PP are the Phineas Priesthood.) His mention of the Provisional Irish Republican Army is clearly at odds with what I quoted from Hoffman in my #2, above. Throughout the section of his chapter called "Toward Profiling Christian Religious Terrorism", pages 73–77, he describes numerous abortion clinic bombers as Christian terrorists, and then goes on to do an in-depth (in-depth because he had the specific kind of data he wanted to use for his study) analysis of the Maronite Monks, whom he considers to be Christian terrorists. His "Discussion", pages 77–78, makes the argument that he considers the Phineas Priesthood and most Islamic terrorists to have profiles, as religious terrorists, very similar to the Maronite Monks.

TFD inaccurately quotes Schbley as saying: "All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following groups of monks.... [They] are the only true Christian terror organization." Here is what the source actually says, top of page 75: "All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the following groups of monks, who were organized and funded to terrorize..." He is making a point about them being organized religious terrorists, because he was looking for an organized group in which to conduct interviews (in contrast to the abortion clinic bombers in the US, whom he considers to be Christian terrorists, but whom he found to be too elderly to allow him to conduct the kinds of personal interviews he wanted to conduct; thus the desire for an organization that would still provide interview subjects, as well as having a written manifesto to analyze), not about the other groups not really being religious terrorists. In the next section, he says: "The search for the only true contemporary Christian terror organization... unfortunately took this research back to Lebanon." He isn't calling the Maronite Monks the "only" Christian terrorist group. He is describing the course of his research. It's a misunderstanding of the source to claim that he said that the Monks "are the only true Christian terror organization". He clearly also includes the PP and the abortion clinic bombers, and he passingly seems to include the IRA at one end of the "spectrum".

The sentence about the spectrum and the IRA is worded in a complicated way, unfortunately, but it seems to me that he is saying that all the groups in his spectrum "may" be classified as "racism or political terrorism", as opposed to saying that they must be classified that way and must not be considered Christian terrorists. He does not seem to say that "almost all contemporary Christian terrorism" is usually mislabeled as Christian terrorism when it actually is something else.

Schbley is basically in the same group as the scholars who use the "narrow" definition in my #2 above. I am not arguing that Schbley is adopting a definition that is radically different than the "narrow" definition. It's a matter of degree. But he does allow for some range or spectrum beyond what Hoffman, for example, would allow.

5. Purpura: "Overlap" between religious terrorism and other categories of terrorism

Philip Purpura, in Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction with Applications, gives a typology of the different classes of modern terrorism on page 17 (link). He first defines religious terrorism similarly to Aghai (section #3 above): "Extreme violence is used by religious groups to force changes. Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God." He then defines a different kind of terrorism, "national or ethnic terrorism", as largely being about "control of land", a distinction also widely made by sources that use the "narrow" definition. But he then refers to Northern Ireland, within the national/ethnic typology, differently than Hoffman did: "this conflict overlaps religious terrorism because of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland." This is a somewhat different treatment than what is described above. Purpura is arguing for the possibility of "overlap", in which some terrorism can primarily be a type other than religious, but can also, to some measurable extent, be religious terrorism in part.

6. Duyvesteyn also sees overlap.

Isabelle Duyvesteyn is a faculty member at Utrecht University who studies terrorism and war. Terrorism Studies: A Reader, edited by John Horgan and Kurt Braddock, collects works by various terrorism experts (link). Chapters 1 and 3 are by Rapoport, in which he presents his "narrow" definition (see my #2 above) and his theory of "waves" during history. In between is Chapter 2, by Duyvesteyn, and titled "How new is the new terrorism?", in which she talks about what she sees as the limitations of Rapoport's analyses. This is significant, first, because it shows that Rapoport's definition is not entirely a matter of scholarly consensus. Second, Duyvesteyn repeatedly makes points that are similar to what Purpura said (my #5 above), about overlap between categories of terrorism. She questions Rapoport's view that the most recent "wave" of terrorism is purely religious, as well as his view that earlier waves did not involve religion. On page 32, she repeatedly describes distinguishing between religious terrorism and the other kinds of terrorism, as well as the discrete concept of "religious terrorism", as "problematic". On page 36, part of her conclusions are that "The overlap between important aims that the terrorists set themselves also constitutes continuity. Political, ideological, and religious themes strongly overlap, making clear goal-oriented distinctions problematic, if not impossible." Here, then, is an expert academic who sees some limits to defining religious terrorism as purely theological in motivation, treating it instead as having some "continuity" with other classifications of terrorism.

7. Martin: "Primary" and "secondary" religious terrorism

In Essentials of Terrorism: Concepts and controversies (a textbook), Gus Martin devotes Chapter 7, starting on page 137, to Religious Terrorism (link). He makes a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" religious terrorism. On page 157, in his chapter summary, he says:
 * "Some terrorists are motivated primarily by faith, whereas others use religion secondarily. The latter movements are motivated by nationalism or other ideology as a primary inspiration but are united by an underlying religious identity. The goals of both primary and secondary religious terrorism are to construct a new society based on a religious or ethno-national identity."

What he calls "primary" is pretty much the "narrow" definition, but he uses the "ethno-national" definer for the secondary form, which he explicitly calls "secondary religious terrorism", not some other, non-religious, kind of terrorism, and he covers it in a chapter about religious terrorism.

8. Jenkins: More overlap

In his book Rethinking Ethnicity, professor Richard Jenkins analyzes the Northern Ireland conflict in detail (link). His bottom-line conclusion is quite similar to that of the "narrow" definers: on page 157, he concludes that the conflict was "essentially political", and this is his position throughout the book. But the actual sentence on page 157 is: "As I suggested in Chapter 8, although essentially political, the Northern Irish conflict is symbolized and reinforced by an important religious dimension." That Chapter 8 is titled "The 'Cultural Stuff'", and is all about how religion contributed to the conflict and the terrorism. Note his emphasis on the role of symbolism, as this will come up again below. This is another case of an expert source seeing an important, not incidental, role for religion in the Northern Irish terrorism, and there are more. As editors, we cannot dismiss his assessment of "important" without violating WP:NOR.

9. Price: similar to Jenkins

Sacred Terror: How Faith Becomes Lethal by Daniel Price (a university professor who studies terrorism, comparative criminal justice, and international crime) is another book about religious terrorism that examines the Northern Irish conflict (link). On pages 156–167, he writes about Northern Ireland, and like other experts, emphasizes such factors as politics, ethnicity, and land ownership. On page 156, he says that the conflict "exemplifies the multidimensional nature of religion-based violence and terrorism", and, like Jenkins (#8 above), says that "religion played an important role in solidifying and sharpening the divisions", not a minor or incidental role. He cites "colonialism, occupation, ethnic division, discrimination, and inequality" as being of "equal or greater importance" than religion, but he also calls those things "several of the causes of religion-based terrorism outlined earlier". He is treating "religion-based terrorism" as something "multidimensional", with multiple causes and overlaps with other kinds of terrorism, somewhat as Duyvesteyn (#6, above) and Purpura (#5) do.

10. Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, and Mitchell

Richard Jenkins (#8 above) also has a review of the literature by some other authors whom he considers to be experts, on page 112. He cites John Fulton (1991) as arguing that the Troubles were primarily about religion, and John Hickey (1984), Maurice Irvine (1991), and Claire Mitchell (2006) as making "moderate" arguments for partial, significant roles of religion. He presents those views as "moderate", not WP:FRINGE, and treats them as fellow experts who are more or less on the same level as himself, rather than as discredited dissenters, although he personally comes to a different bottom-line conclusion than they did. Taking Jenkins, Price, and these authors together, there seems to be a clear mid-range of mainstream scholarship, that allows for some overlap of Christian terrorism with other kinds of terrorism in Northern Ireland, in a field of study where the authorities, themselves, do not see it as fully settled.

11. Juergensmeyer

Mark Juergensmeyer, author of Terror in the Mind of God (link), was cited by TFD in his view, and has probably been discussed at the article talk page more than any other source. Page 7: "This is a book about religious terrorism." Page 10: "The question is whether religious terrorism is different from other kinds." Let's note, first, that we agree that Juergensmeyer does not self-describe as a minority or dissenting view within the academic community. Second, we agree as well that other reliable sources do not describe him as minority or fringe. Third, we agree also that he tends to cite more specific examples of terrorism as being religious terrorism, than do some of the "narrower" sources.

On pages 3–15, he writes about how he defines religious terrorism, with pages 4–10 titled "The Meaning of Religious Terrorism". He talks about factors such as disenfranchisement as motivations, then says on page 6: "But more often it has been religion – sometimes in combination with these other factors, sometimes as the primary motivation – that has incited terrorist acts." Like Duyvesteyn (#6) and Price (#9), he sees religious terrorism as existing in combination with motivations such as disenfranchisement, and like Martin (#7), he is treating some religious terrorism as having religion as "the primary motivation" and other religious terrorism as motivated by "combination with these other factors". Thus, Juergensmeyer is really not using the "narrow" definition used by the authors in #2, and that is the reason why he considers more groups to fall under his definition.

On pages 10–13, he draws attention to how religious terrorists perceive their communities as being "under attack", and on page 13, he describes his methodology as being "cultural" and points to other authors whose approaches are different than his. He also places importance, in Chapter 7, on what he calls the "performance" aspect of religious terrorism, in the way that it calls attention to itself even from people who were not directly attacked.

In The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, on pages 232–233, B. McAllister and A.P. Schmid (proponents of the "narrow" definition, #2) critically evaluate Juergensmeyer's analyses (link). They say, in part, that the "testing of his theory is plagued, however, by conceptual stretching", and they say that they consider some of the specific groups that he calls religious terrorists to not be religious terrorists, because the motivations of those groups are not purely or primarily about theology.

Thus, Juergensmeyer is within the mainstream of scholarship, but he is not entirely in agreement with the "narrow" definition. His cultural emphasis is also somewhat similar to that of Jenkins (#8), although Juergensmeyer extends his definition of religious terrorism farther than Jenkins does.

12. Stern: underlying motivations

Jessica Stern is a faculty member at Harvard, and an expert on terrorism. She is solidly a reliable source for our purposes. (Preemptively, I will note that it has been commented at the article talk page that she once gave mistaken political advice about terrorism. That is not a valid reason to give less weight to the information that I will present here.) Her book, Terror in the Name of God, is entirely about religious terrorism, Christian, Islamic, and Jewish (link).

In Part 1 of the book, she examines the "grievances that give rise to" religious terrorism. Over five chapters, she covers one motivation per chapter. These are: (1) alienation, (2) humiliation, (3) demographics (conflicts between ethnic groups), (4) history (justifications based on the past), and (5) territory (control of land). She does not place theology in a primary role anywhere here. Instead, she treats these five psychological and economic grievances as the underlying motivations of religious terrorism, and presents the terrorists as finding, after the fact, religious justifications for terrorism that really was motivated by something other than theology.

Her approach partly echos those of Purpura (#5) and Martin (#7) in the overlap with ethnicity and nationality, as well as Martin's treatment of "secondary" terrorists who merely use religion as a justification, Duyvesteyn (#6) in seeing the terrorists' motivations as complicated, and Juergensmeyer (#11) in emphasizing the cultural aspects of the motivations. Her five motivations are quite similar to what Price (#9) lists. According to Stern, it would be entirely missing the point to define religious terrorism as being about theological positions.

13. The Routledge Survey

As I have noted in #2 and #11, Alex P. Schmid uses a "narrow" definition. However, in The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research (link), he reports, on pages 23–27, on a survey that he conducted of numerous other terrorism experts whose opinions he regards as knowledgeable, about how to evaluate "Terrorism and religion". This material is particularly valuable for our purposes, because it is very much a secondary source compilation of opinions across the field (and, furthermore, compiled by a scholar whose own views are in favor of the "narrow" view). Throughout, it is clear that there were many opinions that were located outside the "narrow" definition, to the extent that the field of study, as compiled by Schmid, encompasses a range of narrow and broad definitions, and is not regarded by the author as having been settled on either narrow or broad.

14. The 2005 Madrid Conference

Likewise, the Routledge Handbook (link) also reports, on page 274, on another survey of multiple terrorism experts, at a 2005 conference held at the Club de Madrid. The meeting consensus lists five "potential religious causes of terrorism". The list is very much in line with Jessica Stern's analysis (#12), with non-religious underlying factors, and religion added on by the terrorists as a justification. This is evidence that Stern's thinking is well within the mainstream of scholarship.

15. Jones: Psychology

In The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence (link) (also cited by Collect), Chapter 23, written by James W. Jones, is titled "Sacred Terror: The Psychology of Contemporary Religious Terrorism". Jones argues for the use of psychology as a way to understand the motivations of religious terrorism, very much as Stern (#12) does. He cites Stern appreciatively in discussing the role of humiliation in religious terrorism. This is more evidence that Stern's views are mainstream and require due weight.

16. Symbolism

In #11, I noted Juergensmeyer's emphasis on "performance". Jonathan Matusitz is a controversial author who takes that analysis even further. In his book, Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior (link), he has a section titled "Christian Terrorism of the IRA" on pages 157–158. In calling the IRA "Christian terrorists", he goes well beyond Jenkins (#8) and Price (#9) (as well as Jenkins' attention to religious symbolism), and is diametrically opposite to Hoffman (#2). He treats what Juergensmeyer would have called "performance" as being about evoking religious (Catholic) symbolism in the eyes of the public, and in the eyes of potential recruits. Matusitz can reasonably be considered to be hostile to religion, and he has made controversial public statements about Islam. However, he is a tenured university professor, and his book was published by Rowman & Littlefield, an entirely mainstream publisher of academic thought. In assigning WP:Due weight, we can properly regard his views as minority views within the scholarly field, and give him significantly less weight than the other sources above. However, he is not actually WP:FRINGE, and so WP:NPOV requires us to give him some (non-zero) weight. It is reasonable to consider his book as evidence of the wide range of opinions in a scholarly field that is not yet fully settled.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of view by Tryptofish
What would be far more useful is finding actual definitions instead of your personal interpretation of what scholarly authors say. So far you proffer nothing contrary to the definition already presented by TFD and myself. It is fun to see how an editor here interprets what others have written, but we would likely be better off using specific definitions written by experts, and not out own interpretations of what the author means. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually have very specifically indicated where I agree with you and TFD, and I have given specific reasons for the points where I see things differently. It would be very helpful if, as I did, you would identify those points where you see some opportunity for agreement, as that could be a starting place for moving forward. If you read what I actually said, I repeatedly do provide specific examples of experts whose definitions are different than those you and TFD cited, and none of it is my "interpretation", but instead is my good faith effort to report what the sources themselves say, in their own words, and without superimposing editor opinion upon them. Keithbob: it would be helpful if you could provide guidance about the process by which Collect and I could un-stuck this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Absent an actual source giving an actual specific definition, I see no way we will reach agreement if we insist on using our own personal reading and inferences from sources.   TFD and I have furnished numerous such specific sources and specific definitions, and I will not accede to using what any editor "knows" to be the truth where they provide no such specific definitions from specific sources.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've provided a lot of specific sources with specific definitions, and I am not at all imposing my own personal interpretation on any of it. I even responded to every source that you cited, agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of presenting 16 lengthy sections, it would have been helpful to have presented a few brief ones. I wonder if you collapse your section above and provide a few key points.

I notice that nowhere have you presented a definition in any source that deviates from what Collect and I presented. You quote Juergensmeyer for example as saying, "But more often it has been religion – sometimes in combination with these other factors, sometimes as the primary motivation – that has incited terrorist acts." That is exactly what Cronin said: "many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas-but usually one ideology or motivation dominates." Where Juergensmeyer disagrees with the mainstream is that he believes religion is a motivation - in fact the major motivation - of NI Ireland terrorism, while most writers, in line with the historiography of the conflict, do not.

I don't understand your "organized" distinction that Schbley is supposed to make. He met with anti-abortionists and rejected them from his study because they were elderly mainstream religious people not involved in terrorism, not because they were not organized - they in fact were. And yes he casually refers to the terrorists he researched who happened be Christians, at least nominally, as "Christian terrorists", but it's clear the purpose of his investigation was to find terrorists who met the definition used by Juergensmeyer and others, the "true" Christian terrorists (his quotation marks).

You have not provided any definition of Christian terrorism that includes forced conversion, merely sources that say it is one of the activities that some Christian terrorists carry out. Some Christian terrorists blow up buildings, that does not mean that blowing up a building is an act of Christian terrorism. It becomes an act of Christian terrorism when the motivation is religious, as opposed for example to humiliation of another ethnic/nationalist group. Notably some of the terrorists who force Christianity on Hindus are themselves Hindu.

Even the anti-Islamlist activist and communications professor, Jonathan Matusitz, uses the same definition: "Christian terrorism consists of terrorist attacks committed by groups or individuals who appeal to Christian motives or goals for their actions.  [They] have used unique interpretations of the principles of faith...to try to cause the "end times" described in the Book of Revelation." (p. 155)

Instead of interpreting these sources to figure out what they meant by Christian terrorism, could you please present a definition by any one of them that differs from what Collect and I have presented.

TFD (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * TFD stated, "Notably some of the terrorists who force Christianity on Hindus are themselves Hindu." I would love to see a citation for that statement, as I've certainly never seen any such thing represented in any of the RS presented on the CT page. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following this bit of discussion and anent the issue of Hindu conversion practices -
 * ""`Ghar wapsi` is different. We are in favour of it. All Muslims and Christians living in India are children of those who got converted after sixth century," he added. Togadia claimed that "ghar wapsi" is going on in the country for 700 years and hence there is nothing new in it. "`Ghar wapsi` is not against constitution or law. They have a right to make a home coming," he said."
 * "Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) international working president Praveen Togadia Sunday said they would not allow conversion of even a single Hindu to any other religion. ... Togadia warned Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) government of Telangana against turning the state into "Nizam's rule" by providing reservations to Muslims. He said there was a need for administration which cares for Hindus."
 * "Muslims, Christians in India forced, tricked into converting to Hinduism" By Rama Lakshmi, The Washington Post, "An affiliate of the BJP has asked for donations earlier this month to fund an event in the northern city of Aligarh to convert Christians and Muslims to Hinduism this Christmas"
 * quote the International New York Times: " “Hindu militants” have engineered conversions of Muslims and Christians in Agra (UP) and in the states of Gujarat and Kerala and that police were investigating accusations that people have been induced to participate in mass conversion meetings by a combination of intimidation and bribery, including the promise of food ration cards. " The editorial said attacks on Christians and their places of worship have intensified in recent weeks and cited the instance of one of New Delhi’s biggest Churches being burned down on December 1. Christmas “carollers” were attacked on their way home in the city of Hyderabad on December 12. :::: Bloomberg / Chicago Tribune: "This month, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, India's powerful, male-only Hindu nationalist outfit, finally played a card it has long held in its hand. It announced an intensive conversion program to recover its "lost property" in India, feeding the dream of its cadre and allied organizations of an India that is nothing less than "100 per cent Hindu.". What the RSS seeks, then, is a new disequilibrium in which no other religious organization would have the right to convert people. No wonder it salivates at the prospect of a future India in which, by generating a consensus against the missionary activity of other religions, it can engineer a society that's 100 percent Hindu.   and so on -- all in a matter of a few days in the news.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh...Collect? You might want to pay more attention to the discussion.  TFD said that Hindus were forcibly converting people to Christianity (not Hinduism).  That's not what you're talking about.  Even you would have to find it pretty absurd and hard to believe, right?  (Also, none of the above examples are "forced" conversions, at point of AK-47, unlike what some of these Christian groups have been doing.  Also, you're completely off-topic.  Like I keep saying, the "Christian Terrorism" page is not the place for it.)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * According to SATP, "About 90 per cent of the top ranking NLFT cadres are Christians." Nayabashi Jamatiya for example was Hindu, although he left over the forced conversions.  I suppose no true Hindu could actually be a member.  TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you just blatantly misrepresented the source, and concluded that all non-Christian members of NLFT just have to be Hindus, right? No 'Anders Breiviks' among them? (Occam's Razor, for Pete's sake!)  And Jamatiya headed NLFT-NB, the breakaway faction from NLFT that does not adhere to Christian Terrorist ideology, which was the reason that the two NLFTs split.  Also, I'm still waiting for a citation referring to Hindus forcibly converting people to Christianity.  You can backpedal from that statement, but you made it.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  18:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In my view, Tryptofish accurately represents the sources that he brought and I find that he very clearly stated how the second, broader definition comes into play. I do not understand Collect's and TFD's ... inability (searching for a non-prejudicial word there - it is my intent to be non-prejudicial!) to see what is to me, clearly laid out.   the exchange happening right here, is exactly where we have been stymied.  This is where we need your help! Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just quoted the definitions by Juergensmeyer, Cronin and Matusitz and they are exactly the same. Can you quote from any of the authors above where they define the concept any differently.  Or just name one of them and I will find and present their definition.TFD (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources the define Christian terrorism in such a way that it can be carried out with no Christian motivation? Or is your point that Christianity need not be the only motivation?  If so that is exactly what the sources Collect and I provided said.  TFD (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, I will attempt to rely to all of your comments so far, here. Having spent all the time that I did researching and writing my view, I am very sympathetic to the point that other participating editors need some time to properly read all those sections of my view. Please feel free to take as much time as you need to read it properly, but please also base your comments on what I actually said, instead of re-framing them, just as I have been careful to take your comments as you have actually said them. If I were to "collapse" my view into a short summary, it would be: the source material as we find it is complex and does not have a settled academic consensus. Thus, it defeats the purpose to treat the sources as something that is amenable to a brief summary, so again please take your time.


 * If you read what I actually said, I present plenty of sources that use definitions different than what you and Collect said, which is why I present so many sources. About Juergensmeyer and Cronin, that quote from Cronin is an interesting one, so thank you for pointing it out. However, Cronin seems to be saying that those terrorists who have "a mix of motivating ideologies" should be classified as non-religious categories of terrorists, whereas Juergensmeyer would classify them as religious terrorists.


 * Schbley clearly says that the anti-abortion bombers were Christian terrorists. He did not reject them because they were mainstream religious people (if that's what mainstream religious people are like, heaven help us!), but because they were too old for him to interview and get meaningful responses. You and I have gone around in circles about Schbley, and Keithbob needs to figure out a process to get that un-stuck.


 * About forced conversion, are you referring to Aghai? I don't think that my view actually uses the words "forced conversion". I think we should take Aghai as he writes it, including spread of religion, but I don't think that he specifically mentions conversion as part of that spread.


 * Matusitz may have that sentence that you quoted in isolation, but his chapter, taken as a whole, is fairly represented in what I wrote.


 * I have presented numerous sources that treat the definition of Christian terrorism in different ways. And I've discussed in detail how a significant number of them treat "motivations" separately from religion. Please take as much time as you need to read what I actually said.


 * As I said to Collect, it would be helpful if you could identify any areas where we might have agreement (as I did in responding to your view). And, again, I ask Keithbob to provide some process for getting the discussion un-stuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are saying that even though Matusitz begins his section on "Christian Terrorism" with a clear definition, that the examples he uses shows he is using a different definition. That is original research and you need a secondary source that says that or another author who defines the subject the way you do.  (I would suggest however using a definition written by an actual terrorism expert.  Some who says Islam is the major problem facing the world and that Muslims breed like mushrooms after the rain is not representative of the views of terrorism experts.)
 * Cronin does not say that those terrorists who have a mix of motivating ideologies should be classified as non-religious terrorists, nor does Juergensmeyer say they should be classified as religious terrorists. These writers agree on definitions.  Their disagreement is on which groups meet them.  Juergensmeyer thinks that religion is the major motivation in NI terrorism.  Most experts do not think it is a motivation.
 * You are misreading Schbely. He said the old people were not terrorists and did not include the actual terrorists, who are a small minority of anti-abortionists and typically younger, in his study because of the difficulty in determining their motivation.  That is standard in terrorism studies.  The motives of groups are clearer.  For example, the motives of al Qaeda are relatively clear, but the motives of the Fort Hood shooter are not.  It could be he was an employee who went postal and used Islam as a rationalization.  Of course the same could be said of individuals in any terrorist group, or any group for that matter.  Wikipedia has clear objectives but individual editors may have different reasons for contributing.
 * If you want to know where we agree, it is that all the above writers present correct definitions of Christian terrorism.
 * TFD (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's please stick to what I actually said about Matusitz, Juergensmeyer, and Cronin in my view.


 * In general, there are a couple of things that I have been trying very hard to do in this mediation discussion, that I would hope that other participating editors would reciprocate. When I have said something in my view, please do not overlook the fact that I have said it. When I have said something in my view, please do not ask me to say it again. When I have said something in my view, please do not re-frame what I said as something else and then try to argue with me about it. And please base everything on what the sources, themselves, say – all of the sources that I have cited.


 * At this point, it's worth noting that, as Jytdog pointed out earlier, we are really right at the same point that we were at on the article talk page when we first agreed to the mediation. If you look back at my original request at the top of this mediation page, you will see that TFD and Collect are now arguing for what is basically numbered point #1, and Jytdog, Bryon, and I are arguing for what is basically numbered point #2. And we are stuck, not even able to agree on what the sources say.


 * Keithbob, this is where you need to actively mediate. We need a structure to the discussion to get past where we are now stuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is holding us up is that you are unable to provide a source that contains your preferred definition, and instead say we should ingnore the definitions provided in sources, figure out what they really meant and write our own definition. In that case we are at a dead end, because policies for verifiability, weight and original research prevent us from doing that.  TFD (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I really need other editors to stick what I have said, and not to re-frame it as something else. Per what I already said, I don't have a preferred definition, so it is a false argument to try to argue with me about a single definition. I've presented a very large number of sources, which employ various definitions. Some differ only by small matters of degree, whereas others differ significantly in how they go about constructing a definition. I base my analysis on what the sources, themselves, say, without imposing my personal interpretations on anything. In contrast, trying to shoehorn all of the sources into an interpretation where all the authors intended their definitions to be the same does require original research. There's no getting around it: the source material is diverse and messy. We have to deal with the reliable sources as they exist – all of them – and not attempt to portray an overarching theme that does not exist in the sources themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Trypto, I believe that you and I find that sources support both definitions #1 and #2 - sources are not unified on this, and we believe that the Christian Terrorism article should accurately reflect that the various definitions. Correct?  Just saying this because above you seem to say that you, I, and Bryon only support #2.  I ~think~ Bryon supports only definition #2 being used in the article, but am not sure about that =- Bryon where do you stand? Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I support what the RS says...ALL of the RS, not just certain editors' favorite RS. So essentially, I support both #1 and #2, because both are supported by various RS, and I also support inclusion of anything that is described in RS as "Christian Terrorist", "engaged in Christian Terrorism", or any other variation of that concept.  I also think this discussion is pointless, because the WP ideal, as I understand it, is to present all RS viewpoints, with corresponding weight and/or qualification if necessary.  TFD specifically seems to want to delete everything from the page that does not fit into a very narrow definition of CT presented by hand-picked RS (if not the entire page itself), while virtually discarding anything that disagrees with this "narrative", regardless of whether it is RS or not.  It's clear to me that nothing really is going to be accomplished here, which is why I'm not commenting much on it.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  01:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying your view on definitions. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog and Bryon, I agree with what both of you have said, and I thank you both for better defining the issue. My intention was always that #2 was to say that there is a range of positions taken by sources, and that range includes the narrow position described in #1, but also includes other, broader positions that are not included in #1. Indeed, if one looks at my first numbered section in the part of my view that Keithbob has collapses, I describe that narrow position there, and I say that I agree with TFD and Collect that such sources exist. Indeed, I think that every participating editor agrees that such sources exist. The difference is that Jytdog, Bryon, and I also believe that other sources exist; whereas TFD and Collect previously stated that the other sources are minority or fringe, and more recently have stated that the other sources really are saying the exact same things as the narrow sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of articles about topics where the definition is disputed, for example, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, fascism, genocide and terrorism. In each case, there are sources that discuss the dispute over the definition. Cronin for example says, "DEFINITION OF TERRORISM Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define,...individuals can disagree over whether particular actions constitute terrorism...." (p. 32) A search of Google books for "terrorism definition" shows that lots of books on terrorism discuss the differences in greater detail.

If there are similar differences in the definition of religious terrorism, then they must be discussed somewhere, but so far I have been able to find nothing.

TFD (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Byron Morrigan, that is not my position. I just though it was biased, when most writers do not consider NI Ireland terrorism to be religious terrorism, that we say it is, by using a definition not found in any sources. We should explain why Juergensmeyer considers it Christian terrorism, along with scholars who specifically address his writings and contradict them. Juergensmeyer btw thinks that religion motivates terrorism in NI. TFD (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And I've noted repeatedly that I'm not knowledgeable about the NI situation, and so therefore do my best to stay out of those discussions. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you have discussed NE Indian terrorism. Do you think Nagaland for Christ comes under Christian terrorism because they are motivated, at least in part, by Christianity, or do you think that religion does not play a role in their motivation, but we should call them Christian terrorists because they use Christian symbolism?  It seems like a fallback position.  Your think they are motivated by Christianity and therefore should be included.  But in case that is challenged, we can use a lower threshold that cannot be challenged.  TFD (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything at all about Nagaland in my view. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he was addressing my comment immediately before yours. I do believe that the NSCN is indeed "motivated, at least in part, by Christianity".  Specifically, Dr. B.B. Kumar, in a journal article entitled "Ethnicity and Insurgency in India's North-East", and found in the collection, "Problems of Ethnicity in the North-East India", states on page 23 that the NSCN "promoted Christian terrorism", and that the NSCN "worked for forcible conversion to Christianity", and "were responsible for the religious oppression of Hindus and Buddhists".  It also describes the NSCN's activities as "religious terrorism".  So this goes beyond "Nagaland for Christ" as a slogan, clearly. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bryon, I believe that too. But I don't see what this is doing in a section called "Discussion of view by Tryptofish". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because your view is that there are Christian terrorists who are not motivated by Christianity, hence the need for an expanded definition. Since the current conversation is going nowhere, I would like you to provide an example of Christian terrorists who, in your opinion, meet the expanded definition, but not the narrow one.  Otherwise the expanded definition is redundant.  TFD (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said in my view, there is nothing there about Northeast India, so presenting a discussion about Northeast India as somehow contradicting my analysis is framing what I said as something that I never said. I feel like you are alternating between asking me for "an example of Christian terrorists", and saying that this is not the step in the mediation discussion for specific examples, that we are, instead, discussing definitions. I've given you a large number of sources for definitions in my view. In the case of every source, I've explained exactly how I think it fits into how we should understand the available source material on defining the term. I've done it without evasion, without misrepresenting what the sources say, and without misrepresenting what other participating editors have said. When I have already said something in my view, please do not ignore that I have already said it. When I have already said something in my view, please do not ask me to say it again. When I have already said something in my view, please do not re-frame it as something that I did not say and then try to have an argument with me about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I am asking for is an example of a group that could meet definition 2 but fails definition 1. If none such groups exist, then your emphatic defense of definition 2 appears diverse.  If any reliable sources had made a distinction between these two definitions, then surely one of them would have provided an example, just as they provide examples of individuals and groups meeting the first definition.  TFD (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, this is starting to be the kinds of things we should discuss, although I think at this stage we are actually not talking about groups so much as sources. So are there sources that use definition 2, or something like it, and disregard definition 1? Yes, I've given you a lot of them. Consider, for example, when a terrorist is classified by a source as being motivated by alienation or humiliation. Those are not theological positions, by any stretch of the imagination. But if the terrorist then uses talk about theological propositions as a justification, a sort of rationalization, after the fact, are there sources that say, explicitly, that that is religious terrorism? Yes, and we will soon discuss them, one by one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a specific example. You say that a terrorist who is not motivated by religion whatsoever may nonetheless be a religious terrorist yet none of the sources say that, you are unable to present any source that says that and all I am asking for is one example.  And the reason you can provide none is that there are none and you are presenting views that not only do not exist in reliable sources but are not coherent.  TFD (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you want me to frame this as being about just one source. I've said that, to accurately represent the available source material, we cannot reduce this to just one source. That's why I've provided so many sources. What I said just above, about alienation or humiliation, comes directly from what I said in my "view". I'm trying very hard to get you to engage with what I said in my view, just as I did with what you said in yours. You can find one source in my view that talks about alienation and humiliation. You can also find a second source, and a third. If you have really read and thought about what I already said, you will understand that, and not find it unclear at all, so your question to me is already answered. If that does not work for you, then please let's have Keithbob guide us through it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Synthesis of published material" says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You need to find one source that supports your definition. Also, you are evading the issue. I asked you to present an example of terrorism that is not motivated by religion but may be religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were to read what I said in my view with the same attention and open mind that I have brought to reading your posts to me, you would see that I am not engaging in SYNTH, but rather citing numerous sources that fall into a variety of nuances, but within which there are multiple sources that agree with one another, without any reason for SYNTH. I am insisting on going through them one-by-one, and if you do not like what I am doing, please take it up with Keithbob. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a dispute in reliable over the definition, then you would be able to find a source that discusses it, as we do in fascism, genocide, terrorism, etc. For you to review the defintions and find differences is original research and something you might present to a journal on terrorism.  But it is beyond policy for us to do it ourselves.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so you would want to see source A say that source B defines religious terrorism in a manner with which source A disagrees, rather than a Wikipedia editor say that A and B say things differently. No problem. Likewise, I will want to see you be open to the possibility that when source A and source B say such things, that it is original research for editors to say that what the sources say about differences must be disregarded because the editors disagree with the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I should not dismiss a source because I disagree with it? What you or I happen to agree with is irrelevant - the article is supposed to represent what sources say.  TFD (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's certainly one part of what I'm saying, and I thank you for that reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Christian terrorism Part II
Thank you Tryptofish and TFD for taking the time to give a detailed analysis of several of the sources that are key to this dispute. I have collapsed both of those sections, without prejudice, so as not to obscure the flow of the discussion. However, I hope that the participants will refer to them from time to time as they are valuable resources for this discussion.
 * As always, please keep your comments on the content not the contributor and avoid sarcasm. All participants are here in good faith and deserve to be treated with civility and respect. I'm working on a summary of where we are at and I will post it in a couple of hours (I have to go to a real life appt first).--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SUMMARY: OK, so our current focus is to obtain a consensus for a definition of Christian terrorism. Keep in mind that a definition could be specific and narrow in its focus or it could be more nuanced to allow for special circumstances and varying context.

I'd like to highlight some areas of where there is common ground amongst the participants and potential for compromise and/or consensus: First, it appears that most or all of the participants agree that sources should not be discarded based on the evaluation of individual editors. Instead per WP:RS and WP:NPOV all sources should be represented and given appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE. So there is some emerging consensus there. Secondly there seems to be two general approaches to the sources and the definition. Collect and TFD seem to favor something along the lines of: Bryon Morrigon also favors this approach but with the addition of the phrase "or the spread of Christianity"
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions

Tryptofish on the other hand feels that the definition should encompass the full range definitions that he/she feels are given by the scholars under consideration. Tryptofish illustrates this by saying: Jytdog appears to agree with Tryptofish's perception that the definition, given by scholars has some variation and nuance to it.
 * Christian terrorism is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" and is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions"

These two approaches are further complicated by the fact that both "sides" of this debate cite the same sources/scholars to support their version of the definition based on their reading of what the source/scholar is saying.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 05:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a feint hint of bridge between these two positions in some of the comments made by TFD and Tryptofish: Is there something here we can build upon?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 05:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Juergensmeyer does not say he is using a minority definition and in fact he is not. Cronin and Rapoport do not allude to a minority definition presumably because they were unaware of one. Certainly there are opposing "schools" of thought in the scholarship on the subject. But that opposition has nothing to do with the definition. -- TFD
 * Thank you, TFD, for the direct answers, with which I agree---Trypto
 * TFD observes that sources often use pretty much the same definition, and yet disagree about how to apply that definition to specific groups. In other words, we can have two sources that state the definition very similarly, and yet source 1 says Group X are Christian terrorists, whereas source 2 says Group X are not Christian terrorists. I agree with that –Trypto
 * If you want to know where we agree, it is that all the above writers [Cronin Juergensmeyer and Schbely] present correct definitions of Christian terrorism. --  TFD


 * Seems that the only building block which would sustain an article is the definition which all agree is given by the mainstream sources.  Fringe positions may be mentioned only in specific proportion to their prevalence in the scholarly literature, and only is specifically sourced and cited to the sources holding them. (" Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions").   The addition of "or the spread of Christianity" would require specific sourcing to scholarly sources taking that position.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect this is not constructive.Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. What a constructive reply to a person who pointed out WP:FRINGE is applicable where no one can show any other definition has any substantial support in scholarly sources.   Might you kindly redact your odd aside to me? Collect (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FRINGE is for stuff like perpetual motion machines, snake oil, and conspiracy theories. We are no where near that territory.    It would have been constructive if you had said definition #1 should be given the most WEIGHT and definition #2 less WEIGHT... but going all the way to FRINGE for definition #2 is going nuclear.  Not constructive.  Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You won't find "Bigfoot", 9/11 conspiracy theories, or other obvious examples of WP:Fringe cited in peer-reviewed journals, appearing in books written by well-respected scholars, or taken seriously by major news outlets like the BBC.  Because of the Western world's Christian majority, there aren't a lot of scholars (at least in the West) discussing that issue, so to limit all sources to those which back up specific editors' opinions, while deleting RS (including peer-reviewed journals, academic books, etc.) that disagrees with those conclusions under the alleged "authority" of WP:Fringe shows a complete misunderstanding of the WP:Fringe policy.  At most, it is a WP:Weight issue, but there are no "fringe" sources or theories currently on the CT page, at least that I've noticed.  And considering the battleground that the page has been for years now, most citations on the page have withstood a serious baptism by fire.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, thank you. A lot of what you have said is very helpful. First, please let me clarify an aspect of what I think, relative to what you quoted from me. I'd prefer to move away from something that you quoted from me, because it was merely a point I was making in reply to a specific comment, and never an overall statement of my position:
 * Christian terrorism is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" and is defined by Juergensmeyer and Schbley as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions"

A more accurate statement of my overall position is at the top of my "view":
 * Some sources define "Christian terrorism" narrowly as terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing Christian theological positions. Other sources define it broadly as terrorism that makes use of Christian language or symbols, and is motivated by any number of factors, including humiliation and alienation. Most sources treat it as including both theological motivations and motivations based on ethnorelgious identity.

So, per the first sentence of that, where you are identifying areas of agreement, you are looking in the right place. Indeed, if you look at the first part of my "view" that you collapsed, the section titled "2. There are, indeed, sources that define it narrowly in terms of theological positions.", you will see that I said there that this is where we agree. Insofar as I can tell, every participating editor agrees about that.

But we knew that before the mediation started.

The problem we are having is figuring out how to reach a consensus about the other sources. I've pointed to: Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz. I don't think that we can ignore any of them. I think Jytdog, and perhaps Bryon, agree that we cannot ignore any of them. (I also made a strong effort to comment upon every source cited by TFD in his view, and every source cited by Collect in this mediation discussion.) I am concerned that TFD and Collect are simultaneously arguing that these sources are "fringe" and that the same sources are also taking mainstream positions that are identical to those of Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman.

One way of looking at this is that every reliable source says that "advancing theological positions" is the whole story. Another is that I've cited many sources that say something different.

So, is "advancing theological positions" the whole story? Or not? Perhaps we could see, one-by-one, whether Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz can be accurately described by "advancing theological positions" without imposing original research on them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing that your sources are fringe. None of them are and none of them provide fringe definitions of Christian terrorism.  None of them define Christian terrorism as terrorism that makes use of Christian language or symbols, although that is something that Christian terrorists do.
 * Sometimes it is helpful to use examples. Can you please provide one of a terrorist group makes use of Christian language or symbols, but religion is not a motivation for their terrorism.  My examples would include Northern Ireland, Lebanese, East Indian terrorism and the Ku Klux Klan, but I believe that you, Jytdog and Byron Morrigan believe that religious is part of or the major part of their motivation.  Do any of these authors say that for example the IRA is not motivated by religion, but is nonetheless a Christian terrorist organization?
 * TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * TFD, thank you for the reply. I am glad that you do not consider any of those sources to be fringe. It now appears that only Collect considers some of them to be fringe.


 * About Christian language or symbols, please refer to what I actually said in my view. Perhaps you can demonstrate that all of Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz assign a lesser role to "Christian language or symbols", and a greater role to "advancing theological positions".


 * Just a few days ago, you said to me in this mediation discussion that you wanted this phase of the mediation to focus on definitions, and to leave the application of definitions to specific examples to a later stage of the discussion. Please go through what I said about Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz, and look for ones that say religious terrorists can use language or symbols as something added on after the fact, when the underlying motivation is not really "advancing theological positions". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Aghai defines religious terrorism as "These groups seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." You are right, at first glance this definition appears similar to everyone else's.  You then say he "does not treat the distinction between theology and "spread" as a significant distinction."  But that is just your original interpretation.  Instead of accepting his definition, you are reading more into it.  These terrorists who spread religion do so out of religious motivation.  Or do you think they have non-religious motives for spreading religion?  Instead of telling us what scholars meant but did not say in their definitions, please find one that provides the definition you think we should use.  And please provide one, not 17.  TFD (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, you say, "These terrorists who spread religion do so out of religious motivation." Well, we agree there.  Like I said previously, it's simply the vague wording of "advancing theological positions" that concerns me.  Does it refer to 'theological positions' like, "I am committing this act of terror in order to hasten the Second Coming!" or does it refer to 'theological positions' like, "I am committing this act of terror in order to advance Christianity!" or does it refer to 'theological positions' like, "I am committing this act of terror because it says in Deuteronomy to kill all who worship any gods but my own!"???  (Personally, I would say "All of the above".)  I just felt that adding the language referring to the "spread of Christianity" makes it more 'contemporary', in light of the Indian RS, and easier for the layman to understand.  I have a feeling (based on years of fighting on the CT page) that "theological positions" without further elaboration, will embolden the "No True Scotsman" crowd, who will say that there is no "theological position" supporting terrorism, leading to endless WP:OR debates about the meanings of various Biblical verses, rather than simply relying upon:
 * (a) Does RS specifically describe the group or acts as "Christian Terrorism"? or (b) Does RS state a Christian religious motivation for the group or acts? If "yes" to (a) or (b), then they get added to the page.
 * I think that's pretty obvious. (And as I've said repeatedly, I'm not getting into the Northern Ireland thing, because I have no idea what the RS says in regards to either (a) or (b) on the subject, and I have pretty much zero interest in that conflict.) -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to say their terrorist actions are motivated by Christianity. I do not think that Christian terrorists have non-religious reasons for spreading Christianity but I also know that religious belief is not the only reason for spreading Christianity.  That is the affirming the consequent:  some Christian terrorists spread Christianity, therefore all terrorists who spread Christianity are Christian terrorists.  Since none of the sources include that in their definitions, there is no reason why we should.
 * Incidentally we are just discussing the definition. What groups to include and how to do so comes later.
 * TFD (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trypto, it is not clear to me what distinction you are drawing with regard to Aghai. He seems quite solidly in Definition #1, with clear religious motivations and goals... Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said in my view, Aghai is very close to the sources in the section of my view just before Aghai. I never said that he is using a greatly different definition. One has to read my view as I wrote it, with a progressive range from the first section of the entire view to the last. Otherwise, I would have simply put each of the sources into one of two groups! On Aghai, I was speaking to what Bryon had argued in the earlier discussion. The question there was whether we should consider "advancing theological positions", full stop, or whether it should be extended to "advancing theological positions or the spread of Christianity". I'm taking those phrases directly from Keithbob's opening remarks in this sub-thread, OK? It seems to me that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman all directly use language that is very much about "advancing theological positions" without much else about "spread". Aghai says: "These groups seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." That is still in the same camp, overall, as Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman. I'm not arguing that he is otherwise. But, I invite anyone to tell me, without resorting to original research, whether Aghai is talking only about "advancing theological positions", or whether he is talking about "advancing theological positions or the spread of Christianity". After Aghai, I discuss plenty of other experts, and I hope I don't have to repeat myself for anyone who has not bothered to read what I already said. And TFD, why do you still insist on attributing to me the opinion that there is one source whose definition we should use? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * oy, i am becoming quite lost. I am sorry but I don't know what "advancing theological positions"  means, with regard to terrorism.  I don't think you mean anything like the question of whether Jesus had one nature or two (which actually caused riots in the ancient world).  I think that definition went astray from your very excellent original two definitions away at the top, the distinction between which was rooted more (to me at least) in motivation rather than the nature of the goals per se. Do you see what I mean?  Any one of Aghai's 5 sub-groups may want to conquor territory as a goal, for example, but all would have different primary motivations. I think that your source analysis, hatted above, is true to the focus on the nature of motivations rather than goals, too.  Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, and I'm maybe the one editor here who does not defend "advancing theological positions", so, I'm not going to defend it. I think it's too limiting, and does not reflect the reality of the source material. Let's be clear: defining Christian terrorism as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" is a poor representation of the available source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I have not labeled any mainstream scholarly source proffering a specific definition of "Christian terrorism" as "fringe." Indeed they unanimously seem to agree on the single definition. I do believe that definitions not found in mainstream scholarly sources would be "fringe" and that policy applies to all topics on Wikipedia. So far no one has presented a specific mainstream definition differing from that already proffered here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK Collect, then do you consider Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz to all be mainstream, or are there any of them that you would assess as fringe? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of all those so far mentioned on this page, all who proffer a specific definition of "Christian terrorism" appear to be consistent. Please find a source which offers a specific dissonant definition so I might examine the wording of that specific dissonant definition.     Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you have examined all of Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz, and determined that none of them is fringe? What is "specific dissonance", exactly? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a start, you might want to read my view carefully enough to find where I commented on the sources that you cited (I tried to include all of them), and see where I agreed and where I disagreed, and we could discuss that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are being argumentative. Collect is not objecting to any of them on the basis that they are fringe sources.  People, btw, are not fringe, only publishers only opinions.  None of the authors you provided have presented a fringe opinion about the definition of terrorism.  TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) The sources so far which present a specific definition of "Christian terrorism" all offer substantially congruent definitions. So far no other actual definitions have been proffered from scholarly sources, making it hard to figure out what any other definition given by scholarly sources might say.  "Dissonant" here means  "unsuitable or unusual in combination; clashing", " lack of agreement", ".  Lack of agreement, consistency, or harmony; conflict", " Being at variance; disagreeing",  etc.    In plainer English - definitions which are not in substantial accord with the specific definition found in multiple scholarly sources.   All I ask is that such a definition be presented so that we might discuss it.  I decline to comment on your iterated rhetorical question which does not relate to the point at hand - that is asking to have such additional definitions be presented so that they might be discussed here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I don't think I'm the one being argumentative, but let's see where we are at this point. Collect linked to WP:FRINGE just after Keithbob's summary at the top of this section. If I understand correctly, that does not refer to any of the sources that I cited. If so, good! We can move on from any complaints about the sources being discussed being fringe.


 * In my "view", I addressed every source that Collect cited, and tried to examine each of them thoughtfully (as I did for every source TFD cited). It sounds like Collect does not want to respond to what I said there.


 * I've said in my view that it seems to me that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman all define Christian terrorism in a manner that is well-described by "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions". So, that far, editors here seem to agree.


 * I've also examined Aghai, Schbley, Purpura, Duyvesteyn, Martin, Jenkins, Price, Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, Mitchell, Juergensmeyer, Stern, the Routledge Survey, the 2005 Madrid Conference, Jones, and Matusitz, and pointed out the ways that they are not accurately represented by "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions". (Some of them, just a little bit not accurately, others, much more so.) Just above, there's the beginning of a discussion about Aghai. I'm hearing blanket statements that all of the others are identical to Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman, but I'm not seeing a fact-based response to what I already said about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong in all 18 of your examples, and I showed where you were wrong in the first case. Do I need to explain why you are wrong in each and every one of the 17 other cases? That is a waste of everyone's time, your's included. Why can't you just pick one source that backs up your definition?

Next on your list is Schbley. We'll skip him because I went over what he said above. Next is Purpura. He defines religious terrorism as "Extreme violence is used by religious groups to force change. Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God." He then says that religious and "national or ethnic terrorism" can overlap. In other words, he sees NI terrorists as having religious as well as secular motivation. Incidentally, Purpura is not presenting his opinion but that of William Dyson in Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook (2001), pp. 20-31 - see pp. 29-30 in this year's issue.

Collect is not calling the authors or their works fringe, but your definition, since it is not found in any reliable sources. FRINGE says, "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." Where is your source?

TFD (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To say "You are wrong in all 18 of your examples" is a very strong statement, and you are going to need to back that up. I'm happy that in the next discussion section, Keithbob asks us to examine the sources carefully. He is correct that we will find it productive to do so. Now that we have agreed that the sources, themselves, are not fringe, WP:NPOV becomes the primary governing policy, and it require us to consider all sources (allowing for due weight), and forbids us to exclude sources in favor of arbitrarily picking just a few. Your unwillingness, so far, to get past a demand for "one source" seems like a tacit admission that if we examine all of the sources, your argument will fall apart.


 * I'm glad that you are at least talking about a few of the sources I cited, so let's work with that, for a start. About Aghai, you say: "I showed where you were wrong in the first case". That's not accurate. You re-framed what I said about Aghai as something that I did not say about Aghai, and then refuted something that I did not say. When I have already said something in my view, please do not re-frame it as something that I did not say and then try to have an argument with me about something I did not say.


 * You mention Schbley. I think that it has become abundantly clear that you read Schbley to say one thing, and I read him to say very much the opposite. We cannot even agree on whether he talks about the abortion clinic bombers as being Christian terrorists (my reading) or as harmless old people who are typical of religious people in the US (your reading, I think?). Keithbob is going to have to lead a discussion to sort that out.


 * You responded to what I said about Purpura. Thank you! We agree that Purpura's writings are in line with writings by other experts, and I thank you for pointing another one of them out. You acknowledge that Purpura and others say that religious terrorism and other kinds of terrorism can overlap. As I said in my view, Hoffman is an example of someone who explicitly rejects the possibility of overlap in the NI example, whereas Purpura is one example of an expert who explicitly points to overlap. I think that is accurate. I've said that there's a difference there; you seem to be saying that Hoffman's and Purpura's language are effectively identical. I did not cite Purpura as a proponent of the broadest definitions (again: there are multiple sources here), but I said: "Purpura is arguing for the possibility of "overlap", in which some terrorism can primarily be a type other than religious, but can also, to some measurable extent, be religious terrorism in part." I think that's accurate too, with respect to what Purpura says. Let's see how this goes as we continue to look at all of the other sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You say, "We cannot even agree on whether [Schbley] talks about the abortion clinic bombers as being Christian terrorists (my reading) or as harmless old people who are typical of religious people in the US (your reading, I think?)" What I actually wrote was, "He said the old people were not terrorists...."  Schbley wrote, "The task of profiling religious terrorists was begun by interviewing abortion clinic protestors in Wichita, kansas.  I found that the dominant majority oif abortion clinic protestors in Wichita, Kansas were Catholics over the retirement age.  The overwhelming majority were passive resisters...."
 * You also wrote "He did not reject them because they were mainstream religious people (if that's what mainstream religious people are like, heaven help us!), but because they were too old for him to interview and get meaningful responses." Do find no problem in thinking that people who lack the mental capacity to carry on a conversation can nonetheless carry out terrorist attacks?
 * You do not seem to be reading either what the sources say or what I say correctly. It is frustrating that you now ask me to go over 18 examples where you have misread the sources and will likely misread any replies I may make.
 * Your comment, "Hoffman is an example of someone who explicitly rejects the possibility of overlap in the NI example, whereas Purpura is one example of an expert who explicitly points to overlap" is also a misreading. Hoffman wrote (and this is taken from your discussion above, ""I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role."
 * Hoffman does not reject the possibility of overlap. He just says that there is none in the case of Northern Ireland.  So there is no difference between his definition and that of Pupura.  The only dispute in reliable sources is which individuals or groups meet the criteria.
 * TFD (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, this is beginning to be the kind of discussion of sources that we are going to need, although it will also become necessary for it to be a discussion in which all participating editors comment, without getting too caught up in sequences in which just two editors are going back and forth with each other. Keithbob may want to plan on how best to keep that working smoothly.


 * About Schbley and the abortion clinic bombers: in the section called "Discussion of view by Tryptofish", you wrote: "He met with anti-abortionists and rejected them from his study because they were elderly mainstream religious people not involved in terrorism, not because they were not organized - they in fact were." That's what I was referring to. If now you want to move away from that position, that's fine, and I appreciate that. My reading of the source is that he interviewed them because the bombings and other things they had done in the past were things that Schbley would classify as Christian terrorism, not that he interviewed them in order to have a comparison group of Christians who were not terrorists. I look forward to hearing what other participating editors think. Where you quote him talking about them being over the retirement age, that's where he is saying that, by the time that he could interview them, they were too old to tell him reliably the kinds of things he wanted answers to. He also said in this context that, because they acted as lone individuals, he could not access the kind of "mission statement" that organized groups would have – thus his subsequent search for an organized group. As far as I can tell, Schbley is saying that the bombers were terrorists when they did the bombings, and he is not claiming that, as elderly people, they were still in a condition to go out and perform bombings again.


 * I'm trying my best not to misread the sources, but if anyone corrects me as we discuss it, that's fine. The antidote to the kind of misreading of one another's comments is the kind of mediated discussion that we will have.


 * About Hoffman and Purpura, Hoffman seems to me to be very strict about saying that religious terrorism is only when it is based on "theological justifications" in a very exact way. Consequently, he sees the Troubles as not being religious terrorism. You say that Hoffman "does not reject the possibility of overlap". Leading into his comments about NI, Hoffman says: "Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term." He seems clearly to be saying that groups like the NI terrorists "can be identified using religious terms" but are not religious terrorists "in the sense that I am using the term". He really is rejecting the idea of overlap between ethno-national or political terrorism, and religious terrorism. Purpura looks at the same acts of terrorism as Hoffman did, and treats them differently. Somewhat like Hoffman, he classifies them primarily as ethno-national terrorism. You take issue with when I said that Purpura "explicitly points to overlap". I do think that he explicitly points to overlap. That's exactly what he says. He calls it overlap, and he chooses NI as the example to illustrate what he calls overlap. I cannot see anything in what Hoffman says where Hoffman would agree about overlap.


 * You and I have discussed previously how part of the differences between sources are in applications of the definitions, as opposed to the definitions themselves. I'm happy to meet you part way here, and maybe we can make some progress towards consensus. There is truth, to some significant extent, that Purpura and Hoffman are applying the definition differently to the NI group, so I'll part way agree with you about that. At the same time, I maintain that Hoffman is not denying that there were religious aspects to the Troubles, because he plainly says that they "can be identified using religious terms". Purpura says: "because of violence between Catholics and Protestants". He does not really talk about theology, but about identity as Catholics and Protestants, which I think is identifying them using religious terms. So I'm not seeing evidence that Hoffman and Purpura perceive different amounts of religiosity in NI. Maybe they do, but I would need to see them actually say it in those terms, to rule out original research. So, if that's the case, there is also, to some extent, a difference in how Hoffman and Purpura determine whether or not a given terrorist group is or is not a religious terrorist group, even with one given amount of "religious terms". Some of that is application of definitions, but some of that is definition as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again Hoffman does not reject NI terrrorism as religious terrorism because he is using a different definition but because he is using the same definition - terrorism motivated by religion. Every single author who calls it religious terrorism says that religion is a motivation, every single one.
 * Also you continue to misread Schbley. The elderly people he saw holding up signs were not bombers, they were, according to him, "passive resisters".  Passive resistance, also called "nonviolent resistance" is "the practice of achieving goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, or other methods, without using violence."
 * TFD (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good again, because we are talking about specifics in the sources. Thank you.


 * Hoffman: you say he rejects NI terrorism because he is using the "narrow" definition, as being exclusively about "theological positions". I agree. That is exactly correct. I have cited Hoffman, along with Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, and Schmid, as using the "theological positions" definition strictly. As far as I can tell, every participating editor agrees with respect to those authors. So we have that where we can agree.


 * But you and I were comparing Hoffman with Purpura. I said that Purpura explicitly talks about "overlap". Do you disagree with me, and argue that Purpura does not refer to "overlap"? Do you find evidence that Hoffman does treat "overlap" as part of his system of definition? If so, please quote where Hoffman says that.


 * Schbley: Perhaps we are looking at two different places in the source, and it is helpful that you referred specifically to the people holding up signs, so I could realize that's what you were talking about. On page 73, Schbley starts a section that he calls "Toward Profiling Christian Religious Terrorism". I quote from his second paragraph: "after 9 years of observations and over 250 interviews, I found that the dominant majority of abortion clinic protestors in Wichita, Kansas, were Catholics over the retirement age. The overwhelming majority were passive resistors who opted to fill their postretirement free time by expressing their religious freedom of speech..." I see now that that's what you were referring to, and I agree entirely with what you say about that.


 * However, please look at the following paragraphs after that. In the next paragraph, he talks about violent actions "attributed to males between the ages of 21 and 43". Schbley seems to me to consider those violent acts to have been terrorism. He names: Slavi, Knight, Rudolph, and Kopp. Next he says of what those four persons did: "Although all the attacks on obstetricians and abortion clinics are acts of terrorism because they are violent assaults against symbolic victims (Schbley, 2003) and have been legally identified as such in court documents,19 they were performed by individuals without a cell or organized structure... Notwithstanding that these acts of religious terrorism are deprived of formal or informal organizational structures, their perpetrators do share common psychosocial commonalities with terrorists who are organized and structured." (Did he really say "common psychosocial commonalities"? Oh well.) He is talking about these bombers very differently than he talked about the passively resisting elderly folks. (And of course, most Christian Americans are nothing like terrorists!) He says clearly that Slavi, Knight, Rudolph, and Kopp were religious terrorists. He says that what they did was terrorism in Schbley's analysis, and according to US law. (Please note his reference to "symbolic victims", as we will come back to that later.) He says that religious terrorism can be performed by individuals acting alone, or by organized groups, and that the individuals and groups share common profiles. Later in the source, he will turn to the Maronite Monks largely because they were an organized group, not because individual terrorists cannot be Christian terrorists in his opinion.


 * I'll totally agree with you that Schbley did not call the elderly protestors terrorists. Will you agree with me that he did call the clinic bombers and obstetrician murderers Christian terrorists? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You replied to me in the section above, and I, in turn, replied to you. I'm looking forward to a reply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Schebley. He called the individual abortion bombers Christian terrorists and said they were motivated by religion. The only Christian terrorist organization he identified were the Maronite monks. So he is using the same definition. Let's not jump ahead and worry about which individuals or groups met the criteria.

Hoffman says, "many historical and contemporary [ethno-nationalist] terrorist groups also evidence a strong religious component.... However, in all these groups it is the political, not the religious aspect of their motivation that is dominant." (Inside Terrorism, p. 82).

You say Hoffman rejects NI terrorism as Christian terrorism because he is using a narrow definition. Can you point to any writer who says that they are not motivated by religion but are nonetheless Christian terrorists?

TFD (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for replying, even if you are being more adversarial than is really necessary.


 * Schbley: Thank you for telling me that you now agree that he called the abortion bombers Christian terrorists. Thank you. Earlier, you seemed to be saying that the Maronite Monks were the only Christian terrorists called Christian terrorists by Schbley. You seemed to me to be saying that all of the persons Schbley talked about with respect to abortion in the US were not Christian terrorists according to Schbley (and you seemed to be saying that everyone Schbley talked about with respect to abortion in the US were the elderly peaceful protestors). Now, if I understand you correctly, you were drawing a distinction (without saying it explicitly) between individual Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups, which is why you called the Monks the "only Christian terrorist group" in Schbley's source. (That still leaves us with the Phineas Priesthood, and maybe even the IRA, but we'll get to that.) You seemed awfully insistent that the Monks were the only Christian terrorists cited by Schbley, but now it sounds like you are adding Slavi, Knight, Rudolph, and Kopp. Is that correct? If so, please say very clearly who you think Schbley calls Christian terrorists, whether groups or individuals. Is there a reason that you think that Schbley thinks individual Christian terrorists should be classified differently than Christian terrorist groups?


 * Hoffman: I think you quote him accurately. Why do you think that I am disagreeing with you about how Hoffman defines religious terrorism? I don't. Yes, I have already pointed in my "view" to experts who classify as religious terrorists some terrorists who are motivated by stuff like humiliation and alienation. Things like humiliation and alienation are not theological positions, I'm pretty sure. But those terrorists are described as adding on religious justifications after the fact, as justifications or rationalizations, rather than as underlying motivations. You can see those sources, that say that such terrorists should be classified as religious terrorists, in my "view" and even in recent comments I've made on this mediation page. So yes, I can point to them, because I already have. If you don't like the way I am responding to you, please take it up with Keithbob, but I am happy to continue talking with you about sources in order.


 * Purpura: I asked you some questions, and you did not reply. Please reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Christian terrorism can by carried out by individuals or groups, according to the definitions.


 * While humiliation and alienaton are not theological positions, they are not motivations for terrorism either. Some people in the Middle East for example feel that the West has humiliated them following their betrayal with the Sykes–Picot Agreement and cite the imposition of dictators and theft of their oil.  This humiliation caused them tp embrace Arab nationalism, liberalism and socialism, but when all those ideologies failed to address their problems, many of them turned to various forms of extreme religious ideologies, such as Wahhabism.  That has led some writers to say that al Qaeda is not a religious terrorist group at all, because their motivation is ethnic/nationalist, rather than religious.  But none of these analyses of religious terrorism alter the basic definition - that is terrorism carried out from religious motivation.
 * Purpura presents the standard definition of relgious terrorism then writes under the definition of "national or ethnic terrorism" that the Irish "conflict overlaps religious terrorism because of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland." Your argument is that he is presenting a second defintion. I would say he is merely saying that there is religious in addition to ethnic/nationalist motivation for terrorism.
 * When discussing sources you need to clearly distinguish between what a writer says and what he reports. Pupura is explaining what William E. Dyson wrote, and for all we know may totally disagree with Dyson.  If you see ambiguity in how Purpura paraphrased him, you should look at what Dyson actually said. "Religious terrorism Religious terrorism refers to the use of extreme violence by religious fanatics for the purpose of forcing changes in the government or on the part of the population." (Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook, 2011, p. 29)  He then discusses NI terrorism under "Foreign Religious-Based Terrorism" and says, "The struggle in Northern Ireland has largely been religious in nature." (pp. 37-38)  So he is in agreement with the mainstream definition of religious terrorism, but disagrees over categorization.
 * TFD (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It appears that we agree that Schbley, for one example, can be read as considering Christian terrorists to either be individuals or groups. That is helpful, and I agree.


 * For alienation and humiliation, I am glad that you and I agree that they are not theological positions. Thank you. You note that some sources have said that al Qaeda, for example, should not be considered Islamic terrorists because of motivations of that sort. That is a very good observation, and I thank you for it (and obviously, I do not dispute that such sources exist).


 * I have provided sources (in fact multiple sources that say explicitly that they agree with each other), that do say that those things are primary motivations for some instances of religious terrorism. Not just motivations for terrorism, but motivations specifically for religious terrorism, distinguished from other categories of terrorism. In fact, I'm surprised that you have not seen that in my "view". You have given an example involving some groups in the Middle East. It would be very helpful if you could provide one or more sources that discuss those specific examples specifically in the context of alienation and humiliation and so forth not being motivations that satisfy the definition of religious terrorism, so that the rest of us could see that analysis in sources. (I don't just mean sources that use the "advancing theological positions" definition, but sources that use that definition and also talk explicitly about alienation and humiliation and such being incorrect ways to define religious terrorism.) Can you do that? Thanks.


 * You said that my argument is that Purpura is presenting a second definition of religious terrorism. That actually is not what I said, so again, when I have already said something in my view, please do not try to re-frame it as something that I did not say and then try to have an argument with me about something that I did not say. What I did say about Purpura was: "Purpura is arguing for the possibility of "overlap", in which some terrorism can primarily be a type other than religious, but can also, to some measurable extent, be religious terrorism in part." Please tell me: isn't that what Purpura is saying? That is not a second definition (which we will get to later). And tell me: does Hoffman, for example, say that there is this kind of overlap?


 * I have no problem with agreeing that Purpura was citing Dyson, but I do not see Purpura saying that he disagrees with Dyson. Do you find that, explicitly, anywhere? What you quote from Dyson is useful, so thank you for pointing it out. His language on page 29 defining religious terrorism seems to me to be very similar to the language used by Aghai. He also says in the very next paragraph that "Religious terrorism is often entwined with other forms of terrorism." He discusses NI on page 30, under "National or Ethnic Terrorism", which seems exactly like what Purpura does. Except that Dyson's actual words are: "The English-Irish conflict could also be characterized as religious terrorism in that the violent groups Irish freedom are Catholic and the English are Protestant." Purpura said it was "overlap"; that was Purpura's word. Dyson says that it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism", his exact words, in a section about "National or Ethnic Terrorism". You argue that this is because Dyson defines religious terrorism the same way as, for example, Hoffman, but merely sees more religiosity in NI than Hoffman does. I think that's reading something into the source that isn't there. Dyson is actually a more significant source than Purpura, and I thank you for drawing him to my attention!


 * Dyson says that the NI conflict is "national or ethnic terrorism". He then says that it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". And he isn't saying that this "characterized" would be a mischaracterization! He is saying that it is correct, in Dyson's view, to characterize it as religious terrorism. I'd like to see someone make the argument that that is identical to what Hoffman said, without engaging in original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not say "some sources have said that al Qaeda, for example, should not be considered Islamic terrorists because of motivations [of alienation and humiliation]." I said "humiliation and alienaton are not theological positions, they are not motivations for terrorism either."  You seem to have difficulty in your comprehension of written sources - whether my comments or the sources we are discussing.  That's a major difficulty in our discussion and probably means we will make no progress.  I would suggest that you read text a few times before replying, but do not know if that would resolve the problem.
 * If you do not think that Purpura presents a different definition, why are you still talking about him? He thinks religion is a motivation in NI terrorism, Hoffman disagrees.  That is a difference in how two different writers interpret groups using the same definition.  Two experts for example may disagree whether O.J. Simpson committed murder - that does not mean they disagree on the definition of murder, they disagree on the facts of the case.
 * No source says there cannot be overlap, but most say it is rare or trivial.
 * TFD (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In my comment to which you replied, I tried to thank you for numerous things, not because you were being particularly gracious, but because I am trying my hardest to move us closer to consensus. In return, you have accused me of having poor reading comprehension. I hope that Keithbob will provide some guidance about that.


 * Here are your exact words: "That has led some writers to say that al Qaeda is not a religious terrorist group at all, because their motivation is ethnic/nationalist, rather than religious." My exact words: "You note that some sources have said that al Qaeda, for example, should not be considered Islamic terrorists because of motivations of that sort." I understand the difference between "ethnic/nationalist" and "alienation and humiliation", and, as a gesture of good faith, I will say that I recognize that my wording could be construed as referring to alienation and humiliation when I said "of that sort". I'm OK with acknowledging that, because I am not here to engage in a battleground. But there are sources in my "view" that list primary motivations for religious terrorism, in which the list of primary motivations includes alienation, humiliation, and ethnic and nationalist factors, but not theology.


 * I did not say that Purpura does not present a different definition. I said that he does not present a second – separate – definition (the way that, for example, the alienation and humiliation sources do). His definition is similar to the "theological positions" definition, but it is not identical to it, so it differs without being a completely separate category. I'm taking the source material as it is, instead of using original research to shoehorn it into neat categories that the authors of the source material do not invoke themselves. I'm still talking about Purpura because he treats what he calls "overlap" as something that gets a significant place in his typology. As you helpfully pointed out (again, I'm trying to build consensus), Purpura bases it on what Dyson wrote, and Dyson's exact words are: "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". Hoffman looked at the exact same events and said that he would not characterize it as religious terrorism.


 * I think you may be engaging in original research when you argue that we are dealing with sources that all use the same definition because the OJ murder case involved a single definition of "murder". In all the reliable sources who looked at the OJ case, I'm pretty sure that 100% of them concluded that it was murder, and not some other kind of death. In contrast, Hoffman and Dyson are not disagreeing about whether the IRA did certain things, and the Orange Volunteers did certain other things. Hoffman and Dyson are not disagreeing about whether some other groups did those things and the IRA got falsely blamed. They are accepting that the NI groups did what they did. And they are accepting that what those groups did was terrorism. But Hoffman concludes that it was non-religious terrorism, whereas Dyson says it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". Those are two different ways of distinguishing between religious terrorism and other kinds of terrorism. If one reliable source says that religious terrorism is distinguished from other kinds of terrorism one way, and another does it another way, there is either a difference in how they are defining it, or in how they are defining the motivations for it.


 * As I said at the top of my "view": "There's no simplifying that down to a definition that fits neatly into a single sentence, without engaging in original research. If editors decide to exclude all sources other than those that employ the narrowest definitions, and then use that narrow definition to exclude content about Christian terrorism as identified by other sources, that would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV."


 * You say "no source says there cannot be overlap". That's a pretty broad statement. In fact, Hoffman, like some other "narrow" definers, says that although "there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms" he regards NI as an example of where it is "not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term". That, per his own words and without any original research, is about "the sense that I am using the term". Not about the disputed facts of the case, whether the OJ murder or the amount of religion seen in NI. It's about the "sense" of the "term". That's a definition. Dyson says, without any original research on my part, it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". Those are, to some degree, differences in definition. Maybe not two completely opposing definitions, but not identical either. To claim that the differences between them do not matter for Wikipedia's purposes is original research.


 * You then say: "but most say it is rare or trivial", (where "it" refers to "overlap"). That's also a broad conclusion. Dyson does not say it is trivial. Purpura certainly does not say that, because he uses the word prominently in his overview. And my view goes on to cite source after source that also explicitly say that the boundaries between religious terrorism and other categories of terrorism are not firm. In fact, there are more such sources, than sources that draw firm boundaries. You are saying that you do not want to discuss those sources. And you claim that I have poor reading comprehension. That is unfortunate. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Christian terrorism (Part III)
Another summary:
 * 1) All of the participants support WP’s guidelines and respect WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV as strong guiding principles for the Wikipedia project. Reliable sources should be represented and given appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE.   Further support for WP:UNDUE is included in WP:FRINGE which says as part of its 'nutshell' description:  “an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea”.
 * 2) All or most of the participants agree that information contained in scholarly sources should not be excluded based on editor opinion or subjective evaluation.
 * 3) At the present time all or most of the participants are comfortable with the scholarly sources being presented and discussed so far.
 * 4) All or most of the participants agree that a working definition for the article Christian Terrorism would include “Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions.”

Where there is a clear lack of consensus is whether or not the working definition of Christian terrorism could legitimately be expanded to include something further.
 * Tryptofish and Jytdog feel that the working definition should include the sentiment contained in scholarly descriptions such as "terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions."


 * Bryon has said: “essentially, I support both #1 and #2, because both are supported by various RS, and I also support inclusion of anything that is described in RS as "Christian Terrorist", "engaged in Christian Terrorism", or any other variation of that concept.”


 * TFD has said “If there are similar differences in the definition of religious terrorism, then they must be discussed somewhere, but so far I have been able to find nothing.”


 * Collect favors a narrow definition and has concerns about giving undue weight to non-mainstream sources but so far it appears that there is not any individual or faction that is suggesting content that would violate WP:UNDUE.

So at this point in the discussion I think it would be valuable to examine the works of specific scholars (one at a time) to see if there can be some consensus on whether or not alternative descriptions exist.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 01:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that scholarly articles state with the avowed purpose of various other motivations related to identity as Christians but not specifically as advancing theological positions is unfortunately not something which has been shown thus should not be made as a statement of fact here. Unless such definitions are given, it is not that I object to anything other than a "narrow definition" but that I object to any unsourced definition. And, yes, giving weight to editors own personal definitions not found in reliable sources is, by its very nature, UNDUE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keithbob: I think that your summary so far is exactly correct. Thank you! In particular, I would like to lobby you to do just what you said: "to examine the works of specific scholars (one at a time)". I would appreciate it very much if you would organize a structured framework for doing so.


 * I think it maybe would be helpful to have a visual representation of what you said about the various definition so far, so I would like to present these two tables, and see if that correctly represents where editors agree and disagree.


 * I think that shows where we have differences in the proposed definitions, and differences in how editors perceive the source material for those definitions. I agree that we need to look at the sourcing for those differences, one by one, and I look forward to doing so. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK - now can you show me those scholarly sources which say explicitly: Other sources define it broadly as terrorism that makes use of Christian language or symbols, and is motivated by any number of factors, including humiliation and alienation.  and then a source which makes the remarkable claim: Most sources treat it as including both theological motivations and motivations based on ethnorelgious identity.  I think we see the crux here. I did find what appear to be sources accusing the Red Cross of being a "Christian organization",  etc.   -- is that what you would use?  Or what types of sources might you proffer? Collect (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, Collect, I need to say that I feel that you are not here to engage and work with this out; you keep being sarcastic and throwing out strawmen (like FRINGE and the Red Cross) rather than acknowledging good faith on the part of other participants, and indeed engaging with us - you write as though Trypto didn't provide the big list of sources and as though you haven't read them. The source cited in "13. The Routledge Survey" reads directly on what you ask; why are you not aware of it? (real question, please answer).  Keithbob, how can this mediation proceed with Collect acting this way?  (real question, please answer)  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly avoid personal attacks. My position is clear: We can not create a definition not found in any scholarly reliable sources - we are stuck with what the experts in the field have already written.    All I ask is that whatever definition you feel is proper to delimit the topic be presented with sourcing so we can gauge whether it is mainstream or (far away from mainstream).  The nice Routledge attempt has problems - it does not even mention "Christian" in that book until page  155 (fn to Christian Science Monitor) page  225 (mentioning Christian Identity Militia, not defining anything,but saying religious groups may be less constrained in terrorism),  page 234 (Christian Identity Militia - nothing about defining terrorism at all), page  42 (ditto), page 387 (list of acronyms),  page 413 (acronym list),   page 420 (ditto), 437 ditto,  440 ditto,   603 ditto,  606 (names "Army of God" in list)  , page 615 acronym, 621 ditto,    625 obscure Russian sect in Canada,  638 "God's army" in list,  655 Kuki in list,  657 "Liberation theology" Roman Catholic group,    683 a definition!  actually a vague definition of "Right" since the work makes no statement at all about "Christian terrorism" much less defining it "broadly".  689 has a sentence about the South Moluccas after Indonesia became independent,   and 709 is an index entry for "Christian Identity Militia".  Alas - a wonderful source, which backs up absolutely nothing about "Christian terrorism" much less any "broad definition of Christian terrorism."     I hate it when I need to show every single mention of a word to show the source says nothing about it  (OK -- only the 21 times Google found the word) . Collect (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, Trypto's text above about 13. The Routledge Survey" very clearly points to the survey described in pp 23-27, which you don't even mention. You again demonstrate that you are not even trying to engage with what we are actually saying.  I really don't know how this can proceed. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism and religion" in The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism (pp. 23 ff.) is not about definitions of religious terrorism. The question asked of expers was clearly stated as "What, if any, is, in your view, the relationship between "religion" and "terrorism"?"Some experts, such as Jeffrey Kaplan, said there was none, while others had different replies.
 * It is noteworthy that the editor discusses detailed questionnaires he sent out to experts asking about all the major issues and did not ask them about the definition of religious terrorism.
 * TFD (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Respondents nonetheless commented repeatedly upon how they would identify terrorism as being religious or not religious. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also read the survey which does not say what he might think it says. You caught me just as the second part was coming!  The survey was "What is the relationship between terrorism and religion?" which is not the same as saying "how would you define 'religious terrorism'?" at all.   The answers varied - but not a single one of them addressed a definition of "Christian terrorism" or the like at all.  Pertinent are such views as "there is hardly any evidence that the content of religion is sufficient to give rise to political extremism and terrorism",   and several scholars limited their statements to Islamic terrorism.  Stepanova specifies that reference to sacred texts is a common denominator -  and specifically bifurcates nationalist terrorism from religious terrorism.  Marks cites the famed "Kill them all"  religious view, but seems to quite insist that religious terrorism is primarily based on ... religion.    Sahni also requires religious traditions and texts: "All religious texts contain  a sufficient measure of ambiguity to lend themselves to virtually any ethical scheme." He then deals, as do the others, entirely with modern Islamic terrorism.  Gobel and Ganor both deal really with that issue.     In short, the survey does not show support for a "broad definition" of religious terrorism, and deals almost to a person with Islamic terrorism to the extent it offers anything remotely near a definition.
 * Let us look at Ward and Sherlock then  Religion and Terrorism: The Use of Violence in Abrahamic Monotheism Veronica Ward, Richard Sherlock; Lexington Books, Dec 24, 2013;  218 pages .   A book on the topic.  The section most relevant is by Douglas Pratt tracing  "From religion to terror: Christian fundamentalism and extremism."  Mainly pages 75 to 95 -- and he specifies that specific theological positions of groups caused terrorism, citing the "specific theological position of the Dutch Reformed Church" in one case, thus conforming precisely to the strict definition used by others. Collect (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, sorry you got caught in an edit conflict. Those points you raise now are very helpful ones, and I'm happy to discuss them.


 * Routledge survey: In my "view", I said the survey shows the field of study "encompasses a range of narrow and broad definitions, and is not regarded by the author as having been settled on either narrow or broad." You have, reasonably, presented some respondents who gave "narrow" responses, and although I agree that the question given to the respondents did not ask for a definition, there were respondents who spoke in terms of "broader" definitions:
 * "Terrorism can be religiously, ideologically or socially motivated – and sometimes a combination of these." (very much what Purpura and others say about "overlap")
 * "Religion often provides a script for what an individual or group wants to do for non-religious reasons." (compare with Duyvesteyn, Martin, Price, Jones, and especially Stern)
 * Some groups cloak their use of terrorism with religious or quasi-religious reasons." (likewise)
 * "Many perpetrators rationalize and justify terrorism by invoking religion." (likewise)


 * Elsewhere in my "view", I cited authors who write explicitly about defining religious terrorism or differentiating religious terrorism from other kinds of terrorism, and I cite this survey as evidence that (1) the field of study includes a range of views, not a single narrow consensus, and (2) the views of other authors I cited are echoed by numerous other scholars in the field.


 * Pratt's chapter in Religion and Terrorism: good find! He attributes religious terrorism to a detailed sequence of expressions of what he calls fundamentalism. I think that fits exactly into the same group as Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman.


 * --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, they disagreed about which real life terrorism would meet the definition of religious terrorism, they did not disagree about how to define it. TFD (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, I hope that you will take Jytdog's concerns seriously as you think about how we will go forward (and I thank Jytdog for the supportive comments regarding my "view").

Collect, the Routledge source is mostly about religious terrorism in the composite, which is why the word Christian comes up less frequently, but we are examining the definitions of religious terrorism here. Also, you will find it helpful to read what the sources say, instead of just doing searches for key words.

Jytdog, I'm pretty sure that I know "how this can proceed". I'm even cautiously optimistic. If Keithbob does what I think he needs to do, we are going to start discussing sources, one at a time. My hope/request is that Keithbob will set that up, assigning us one source at a time. I hope/request that, during discussion of one source, we have a moratorium on discussing unrelated issues, and focus just on that. My hope/request is also that we have structure for those discussions that minimizes the kinds of unproductive walls of text where two editors go back and forth at each other. Maybe instead, we could have every editor give his view of the source, and then have Keithbob direct us on what to discuss to resolve differences, or something like that. Keithbob, that's up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you start by introducing the text from one source articulating your definition. TFD (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I started by introducing texts from more than one source articulating what the sources say about defining it. When I have already said something in my view, please do not ignore what I have already said. When I have already said something in my view, please do not ask me to say it again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The mediator said, "it would be valuable to examine the works of specific scholars (one at a time) (my emphasis). That means you should present your sources one at a time and we can discuss them, instead of your presenting 19 sources.  And please present a source that  articulates your definition.  TFD (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Keithbob asked me to introduce them one at a time, especially since I had already introduced them. I understand Keithbob's comments to indicate that he is going to assign us sources to discuss, one at a time. I am very happy to discuss them one at a time. (If anyone wants me to suggest sources in order, I'd say to start with the first source mentioned in my "view", and then take them in order from there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * He wrote, "So at this point in the discussion I think it would be valuable to examine the works of specific scholars (one at a time) to see if there can be some consensus on whether or not alternative descriptions exist." Why don't you start by providing the work of a one scholar that supports your preferred definition.  Here I'll get the ball rolling:
 * 1. Cronin: ""There are four types of terrorist organizations currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or "sacred" terrorists."
 * My reading is that she is saying that religious terrorism is terrorism motivated by religion. I would present a source that provided a different definition, but am unable to find one.  Now it's your turn.
 * TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to wait for Keithbob, then you'll note that I said that I would choose to discuss the sources in an orderly way, in the order that I presented them in my view. I agree with you about Cronin. I likewise said the same about Rapoport, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Hoffman – and per what Collect just said, let's add Pratt. So we agree on a significant number of sources that utilize the definition about "theological positions".


 * The next source that I choose to discuss in what will be a continuing discussion is another one cited by Collect, and it's the next one I refer to in my view: the LawBrain wiki (link). I disagree per WP:UGC because the source is a wiki. It does not meet our needs for academic or scholarly studies as reliable sources in this mediation. Please respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The link says, "Christian terrorism is motivated by interpretations of the Bible." Since we have all agreed that is a definition, the reliability of the source is moot.  Let's move on to sources that support your definition.  TFD (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of your tone in the way you have been addressing me, I feel that it is reasonable for me, in turn, to ask you to at least be precise. You have just quoted from the source, and you appear to be arguing that you think what you quoted should be given some due weight on the page. Yet you have not actually responded to whether or not the source is reliable for our purposes; you just said that the question is moot. You then asked for a source for what you called "your definition", singular. However, I have said repeatedly that there is no singular definition. When I have already said something, please do not re-frame what I said as something else and then try to have an argument with me about something that I did not say. I have already given multiple sources in my "view" that support what I said about there being multiple definitions and no singular scholarly consensus. Because I have said that I intend to go through every one of those sources, you have nothing to worry about, with respect to when we will eventually get to what you are asking for. And I don't think you have shown any inclination to respond where I asked you to look in my "view" for sources that are about alienation, humiliation, and so forth. And if Keithbob disagrees with anything in my approach to this discussion, he can tell me and I will listen very agreeably.


 * So, let's just say for now that nobody is really going to disagree with me when I said that LawBrain should be excluded as a source. You've asked me to name another source, and I've promised that, in an orderly fashion, I will name all of the sources that address your questions to me. So the next source that I will name is another one that Collect had cited earlier: John Koller (link). I agree that it is a reliable source for our purposes, but I cannot find anything there that actually talks about how to define religious terrorism. Please respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that we all agree that at least some reliable sources use the "narrow" definition, but some of 20 sources presented to back it up may fail rs or not contain a definition, so lets examine each and every one of them. That is a colossal waste of time. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing. Let's move on to your definition for which you have presented no sources, reliable or not. TFD (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, that is what both Trypto and i have been saying on the talk page (that we all agree that there are sources with the narrow definition), and what trypto wrote in his very post here and several times since. You are now saying that is a revelation to you -- you too are demonstrating that you are not listening, at all.  And again, TFD, Trypto presented a ton of sources above, which you too have apparently not read.  And finally again, I don't  know how this mediation can proceed with editors behaving in this way.  Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jytdog. TFD, I'm in favor of examining all of the sources, which is what I understood Keithbob to be asking of us. I asked you about LawBrain and Koller, and all you said is that they "may fail rs or not contain a definition". May? That sounds to me like not really responding. And I don't count 20 or so sources for the narrowest definition: Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Hoffman, and Pratt make seven by my count. At this point, TFD, I suggest that you take up your concerns with Keithbob. But Jytdog, I remain cautiously optimistic. I think we can have a fact-based discussion leading to a consensus, so long as we insist on examining the sources instead of making sweeping and unfounded generalizations about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, synthesis says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So if you want to say Christian terrorism is defined according to your definition, you need at least one source that says that.  Or if as appears to be the case none of them use your definition then you should drop it.
 * Similarly on organic farming articles, you do not allow editors to take one source that says some organic farmers grass feed their cattle and another that says there are benefits to grass-feeding and synthesize the two to say there are benefits to organic farming. In aspartame articles you do not allow one source to say aspartame is an artificial sweetener and another that mentions artificial sweeteners but not aspartame and use it as a source for statements about aspartame.  How is this different?
 * TFD (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am looking forward to hearing from Keithbob when he gets back to this mediation. In the mean time, I want to make a few comments about where I think that we are at.

As I said earlier, I like Keithbob's approach of discussing one source at a time, and of having these discussions about all sources. I also said that it is my request/hope that Keithbob will provide us with some direction about the process of having those discussions, with a structure that will help us get past the impasses that brought us to mediation. Similarly, I said that I'm a little uncomfortable with taking for myself the role of deciding which sources and in which order, because I see that instead as Keithbob's role, although I am willing to try to do it if other participating editors want me to. TFD has demanded (and I think it's accurate to describe it as demanding rather than suggesting) that I propose sources myself, but then he has objected very strongly to the sources that I proposed. That is awkward for me, because it sounds like TFD wants me to propose sources, but only the sources that he wants me to propose.

Another issue that we need to work out regarding process is that, per the summaries at the top of this section, editors are coming into the discussion from different starting positions, but we are having trouble recognizing how to accept that fact and work forward from it. A big part of TFD's objections to my selection of sources arises from the fact that TFD and Collect believe that all of the sources support the "advancing theological positions" definition and exclude the other proposed definitions, so that when I try to argue that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Hoffman, and Pratt do, indeed, define it that way, and then start to contrast another source with those seven, TFD complains that it is a waste of time, and wants the other participating editors to accept that as a premise. If we are going to require everyone to accept, as a starting premise, a view with which we do not all agree, then that shuts off the discussions we need to have. We need to discuss every source, without objecting that doing so is a waste of time. If, in fact, every source turns out to use the "advancing theological positions" definition, then that will become apparent as the discussion goes along, but I think we need to have that discussion before we make that conclusion or any other conclusion. We cannot refuse to have the discussion.

I've asked TFD (and, if he wishes, Collect) a series of direct questions that remain unanswered at this time, so I will collect them here, and I hope to get answers.
 * 1) Why do you seem to think that I am disagreeing with you about how Hoffman defines religious terrorism?
 * 2) I said that Purpura explicitly talks about "overlap". Do you disagree with me, and argue that Purpura does not refer to "overlap"?
 * 3) Do you find evidence that Hoffman does treat "overlap" as part of his system of definition? If so, please quote where Hoffman says that.
 * 4) You seemed awfully insistent that the Monks were the only Christian terrorists cited by Schbley, but now it sounds like you are adding Slavi, Knight, Rudolph, and Kopp. Is that correct?
 * 5) If so, please say very clearly who you think Schbley calls Christian terrorists, whether groups or individuals.
 * 6) Is there a reason that you think that Schbley thinks individual Christian terrorists should be classified differently than Christian terrorist groups?
 * 7) Should we add LawBrain and John Koller to Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Hoffman, and Pratt – yes or no? (I'm not implying that this would preclude adding more sources to that group as well.)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are making this overly complex. Please provide one section of text from any source that defines Christian terrorism the way you do.
 * Re: Schebley. He called the individual abortion bombers Christian terrorists and said they were motivated by religion. The only Christian terrorist organization he identified were the Maronite monks. So he is using the same definition. Let's not jump ahead and worry about which individuals or groups met the criteria. (Note that I already said that 20:07, 1 January 2015.)
 * TFD (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not "making" it complex. The source material is complex, and I'm just taking the source material as it is.


 * OK, so you say that the individual abortion bombers and the Maronite Monks are the only individuals or groups that Schbley said were Christian terrorists. As I understand it, then, you say that Schbley does not consider the Phineas Priesthood to be Christian terrorists. We will discuss that further. Thanks.


 * You have now answered my questions numbers 4, 5 and 6. Thank you. You have also commented in the section above some more about Purpura, but you have not directly responded to my questions 1, 2, and 3. I'd appreciate an answer to those, and to question 7. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "you say that Schbley does not consider the Phineas Priesthood to be Christian terrorists." In fact he says they, like the IRA "may be labeled as racism or political terrorism committed by a group with a strong ethnoreligious identity because their goals are not to bear witness against dogmatic antagonism or despotism but to consciously and forcibly redress a policy of political greivance.  All contemporary Christian terrorism may not be labeled as organized religious terrorism except for the [Maronite Monks]."
 * In any case whether or not he considers them to be Christian terrorists is wholly irrelevant to our discussion. We are trying to determine the definition of Christian terrorism, not which groups fit the definition.  Your questions 4, 5 and 6 are irrelevant to the discussion about the definition.
 * TFD (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm glad to see you back. I was making the edit just before this one before I saw your comment below, to which I will respond promptly. Before I do, I just want to note that there's a lot to get caught back up on, and also to note, about my questions to TFD, that he seems to be telling me higher up, in regard to questions 1, 2, and 3, that Purpura's reference to "overlap" is about something TFD regards as trivial and rare. TFD appears not to want to respond to my question 7. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the section below, TFD seems to be saying that LawBrain can be excluded as a source, in response to half of my question 7, but has not yet responded definitely about Koller. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Christian Terrorism (part IV)
Hi folks, sorry for my absence over the holidays. Happy new year, to all. What we want to do at this point is to examine each source one at a time and discuss it. Then we move on to the next source regardless of the outcome of the discussion for the prior source. I also think it would be prudent to have an agreed upon list of sources that we will discuss so we know when we have reached the end and don't go on indefinitely. Tryptofish you have already commented in earlier sections with quotes from various sources. Could we start by listing those here (without quotes or explanations, just list the author and publication(s)). Then others can add to the list as they like. I want to say upfront that there will be some flexibility in the list and one or two could be added later if needed to complete the discussion. The goal is resolution not strict enforcement of boundaries. So lets establish our core group of sources that we know for sure we want to look at and discuss in detail. Tryptofish can you please give a list and then others can add to it as needed. Thanks, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, and thanks. A quick note before I start the list. I want to make sure I understand your instructions correctly. If I understand correctly, you are asking for a complete list of sources, including rather than excluding the sources that some of us already discussed. If I misunderstand, please let me know. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not say overlap is trivial and rare, but "No source says there cannot be overlap, but most say it is rare or trivial." (Please distinguish between what I say about terrorism and what I say sources say about it.  Articles must reflect what sources say not what editors say.)  I quoted the standard definition from Cronin above.  "Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas-but usually one ideology or motivation dominates."  All definitions allow for overlap.  Whether there is overlap in NI and elsewhere, and to what extent, is something the sources provided disagree on and that is something we will discuss later.
 * Question 7. In general I never use tertiary sources such as LawBrain.  The reason is they do not provide sources, are rarely cited by other sources, and tend not to mention any disagreements that exist in rs.  Without that, if they provide information at odds with what secondary sources say, it is hard to assess what weight to assign them.  However in this case the definition is the same as every other source presented so the issue is moot.
 * Since we are all in agreement that some sources define Christian terrorism as terrorism motivated by Christianity I do not see any reason to list all those sources again. Could Tryptofish please list those sources that provide a different definition.
 * TFD (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish isn't going to list anything until hearing back from Keithbob, but I think I ought to list all the sources over which editors still disagree. There are a couple of sources where all editors seem to agree that the "advancing theological positions" definition applies, so I'm not sure whether to list those or not. For all the other sources, I want Keithbob to advise me before I start making a list. I also hope that Keithbob will tell us when to start discussing each source, and when to stop and move on to the next. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think its helpful for one side or person to have the attitude that their evaluation of the source(s) is right and therefore the other side or person has to 'put up or shut up'. No one has to prove anything to anyone. We are here having a cordial discussion. I understand that there is some pent up tension and frustration around this issue but let's all take a deep breathe, slow down and refrain from personalizing our comments.  If we can work together and resolve these issues than we will all be winners. If we continue to fight and alienate each other then nothing will be resolved and we all be losers. So let's all take it easy and proceed slowly, step by step. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like each participant to list the sources that they feel would be useful for the group to review, analyze and discuss one by one. If there are sources that a participant feels is not worth discussing than don't list those. If there are sources where there is disagreement then those should be examined and discussed. First let's create a list. Make suggestions for sources and I'll compile the list and present it to the group. Then...... I'll start a fresh thread to discuss the first one and I'll monitor the discussion to help keep things on track. I'll also summarize at appropriate junctures and start a new thread for the next source when a discussion is concluded.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I agree 100%, and will get my suggestions for the list together shortly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggested list, in order: --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Koller (link)
 * 2) Hoffman (link)
 * 3) Aghai (link)
 * 4) Purpura (link)
 * 5) Dyson (link)
 * 6) Schbley (link)
 * 7) Duyvesteyn (link, Chapter 2, pages 27–40)
 * 8) Martin (link, Chapter 7, pages 137–157)
 * 9) Jenkins (link)
 * 10) Price (link)
 * 11) Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, and Mitchell (link, page 112)
 * 12) Juergensmeyer (link). Includes commentary on Juergensmeyer by McAllister and Schmid (link, pages 232–233)
 * 13) Stern (link)
 * 14) The Routledge Survey (link, pages 23–27)
 * 15) The 2005 Madrid Conference (link, page 274)
 * 16) Jones (link, Chapter 23)
 * 17) Matusitz (link, pages 157–158)
 * to that I will add:
 * 18: Heather S. Gregg. Defining and Distinguishing Secular and Religious Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism Vol 8, No 2 (2014) Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keithbob, for many of these sources, we are in agreement that they use definition 1. Would it be possible to examine only those sources that Tryptofish says support definition 2?  TFD (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, editors are in agreement that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Pratt use the "advancing theological positions" definition, and I am very confident that there is no disagreement about those experts. So I did not include them in my suggested list. For all of those that I did list, there really is disagreement about what they say. TFD believes that all or almost all fit the "advancing theological positions" definition, but others of us disagree. I also believe that there isn't a singular "definition 2" as a neatly-defined category, but rather that these sources span a range of expert opinions that do not fit neatly into one or two simple definitions, and I've been saying that all along. Insofar as I can tell, I am following Keithbob's instructions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog helpfully added what is currently number 18 on our list (Gregg). If it's OK with Jytdog, I would suggest to Keithbob that we place that source at position 7 within the discussion we are going to have, to be discussed after Schbley and before Duyvesteyn. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok by me Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will set up sections for the various views and move Collect's reply to a new section. TFD (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I appreciate the enthusiasm and teamwork but let's wait before we make any section headings for individual sources. First I want us to agree on a list and an approximate order and then I will open a dedicated section for a single source one at a time. I will not open a new section until the discussion on the first source is completed. If we don't do it that way then we have multiple discussions going on simultaneously and things go round and round. Also a reminder that what I'm looking for at this stage is just a simple list of the sources ie author and the publication. It's not appropriate at this stage to be adding quotations, page numbers and comments. Let's just decide together first on the author's and  publications we will discuss and get an approximate order. OK? Thanks everyone. I am signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow and to compile a master list and present it to the group for approval. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the comments in the collapsed section below, and after reading them, I'm willing to withdraw number 1, Koller, from my suggested list, if that's OK with other editors. I had been asking repeatedly for a simple answer to my question about Koller, and it finally came below, and it's good enough for me for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather feel that we should look at the preponderance of sources - and "removing" a source because it actually supports the definition which seems to be the mainstream definition I would regard as a strange way of "looking at all the sources". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that. I meant that Koller is no longer a matter of disagreement. I don't object to citing Koller on the page. Just as I did not list Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Pratt, I'm now saying that I don't see a disagreement among editors (unless someone else has an issue about Koller that I don't know about), so we don't need to have a discussion about Koller. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IOW you accept that all whom you do not wish to discuss all support the same basic definition? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In case it was not clear (even though I said it in my "view"), I fully agree that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Pratt (and, in fact, also Hoffman) are sources that support the "advancing theological positions" definition. I never said otherwise. It's not that I never want to discuss them. I was just following Keithbob's instructions to list the sources where I saw editors disagreeing, and I haven't seen anyone disagree about Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Pratt. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Our approach appears to be let's list every possible source the discusses religious terrorism, see how they define it, and see if any of them define it any differently from Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Hoffman, Pratt and Koller. Tryptofish wrote above, "John Koller. I agree that it is a reliable source for our purposes, but I cannot find anything there that actually talks about how to define religious terrorism. Please respond." (19:55, 1 January 2015)  Surely if someone disagrees with these sources, they should present a source that says something different.  Otherwise, beyond the sources already presented, there are thousands of other sources we could add.  TFD (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify.........We are not creating an exhaustive list of every possible source for the article. Nor are we establishing what sources belong in the article and which ones do not. Our task here is more specific. We want to create a general list of sources that we will examine and discuss for the purpose of establishing a working definition or description of the phrase 'Christian terrorism'. Trypto has suggested removing Koller but if others feel it's important to leave it on the list, than it can stay. No harm in reviewing it along with the others.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of sources
John M. Koller writes, "In all of these cases and many others, it is not merely that someone who happened to be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Hewish or Muslim resorted to violence, often extreme violence, but rather that they did this because their religion motivated them and, in their minds, justified their violence. ("Religious Violence", p. 1)
 * 1. John M. Koller

That's a very clear implication that Christian terrorism is terrorism motivated by Christianity.

TFD (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman writes, ""I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role."
 * 2. Bruce Hoffman

Seems clear that he means religious terrorism is terrorism motivated by religion.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Vahabph D. Aghai writes, "[Religious terrorist] groups seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." That is a clear statement that religious terrorism is motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3.Vahabph D. Aghai


 * About as clear as possible in fact - he does not allow that non-religious motivated groups are religious groups. The goal of religious terrorism is predicated on theology.  Collect (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 4. Purpura ("An Introduction With Applications")

Says
 * "Extreme violence is used by religious groups to force changes. Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God."

And specifically excludes the KKK from being "religious terrorism" placing it in the specific category of "right wing extremism." It also places Northern Ireland primarily in the category of "national or ethnic terrorism." One more source for basically the same definition as everyone else. Collect (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Note too that Purpura is not providing his own definition but explaining Dyson's definition.  TFD (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Appears to nowhere give a specific definition, but his discussion at page 29 is clear:
 * 5. Dyson
 * Religious terrorism refers to the use of extreme violence by religious fanatics for the purpose of forcing changes in the government or on the part of the population"

It continues that some people (presumably a minority of experts) deem struggles within a religion or church as being "religious terrorism"  but says most people use a view which is  more restrictive - such as a group overtly seeking a theocracy in a region. Dyson also says that Northern Ireland can be called religious terrorism "in that the violent groups ... are Catholic and the English are Protestant" which does not come close to Dysopn calling it "religious terrorism" only that one small aspect may be religious. Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He says, "The struggle in Northern Ireland has largely been religious in nature." But clearly he defines religious terrorism as terrorism motivated by religion.  TFD (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Isabelle Duyvesteyn writes, "Religion and fanaticism are said to be the main motivators for the new terrorists." She then mentions that the old terrorism contained religious elements, before adding, "the new terrorists are not purely motivated by religion." It seems that there is no objection to the definition of religious terrorism as terrorism motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7. Isabelle Duyvesteyn

James W. Jones refers uses the expression "religiously motivated terrorism." Seems that he too means religious terrorism is terrorism motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 16. James W. Jones

Jonathan Matusitz says, "Christian terrorism consists of terrorist attacks committed by groups or individuals who appeal to Christian motives or goals for their actions. [They] have used unique interpretations of the principles of faith...to try to cause the "end times" described in the Book of Revelation." (p. 155) He too he defines religious terrorism as terrorism motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 17. Jonathan Matusitz

18 (Gregg) proffers a specific definition for "religious terrorism":
 * 18. Heather S. Gregg
 * the threat or use of force with the purpose of influencing or coercing governments and/or populations towards saliently religious goals. 

I see no meaningful difference between "saliently religious goals" and the definition already shown to be widely used with "advancing theological positions". It most assuredly does not include anything broader than the narrow definition, and may be, in fact, more proscriptive. I would point out the definition of "theological" is (using one source) "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." and another source "theology" as  "a system of religious beliefs or ideas". Are you suggesting
 * Christian terrorism is terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions saliently religious goals. 

As being Gregg's clearly worded definition? Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. TFD (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you both are ignoring the careful review of the literature in the section called "Religiously Motivated Terrorism" where several definitions are discussed, and where she writes: "However, similar to discussions on terrorism in general, current literature on religiously motivated terrorism lacks consensus on a definition and how it differs from traditional terrorism, if at all.". Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever differences she may see in definitions of "religiously motivated terrorism", it is pretty clear that she says it is terrorism motivated by religion. If you think that there is a different definition, could you please provide a source that provides one.  TFD (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested list and order for discussion
 * 1) Koller (link)
 * 2) Hoffman (link)
 * 3) Aghai (link)
 * 4) Purpura (link)
 * 5) Dyson (link)
 * 6) Schbley (link)
 * 7)  Heather S. Gregg. Defining and Distinguishing Secular and Religious Terrorism Perspectives on Terrorism  Vol 8 No 2
 * 8) Duyvesteyn (link, Chapter 2, pages 27–40)
 * 9) Martin (link, Chapter 7, pages 137–157)
 * 10) Jenkins (link)
 * 11) Price (link)
 * 12) Fulton, Hickey, Irvine, and Mitchell (link, page 112)
 * 13) Juergensmeyer (link). Includes commentary on Juergensmeyer by McAllister and Schmid (link, pages 232–233)
 * 14) Stern (link)
 * 15) The Routledge Survey (link, pages 23–27)
 * 16) The 2005 Madrid Conference (link, page 274)
 * 17) Jones (link, Chapter 23)
 * 18) Matusitz (link, pages 157–158)
 * Are there any more additions to this list? Is this general order OK for everyone?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Per the comments above, I withdraw my suggestion to leave Koller off (all I meant was that we seemed to agree that he fits with "definition 1"), so I now agree with keeping Koller on the list. At this point, I'm unsure whether or not other editors object to the fact that Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, and Pratt are not on the list. I thought everyone agreed that they fit with "definition 1", but if anyone wants to discuss them anyway, I don't object. By the way, Keithbob, due to my own post-holiday travel, I will be around very little on Monday. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to discuss Rapoport etc. if we already agree what they say. For the same reason I would take Koller off the list too and start with Hoffman.  TFD (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a suggestion to remove Koller and Rapoport from the list. Is this agreeable with everyone? If there are no objections in the next 24 hours I will assume it's OK and open the first discussion thread.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 03:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rapoport was never on the list, and I'm pretty sure there was never any serious interest in adding him or the other acknowledged "narrow" definers. Given the rather bumpy back-and-forth about Koller, I'd prefer to keep him on the list, and not to remove him. I was going to let it pass, but there are a few observations that I'd like to make and get responses from. It's not likely to be a difficult discussion, and I suspect that we will be able to quickly and easily deal with it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since the removal of Koller was objected to previously let's keep it. Rapoport is not on the list so no need to remove it. If someone wants to add it we can consider that at the time the suggestion is made.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Koller

 * 1) Koller (link) Comments? Discussion?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(reposting from first section on Koller) John M. Koller writes, "In all of these cases and many others, it is not merely that someone who happened to be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Hewish or Muslim resorted to violence, often extreme violence, but rather that they did this because their religion motivated them and, in their minds, justified their violence. ("Religious Violence", p. 1)

That's a very clear implication that Christian terrorism is terrorism motivated by Christianity.

TFD (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC) (reposted by Collect (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC))


 * With which I concur. Koller clearly is in line with what is rather inaptly called the "narrow definition" here which is supported by the half-dozen or more scholarly sources about which there is no disagreement. . Collect (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with that too (setting aside the "inaptly"). Not arguing with it, and clearly a reliable source. But here are a few things I want to point out. The sentence quoted above is one sentence near the start of a long chapter that, unlike the other sources we are considering for the "narrow" definition, is not principally about explaining terrorism, but about exploring how people of faith can come to terms with "Times of Terror". There is also a bit near the bottom of page 2 (where, let it be noted, Koller quotes Jessica Stern appreciatively) that also speaks to the definition of religious terrorism, and also is entirely consistent with the "narrow" definition. Once these pages were pointed out to me, I was persuaded to change my mind and agree that this source is fine for our purposes. But I want to point out that I am not objecting on the basis that Koller is mostly writing about philosophy and faith, and not about typologies of terrorism.


 * Also, the sentence that was quoted above refers to "violence" rather than terrorism. I'm not objecting to that either, because Koller talks about terrorism elsewhere, and common sense indicates that he considers this reference to "violence" to apply to terrorism as well. But of course, religious violence is a much broader category than religious terrorism, and includes all sorts of things that are not terrorism. I want to point out that I'm still not objecting to using this source, in spite of those potential arguments that could be raised in objection.


 * If that's understood by other participating editors, then I'm happy to accept this source as adding to the number of sources for the "narrow" definition, and I'm ready to move on. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So can we close the discussion of this source and move on? TFD (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll wait 24 hours to give others a chance to comment. After that I'll begin a new section. Thanks for your patience.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Hoffman
Hoffman (link) --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bruce Hoffman writes, "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role."


 * Seems clear that he means religious terrorism is terrorism motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD I've taken the liberty of reposting your prior comment here. If I've done so in error please correct me. Thanks.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to start by making it clear that I fully agree with other editors that Hoffman is a good source for the "advancing theological positions" definition. I think that reliable sources for that definition include – at a minimum – Hoffman, along with Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, and Koller. I'm not arguing with that. But my reason for wanting a discussion is that I want to see if we agree about some specific features of that definition, as Hoffman presents it, in order that we will all be working from the same page going forward.

Hoffman talks about the conflict in Northern Ireland, explaining his distinctions between religious terrorism and other categories of terrorism. He says that he considers some of the violence there to have been terrorism, but that he does not consider it to be religious terrorism, per a very clear statement of the "advancing theological positions" definition: "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act." It's important to note that he is directly stating it in terms of those theological definers, and not leaving the definition open to other, non-theological, things.

He points out, explicitly, that there are terrorists that "can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term." According to Hoffman, simply being identified with a religion is not sufficient to satisfy the definition that he uses. He is explicitly rejecting the idea that some kind of terrorism could be a little bit religious: unless the terrorism is actually sanctioned by liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, it's some other kind of terrorism, not religious, even when there is some religious aspect to identifying the terrorists.

He then says of NI that "theological justifications play little or no role." Thus, if theological justifications played a large role, he would likely call it religious terrorism, but he rejects calling what happened in NI religious terrorism because of the extent to which he considers religion to have been involved.

That last point seems to me to be an important feature of the "advancing theological positions" definition, per all of Hoffman, Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, and Koller: the magnitude of the role of theological justifications determines whether or not terrorism is religious terrorism, or another category of terrorism. Somewhat as someone cannot be a little bit pregnant, these sources do not accept the premise of terrorism being a little bit religious. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that they are saying terrorism cannot be a little bit religious, just that they do not see evidence of it. They see Irish nationalist and loyalist objectives as the reason for terrorist acts in Northern Ireland during the troubles, but do not exclude the possibility of more than one motivation.  In that case it would be partly religious terrorism.  TFD (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting statement, TFD. Some nuance.  So a given terrorist act or group can be partly "christian terrorist" and partly other kinds.  Several motivations, several classifications.  Is that right? Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. It is possible that the intention of the 1996 Docklands bombing was not only to persuade England to leave Ireland, but also to strike a blow against Protestantism.  That has nothing to do with the definition, but what meets it.  Some observers may think there was religious motivation for the attack.  Do you think there was?  TFD (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's going off-topic. I just wanted to make sure I understood your reading of Hoffman correctly, as well as the way you apply the various classifications.  Your openness to multiple classifications for the same group or action is good to know.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is your question? Whether or not the defintion of religious terrorism allows for mixed motivation?  It certainly does and I have never said it does not.  TFD (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, I think I can work with you about this distinction. If I understand correctly, you and I agree that Hoffman and the other "advancing theological positions" definers reject applying the religious terrorism term to terrorists where they do not see a significantly large extent of theological motivations, so an essential part of their analyses is to examine that extent and to base their conclusions upon it. I want to make sure of where we agree and disagree at this stage, so if you do not agree with anything I just said there, please let's discuss it now.


 * Now for the point that you raised about sources that do allow for religious terrorists being religious to only a minor extent, I fully agree that such sources exist, but I want to be very precise about which sources do, and which sources do not. Hoffman says: "Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term." Please explain, without any OR and without referring to any other terrorist examples, exactly how you think Hoffman is agreeing with the concept of being secondarily religious terrorists there, because I think he is plainly saying that it is "not 'religious' in" his sense of the definition.


 * And please point out passages that Hoffman has written that delineate the "boundary" he might make between where there is too little religious motivation, and just enough religious motivation, for satisfying his definition of religious terrorism.


 * Similarly, can you quote passages from Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, and Koller, that endorse applying the religious terrorism term to terrorists who are only religious to a secondary extent? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I point out below, his commentary is brief and he does not get into issues of terrorism with mixed motivation. And btw motivation refers to the objectives of acts of terrorism.  As for the other writers, let's discuss them in their own sections.  I do not want to synthesize what Hoffman says with other writers.  TFD (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TFD = Hoffman is precisely congruent with the specific definition. He does not say that a person with other motivations but not including the strict religious requirement is a "religious terrorist" which is what the broad definition would do. As a result, I count this as a very direct support of the definition I proffered. Collect (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Collect. I think that it is emerging that all participating editors agree that Hoffman (along with, at a minimum, Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, and Koller) is a reliable source that directly supports the "advancing theological positions" definition. I certainly agree with that. But, because I want to be very clear about where editors agree or do not agree, I want to follow up with you about TFD's point. If I understand correctly, TFD is arguing that Hoffman says that a terrorist can be motivated mostly by non-religious considerations and still be a religious terrorist. Is that how you are reading Hoffman, because I think you just said that Hoffman is not saying that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just meant that Hoffman does not say terrorism may not have more than one motivation. But in his brief interview, he does not say much if anything about that.  TFD (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. And I'm not intending to be argumentative, but I just want very much for us to have a clear understanding at this step, because otherwise it will become harder and harder to understand each other later on in this mediation discussion. So, where Hoffman says "Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term", how is he allowing for more than one motivation (religion plus something else) there? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is saying that those groups do not fit his definition of religious terrorism, but does not rule out that some groups could have more than one motivation. So we cannot say his definition rules out mixed motivation, and therefore differs from other writers.  TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a related question: One of the definitions we are discussing is Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions. If, hypothetically, we are considering the possibility that Hoffman (and, perhaps, other experts whom we will discuss eventually) applies the religious terrorism category to terrorists who have multiple motivations, then why not make the definition: Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with, at least in part, the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We are discussing individual writers' definitions, so it seems beyond what we are discussing. Let's see if any of our sources phrase it that way and discuss it then.  Our we ready for the next writer?  TFD (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a note to let folks know that I'm around and following the discussion. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob, thanks. I'd like to express my opinion that it would be counterproductive to move on to other sources before we genuinely pin down what Hoffman is or is not saying. Here is what I think at this stage of this discussion. Although I think that, later on, we are likely to come upon sources that will require us to expand the definition to allow religious motivations to play a secondary role, we have not reached that point with Hoffman. If, hypothetically, Hoffman had said that Christian terrorism included terrorists who were only partly motivated by theological positions, then we would have had to revise the definition to include what Hoffman had said. But Hoffman did not say that.

TFD's argument seems to be that we are looking at a short passage from Hoffman, and that if we were to look at more of Hoffman's writings, we would see him accepting a definition that includes partial theological motivations. I've tried to read extensively in Hoffman, as well as in the source authors whom we previously agreed about and decided not to discuss yet – Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, as well as Koller. I've got to say that I don't see that in any of their writings. For editors to say that it's probably there, without being able to quote it, is misrepresentation of sources and original research. Now maybe I just missed it. In that case, just present a quote from sources, not excuses.

TFD also seems to be arguing Hoffman never rules out that broader definition, so that when Hoffman said "Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term", Hoffman really meant to say that, sometimes, that would be religious in the sense that he uses the term. Unless Hoffman actually says that somewhere else, that too is misrepresentation of the source and original research. Hoffman is saying, in plain English, what the sense is in which he is using the term.

It's going to be confusing to try to evaluate the next sources on our list if we cannot even come to consensus about this simple point about Hoffman. I'd like to hear what other participating editors think. Jytdog, Bryon Morrigan, and Bladesmulti, what do you think about this? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He says, "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act." He does not add "and no other motivation exists."  However, he does not mention any case where Christianity is part of the motivation.  He does mention cases where it is not part of the motivation.  TFD (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "He does not add 'and no other motivation exists.'": But he does add "Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term." It sounds like you agree with me that he does not cite any cases where he says that religion is a secondary part of the motivation, but which he considers to meet his definition of religious terrorism. We can speculate all we want about what he might say about it, but I really do not see any evidence that he actually has said something like that.


 * Perhaps we can agree that Hoffman talks explicitly about religious terrorism in which the motivation of advancing theological positions is primary, and he does not explicitly describe as religious terrorism cases that he regards as having advancing theological positions as a secondary but not primary motivation. If we do not agree about that, then I am going to need to see something very simple: a quotation in which Hoffman does explicitly describe the latter. If we do agree about that, or if such a citation is not forthcoming, then we can consider moving on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When Hoffman says they "are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term" he means that "some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is [not] involved in sanctioning the violent act." He is not saying that if some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act, that it fails to meet his definition of religious terrorism unless the motivation is primary.
 * You need to distinguish between the definition of a class and what empirical evidence tells us about them. The definition of a dime for example does not exclude that it could contain gold, but in fact dimes do not contain gold.  Robert Wadlow at 8' 11.1" was the tallest recorded man, but it does not mean that someone who grew to be 9' would not meet the definition of being a man.  To Hoffman, there are no examples where religion plays a secondary motivation.  That does not mean his definition excludes them.
 * Perhaps it would be useful to consider the examples he uses. The NI Ireland terrorists are Protestants and Catholics, by and large.  But to Hoffman they are not in conflict because of their religion, but because they are distinct ethnic groups, one of English and Scottish ancestry, the other of Irish ancestry, fighting over land that was expropriated from the Irish by the English and given to English and Scottish settlers.  Some writers think that the two groups are in part or primarily fighting for their religion, Hoffman does not.  It has nothing to do with how he defines religious terrorism, but how he sees the conflict.
 * TFD (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and those are very useful explanations. If other participating editors agree, I'm prepared to slightly revise my previous opinions, and agree with you, with these clarifications. I earlier said: "According to Hoffman, simply being identified with a religion is not sufficient to satisfy the definition that he uses. He is explicitly rejecting the idea that some kind of terrorism could be a little bit religious: unless the terrorism is actually sanctioned by liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, it's some other kind of terrorism, not religious, even when there is some religious aspect to identifying the terrorists." Let's say I change that: "According to Hoffman, simply being identified with a religion is not sufficient to satisfy the definition that he uses. He is explicitly rejecting the idea that some kind of terrorism could be a little bit religious: unless the terrorism is actually sanctioned by liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, it's some other kind of terrorism, not religious, even when there is some religious aspect to identifying the terrorists."


 * We would still be agreeing that, for Hoffman, "unless the terrorism is actually sanctioned by liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, it's some other kind of terrorism, not religious, even when there is some religious aspect to identifying the terrorists." I want to make sure: you and I do still agree that Hoffman says that, right?


 * What this potentially means is that reliable sources might make room for characterizing terrorists whose primary motivations and goals are not religious, as "religious terrorists". I am very receptive to that possibility, and I am happy that it now appears that you are, too. However, I am not sure whether any other participating editors will object to that, so I'd like to find out if that is the case, before we move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PS - I'm still following along.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems correct. I would mention though that the authors are defining terrorism, not terrorists.  A terrorist may have a whole range of views on different topics, but what is relevant is the motivation for supporting or carrying out terrorist attacks.  TFD (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I don't understand that new point. I agree that a terrorist may have diverse views, not all of which motivate the terrorism. But if something motivates that terrorist to commit an act of terrorism, then the definition applies to both the terrorist and the terrorism. If a terrorist is acting alone, then there isn't really an act of terrorism that is separate from that terrorist. If a terrorist is part of a terrorist group, there can of course be differences between what that single terrorist thinks, and what the group as a whole thinks, and we would have to treat those differences according to how the sources treat them. Is there a passage in which Hoffman says that he is not defining terrorists, but only defining terrorism? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, and not limited to just the last thing I asked, I hope that all editors participating in this mediation discussion will comment about Hoffman. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) He begins, "I define terrorism as," not "I define a terrorist as." That seems to be consistent across the sources. So a terrorist may be motivated by Christianity to attend church, pray, etc., but the definition of Christian terrorism concerns the motivation for terrorist acts. So the World Trade Centre and Canary Wharf bombings differ in that religious terrorists are more likely to attack buildings when they are full while ethnic/nationalist terrorists are more likely to attack buildings when they are empty. That is because secular terrorists have less disregard for life and are not trying to start Armageddon. TFD (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so I think we can agree that the motivations (and goals) that count here are those that motivate terrorism, as opposed to things that motivate whatever else a terrorist might do. I just want to make sure that we don't still have a difference in understanding in terms of there being some sort of difference between what motivates terrorism, and what motivates a terrorist to engage in terrorism. I don't think that any of the sources would treat those as being different things. Do you?


 * Also, about that last part of what you said, I don't think the sources say that all religious terrorists are specifically trying to start Armageddon, as a defining characteristic of all of them. Certainly, many religious terrorists are indeed explicitly seeking to bring Armageddon or its equivalent about, but I don't think the sources would equate "advancing theological positions" with "starting Armageddon". Do we agree about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, what motivates terrorism and what motivates a terrorist to engage in terrorism seem to be the same thing, and Armageddon, while sometimes an objective of religious terrorism, is not necessarily always the objective. TFD (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm happy to see that you and I agree. But I want to check carefully as to whether all of the other participating editors agree too. We are saying that Hoffman, while defining Christian terrorism as being only when Christian "liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act", leaves the door open to religious motivations not being the only relevant motivations. In principle, then, we could be dealing with terrorists whose motivations are based 99% on things that have nothing to do with religion, but with 1% motivated by Christian liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, and they might be described on the page as Christian terrorists. Once Keithbob closes this section of the discussion, we will be locked in to that as the consensus, and I'm surprised that there hasn't yet been any pushback. So, do we really all agree? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Other motivations? I suppose a terrorist who hates broccoli might bomb a restaurant specializing in that ingredient and still be a "religious terrorist" but Hoffman proffers no such examples at all. As a result, we are basically left with the sad fact that Hoffman does not disagree with the clear consensus definition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, I have to admit that I thought something akin to that, too. I never really saw Hoffman saying that there could be mixed motivations and it would still be religious terrorism. But TFD said otherwise, and I decided not to disagree with him. Now, I suggest that you and TFD discuss that issue. In the mean time, I'm getting myself some popcorn, and I'm going to settle in and watch the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I said he does not rule it out. The significance is that his defintion is the same as every other source presented.  Any differences he has regard which groups meet the definition.  TFD (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are saying you agree with me <g>. Collect (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so we are in agreement (?) that Hoffman would not rule out calling a terrorist who was motivated 99% by hatred of broccoli a Christian terrorist, if the other 1% of motivation were sanctioned by Christian "liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority"? And if, as this mediation discussion goes along, we should find that "every other source" would also extend the definition that far, then the page can include such examples as examples of Christian terrorism? Do we agree to that? Yes or no. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry I have been reading Hoffman. Trypto your definition is a bit ...strawman-y.  Hoffman's thesis is that the religious terrorism that arose after ~1980, while it had some continuity with the religious terrorism that was actually the original form (!) of terrorism, was very different from the nationalistic terrorism that came into being in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  Namely, that because of the religious element, the post-1980s terrorism was more random, more destructive, and unmoored from tangible political goals; Hoffman also emphasizes that people "convert" to taking violent action much more quickly in a religiously terrorist outfit than in an outfit motivated by other ideologies, specifically b/c of the religious authority involved, and that religious terrorists tend to be more alienated (the latter two especially important for countering it).  So for Hoffman, there needs to be a significant amount of religion in the mix, or none of that could happen.  I don't want to put percentages on it, but I think he would say 1% is not what he means....  Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I'm just a happy, agreeable fish, munching on popcorn . What I said, right from the start, is that "According to Hoffman, simply being identified with a religion is not sufficient to satisfy the definition that he uses. He is explicitly rejecting the idea that some kind of terrorism could be a little bit religious: unless the terrorism is actually sanctioned by liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority, it's some other kind of terrorism, not religious, even when there is some religious aspect to identifying the terrorists." And: "per all of Hoffman, Rapoport, Cronin, Aubrey, Bale, Schmid, Pratt, and Koller: the magnitude of the role of theological justifications determines whether or not terrorism is religious terrorism, or another category of terrorism. Somewhat as someone cannot be a little bit pregnant, these sources do not accept the premise of terrorism being a little bit religious." That's what I said. But TFD objected, saying that the "little bit" part of it was a misunderstanding on my part, and Collect agreed with TFD. I discussed it at length with TFD, and decided to go along with TFD's view that Hoffman doesn't rule it out, since that seemed like the quickest path to consensus. Then I asked if anyone else disagreed, and Collect disagreed. Then TFD said "I said he does not rule it out." and Collect said that they agreed again. So I want to understand:


 * What does Hoffman say about mixed motivations? If he does not rule out some amount of mixed motivations, what does he say about what he would or would not rule out? Personally, I think he rules out mixed motivations completely, but then I am not trying to argue that there is a single definition that is identical across all sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. It is going to hard to be quantitative.  In my view, especially in light of the 2005 "conversation" cited in our article, Hoffman allows mixed motivations.  See especially his remarks at the bottom of page 32, where he said "All this, then, is what distinguishes religious terrorism from secular terrorism.  While i was working on my book Inside Terrorism I tended to view religious terrorism as an end in itself.  Now I am not so sure. I still think that religious motives for terrorism are important, but I see a profound cynicism in people like Bin Laden and Shoko Asahara.... I don't think this throws my theory about religious terrorism out the window but it does remind me that terrorism is idiosyncratic, if only because it has to change in order to retain its effectiveness. We analysts have to change in order to keep up with it...." (I think I copied that all correctly - sorry for any errors)  To me that speaks to the dangers of a) rigid definitions at all; and b) applying any definition to any given movement generally (as opposed to characterizing a given period of an organization's history or some facet of an organization or action).  But I think Hoffman definitely allows mixed motivations.  There just needs to be a significant religious component for it to be 'religious terrorism', and I won't define it any more concretely than "significant". Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (copyedit for clarity Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Thanks. That's a good, thoughtful answer – and you actually came up with a fact-based response to my request for a quote from Hoffman addressing the issue. I agree with you entirely. I do not seriously think that Hoffman leaves the door open for anything like 1%, but I do think he treats it mostly as something where it has to be a lot more than 50%, or as you say more judiciously, significant. I don't think Hoffman credits (at least not explicitly) something like "secondary" religious terrorism, where the terrorism is primarily non-religious, but can still be classified as a form of religious terrorism. And I think the quotes you found are very instructive, in indicating that experts do not see the subject as something that fits into neat boxes. But I'm still not sure what the other participating editors really think about Hoffman, and I'd like to hear. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

great. stepping back into the audience, grabbing some popcorn of my own. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we ready to move on? TFD (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob, would it be possible to collapse each section and note which definition it agrees with? E.g., "Koller: agrees with def 1". TFD (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion, to collapse each source's section and I have done so with Koller. However, I have not characterized its conclusion in anyway. I think categorizing the source(s) or discussion(s) in terms of what the outcome was may get sticky as we go along. So I'd prefer to wait on that awhile.
 * I also want to commend everyone for their calmness and civility. In the interest of keeping the discussion at this very low and helpful temperature I'd like to give a gentle caution to please be careful with the jokes about popcorn etc. lest we inadvertently seem like we are poking or taunting people. That could raise the temperature and reduce the effectiveness of the discussion. Thanks for your help with this.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that's a good call. no more popcorn. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, point taken. Although I would say that the same thing goes for . And it's rather difficult that, when I ask a simple question, the reply is a request to hat the section, without a substantive response, and to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I will ask again: --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD: do you agree that Hoffman requires that the religious motivations need to be significant for terrorism to be religious terrorism, to a degree that excludes applying the term "religious terrorism" to instances where the primary motivations are not religious, or do you feel that what he says does not rule that out?
 * Collect: do you agree that Hoffman requires that the religious motivations need to be significant for terrorism to be religious terrorism, to a degree that excludes applying the term "religious terrorism" to instances where the primary motivations are not religious, or do you feel that what he says does not rule that out?

The definition which seems now to be the one used by every single source so far (including the half dozen which were initially granted to have that definition) seems fine. It does not require 100% religious basis, but does require the primary basis of the terrorism to be advancement of theology. I find the wording of your question,however, to be quite difficult to follow. In short - if the primary basis is not religious, we ought not create a new definition unique to Wikipedia and not found in the scholarly sources to call it "religious terrorism". It is like calling a tail a leg - calling it one does not make it a leg.(attributed to Abraham Lincoln). Collect (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, thank you for answering my question. We agree about the sources so far, that they require at least a primary basis of that sort. The sources so far would, indeed, see calling something that is not primarily religious terrorism "religious terrorism" akin to calling a tail a "leg". The reason I am being so insistent on parsing these points is that I believe that we will, later in this mediation discussion, need to compare and contrast the sources so far with the sources yet to be discussed. Now, I hope that TFD will answer the same question, particularly because TFD has been arguing quite a lot that Hoffman and the other sources so far might not rule out some broader application of the "religious terrorism" term. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he might also be noting the Mahdist/ISIL position of "religious land irredentism"  which is a position that there ought to be a unified Muslim Caliphate (argh - shades of Glenn Beck!)  covering all the Muslim lands (that is, every territory ever held by a Muslim ruler) - which would include most of Eastern Europe and Iberia, India etc.  but where such irredentism is only marginally connected to any theology as non-Mahdists would understand the term.  What is your feeling about irredentism centered on religion? Collect (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, insofar as my own personal opinion. As for editing the page, I think that the question of how to assess purely religious motivations for terrorism, versus motivations based on territory and nation creation, should be a matter of how sources assess it, and we'll see how other sources do that as this mediation discussion goes along. So, for now, I'm most immediately interested in hearing TFD's answer to my question. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know if Hoffman requires religious motivations to be significant because he says nothing about that in his interview. TFD (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please continue as needed.........--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just above the break, TFD said that he does not know what Hoffman thinks about partial motivations because Hoffman does not explicitly talk about it. If that's the way TFD feels, I guess we should just note that and not belabor the point much further. I'll reiterate something I pointed out earlier: that Hoffman does say: terrorists "can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term." And when he rules out Christian terrorism for the Northern Irish, he says that "theological justifications play little or no role." He said "little or no" rather than just "no", so I think we can (without any synthesis) take it that he considers little role for theological justifications to not be "religious" terrorism in his sense of the term. There seems to be a partial consensus amongst Collect, Jytdog, and myself, that Hoffman (as well as Koller and the source authors we decided that we did not need to discuss) is talking about significant motivation of a theological nature, and even if TFD maintains that we cannot definitively rule out Hoffman's willingness to allow for less-than-significant theological motivations, it certainly is not the case that Hoffman explicitly says that it should be ruled in. Maybe that's as close to agreement as we are going to get in this discussion of Hoffman, and maybe it's good enough. I'd like to leave an opportunity for anyone who disagrees with that to be heard, and then I'd be willing to move on to the next expert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

i'm good to move on. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is synthesis. There is no follow-up question saying, "what if 1/100th of 1% was religiously motivated" or "when you say little or no" is that a euphemism for "none."  Bear in mind too that he was replying to a question in an interview, had no time to consider the reply, could not edit his answer and his words were not peer-reviewed.  Nor was he asked what he meant by "little".  Does he mean that atheists who hate the Catholic church have little Catholic motivation or does he mean that some IRA members have Catholic motivation?  All we can say is that he considers religious terrorism to be terrorism motivated by religion, just as does every other source.  TFD (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what WP:SYNTH is, and this isn't it. (As for speculating that he might have said something if it hadn't been an interview and he had had more time to consider what he said... ) There is a partial consensus among Collect, Jytdog, and me, that Hoffman and the other sources we have dealt with so far treat religious terrorism as terrorism motivated, to a "significant" extent, by theological positions, where "significant" is not compatible with religion being a small minority of the motivations. TFD has made it very clear where he stands. I hope that, at least, we can agree that Hoffman does not explicitly say anything about "secondary religious terrorism" or other terminology that refers to possible forms of religious terrorism where the religious motivations play a minority role. He does not explicitly talk about any of that, at least. I look forward to discussing what other experts do talk explicitly about, and maybe we can do that before we draw a conclusion about "every other source". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be off line tomorrow but I'll check in on Monday to see if there is a continued consensus to move on to the next expert/source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, Exactly right. If Hoffman did not mention something then we do not know what he might have said.  AFAIK none of the sources use the word "significant" and I see no reason to add to the definition something that reliable sources do not.  TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, then let's at least agree that the sources that we have reviewed so far have not explicitly ruled out the possibility that Christian terrorists may have mixed motivations, not all of which might have arisen from theological positions. It's possible that some sources will place greater or lesser emphasis on the possibility of mixed motivations, but we'll just have to see whether or not that is the case as our examination of sources goes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not correct either. The issue is whether groups whose primary emphasis is not religious should be called "religious terrorists" and so far no source presented takes that stance.   "Mixed motivations" is a straw issue at that point.  Collect (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can actually work with that too, either way. As I've said repeatedly before, I personally read Hoffman and the other sources so far as treating advancing theological positions as needing to be a primary motivation, as Collect does. As we move along to discussing other sources, I have no particular objection to considering each new source in each of two possible contexts: (1) where the sources we have dealt with previously, up to and including Hoffman, have required a primary religious motivation, and (2) where we cannot rule out the possibility that some of those previous sources might also accommodate secondary religious motivations. We can examine how each source that we will consider next could be understood in the context of either (1) or (2). Personally, I have no objection to discussing it that way. If however either TFD or Collect feels that, instead, we must definitively decide whether the sources so far allow for non-primary religious motivations, then I have no objection to, instead, the two of them discussing the issue further before we move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see that as a problem. The definition says religious terrorism is motivated by religion.  How one would classify mixed motivation is something to examine when looking at how scholars apply the definition to classify groups.  Certainly synthesis does not allow us to compare terrorist acts with the definition and determine whether or not to include them.  So we can move on.  TFD (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has posted for two days I assume there is a consensus to move on. I'm wrong let me know and we can adjust. Meanwhile, I'm opening a new thread.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Aghai
Vahabph D. Aghai (link)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and Jeffrey M. Bale (link)

Vahabph D. Aghai writes, "[Religious terrorist] groups seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." That is a clear statement that religious terrorism is motivated by religion. TFD (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * About as clear as possible in fact - he does not allow that non-religious motivated groups are religious groups. The goal of religious terrorism is predicated on theology.  Collect (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've copied the above comments by TFD and Collect from a prior thread which I collapsed. If the authors of these comments feel that they are no longer relevant and the authors wish to remove them from this thread they should feel free to do so as I have posted them here strictly as a courtesy.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My statement is clear and concise, as is Aghai's writing. We now have eight voices for the mainstream definition - and Aghai will make it nine. Collect (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, discussing Aghai is not about discussing differences between the "advancing theological positions" definition and a definition that would be much broader than theological. That's not the point. Instead, I want to look at, where one of the possible definitions we are considering is one suggested by Bryon Morrigan. It would add the phrase "or the spread of Christianity" at the end of the "advancing theological positions" wording.

I'm going to quote Aghai verbatim, as TFD did just above, but I'm going to reformat the quote as a series of bullet points:
 * "eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners'"
 * "impose strict religious law on society"
 * "forcibly insert religion into politics"
 * "and/or bring in apocalyptic cults"

Now compare that to the language used by Hoffman that we just discussed: "some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act". Both Aghai and Hoffman are very much talking about religion, but Hoffman is very explicitly writing about theological positions. For Hoffman and the other authors we discussed before coming to Aghai, "advancing theological positions" describes very well what they say, with no particular need to add anything else to it.

But there is nothing in Aghai about theological positions, beyond "religious law". Instead, every one of Aghai's points is about either getting rid of people the terrorists oppose or increasing the numbers and power of people who share the terrorists' view of religion. It's not a completely different definition, but a difference in emphasis. In Aghai, "advancing theological positions" still fits, but the "spread" of religion fits equally well if not better. Aghai does not rule out theological positions, and Aghai does not rule out spreading religion. Describing Aghai as both theological positions and spreading religion describes Aghai better than only as theological positions.

If editors want to argue against the idea that Aghai supports "the spread of religion", they need to show how Aghai's language excludes or is inconsistent with "spread". And obviously, it's very consistent with it.

Personally, I read the previous sources as Collect does: that they are adequately described by "advancing theological positions". According to that reading, we have 8 authors for whom there is no need to add "spread", and 1, Aghai, for whom we have to consider adding "spread", depending on what we see in subsequent sources. If instead we read the sources as TFD does, then we cannot rule out the possibility that some or all of those 8 would also agree with Aghai. Consequently, Bryon's suggested definition needs to be seriously considered. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since Aubrey says nothing about spreading Christianity we cannot use his passage as a source that spreading Christianity is part of the definition.  It is probably also incorrect to describe the passage as a definition, it is really a description.  For example, while it is true that Islamic terrorists attack the U.S., that is part of their description rather than definition.  Other types of terrorists also attack the U.S.  Certainly one could imagine Christian terrorists using violence to spread Christianity, but there are non-religious reasons to spread Christianity too, for example to assimilate aboriginal populations into European culture.
 * Also, it is incorrect to attribute the definition to Aghai, since he is directly quoting Jeffrey M. Bale's article "What is terrorism?"  Bale provides more info on the defintion in his article, and is clear that the major groups are distinguished by the ideologies that motivate their terrorist attacks.
 * So let's move on and see if we can find a source that says anything different from what sources have said so far.
 * TFD (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So let's move on before, and (who originally proposed "or the spread of Christianity"), comment here. Anyway, I will try to address everything that you said, specifically.


 * You point out that Aubrey (one of the previous authors, whom we previously decided not to discuss) does not explicitly talk about spreading religion, although you do not provide anything from Aubrey where he explicitly rules it out. Just above, when we were discussing Hoffman, you were very insistent that, even though Hoffman does not explicitly rule out "secondary" religious terrorism, we should not assume that he actually would rule it out. And you were similarly insistent that we not assume that about any of the earlier authors, including Aubrey. It seems strange that you now want to reverse your argument, and ask us to assume exactly that kind of thing about Aubrey, now that we are discussing Aghai. In no way does that part of your argument contradict my reading of Aghai.


 * You then argue that what Aghai says may be a description, rather than a definition. Aghai introduces his list of categories of modern terrorism by saying "It quickly evolved into five basic types." He then lists those five, much in the same way that the previous sources have done, and he is writing about what he thinks distinguishes each one of those five from the other four. Call it a definition, a differential description, or a typology – it's no different in that regard from any of the previously discussed sources. You give an example (not taken from Aghai, but from your own opinions) of terrorists happening to attack a particular nation, and argue that that is a description without being a definition. But that's not the same kind of thing that Aghai is writing about. Aghai is writing explicitly about terrorist motivations and goals, as opposed to describing a particular historical incident. Your argument does not hold up under scrutiny, and it does not contradict my reading of Aghai.


 * You draw my attention to another source, by Bale, and correctly point out that Aghai agrees with Bale. Thank you! I think we should add Bale to our list of expert authors. So we actually have two sources, Bale and Aghai, whose definitions or typologies are consistent with spreading religion, rather than just Aghai. That strengthens my reading of Aghai.


 * I also find an interesting passage in Bale: "Moreover, it should be emphasized that these major categories of terrorism are not entirely discrete. Some essentially ethno-nationalist terrorist groups, e.g., have had a Marxist gloss (the PKK, factions of ETA), a religious gloss (certain Sikh groups), or a combination of the two (factions of the IRA). In more recent times, essentially religious terrorist groups have also displayed acute nationalist sentiments (the Islamist groups HAMĀS and al- Jihād al-Islāmī in Palestine), and essentially ethno-nationalist terrorist groups have adopted an increasingly prominent religious coloration (important pro-Islamist factions within the Chechen separatist movement, such as that of Shamil Basayev).[4] These types of complexities need to be kept in mind when considering their motivations." As we discuss sources that will come up later in this mediation, you can be sure that I will quote Bale again, as we examine the overlap between religious terrorism and other terrorism categories.


 * I've tried to respond directly to everything you said. Unfortunately, you did not do likewise with what I had said, other than to dismiss what I said via some arguments that I have completely discredited. I previously explained how each of the things that Aghai lists in his definition or typology is entirely consistent with the spread of religion, and not entirely described as the advancement of theological positions. You dismissed my explanations, but you did not refute them, because you cannot refute them. I am correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: About Bale, I actually do realize that we have discussed him as a source for what I have been calling the "narrow" definition, so his piece isn't really a new source for me. What is new for me, now that TFD drew my attention to it, is the fact that Bale does talk about spreading religion, as a terrorist goal, in the same way that Aghai subsequently did. There were some things in Bale that I missed in my first reading, but now I understand better that Bale's definition isn't as "narrow" as it first seemed to me to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- that someone does not say something does not mean they say the opposite. This is the Absence of evidence fallacy, alas.   We can only deal with what scholars write, and not with what they did not write. Collect (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I misread your indenting, but I figure you are saying "sorry" to me. If so, that's puzzling, because I see it as being a good reply to TFD, and not to me. I'm saying that Aghai (and, now, Bale as well) are saying, to quote Aghai:


 * "eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners'"
 * "impose strict religious law on society"
 * "forcibly insert religion into politics"
 * "and/or bring in apocalyptic cults"


 * To say that Aghai is writing about both "advancing theological positions" and "spreading religion" is to accurately describe what that scholar wrote about. But to say that Aghai excludes "spreading religion" is very obviously to say the opposite of what is actually in the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think you are reading the sources properly. The fact that one seeks to "impose strict religious law on society" does not make one a religious terrorist. However, it is something that religious terrorists may do.  The key element is why one does this, i.e., what ideology motivates groups to commit violent acts.  Bale writes, "groups from each of these four broad categories have distinct ideologies that help to explain what they are for and against, who their friends and enemies are, and what targets they believe they can legitimately attack."  So for example, the ideology of 'al Qaeda' explains why they are anti-American and attack Americans.  But non-religious groups can also be anti-American and attack Americans.
 * Furthermore Aughey does not even mention forced conversions, so if you want to add that you need a source that does so, otherwise it is original research.
 * I do not see why you find Bale's comments interesting. No one has ever said that categories cannot by definition overlap and therefore we should not say that in the definition.  Whether or not they really do overlap in the real world is something to consider in future sections.
 * BTW, when you say "to quote Aghai", you are actually quoting Aghai quoting Bale. You already posted the quotes above.
 * Re absence of evidence. My point was that since Hoffman did not say terrorism cannot have mixed motivations, we cannot say he says it cannot have mixed motivations.  Similarly since Aubrey does not say that spreading Christianity meets the definition of Christian terrorism, we cannot say that he says it does.  If you think that such definitions should be added to the literature, then find sources that explicitly say that.
 * TFD (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think each of us believes the other is not reading the sources properly, and I very much hope that this mediation will help all of us sort that out. It is true that the fact that one seeks to "impose strict religious law on society" does not make one a religious terrorist. Then again, the fact that one seeks to "advance theological positions" does not make one a religious terrorist, either. Preaching a sermon, teaching Sunday school, praying, performing acts of charity – each of those activities seeks to advance theological positions, but they are obviously nothing like terrorism. So, shall we abandon the "advance theological positions" definition? No, because the proposed definition actually reads "acts of terrorism that advance theological positions". Same thing with the "spread of religion". We aren't talking about giving someone a friendly invitation to attend a worship service; we are talking about acts of terrorism that seek the spread of religion. I pretty much do agree with you that motivations (or goals) matter for definitions, and it seems to me that "imposing strict religious law" is a motivation or goal.


 * Where you talk about "Aughey", I'm not sure whether you mean Aubrey or Aghai. I'm going to guess, in context, that you meant Aubrey. I never said that I wanted to conclude that Aubrey talks about spreading religion. What I did say was: "Personally, I read the previous sources as Collect does: that they are adequately described by "advancing theological positions". According to that reading, we have 8 authors for whom there is no need to add "spread", and 1, Aghai, for whom we have to consider adding "spread", depending on what we see in subsequent sources. If instead we read the sources as TFD does, then we cannot rule out the possibility that some or all of those 8 would also agree with Aghai." It was you who previously argued that we cannot rule out that Aubrey might agree with "secondary" religious terrorism simply because Aubrey does not talk about it explicitly. Now, with "spreading religion" instead of "secondary" religious terrorism, you have reversed yourself 180 degrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * on page 12 of Aghai, he writes: "When political and religious terrorism mix, political problems are viewed from a religious perspective. That means that destroying those with opposing views is not merely an obligation, but a heavenly duty.  It means that the cause has greater value than their own lives or the lives of others.  It means that the number and nature of opponents  must vastly expand to include every member of every other religion or creed, because all members of other faiths are viewed as infidels and therefore either potential enemies or targets.  Religious terrorism's  enemies are far greater in number than political terrorism's.  In recent years, the religious variant of terrorism has been gaining power and has become one of the main sources of terrorist threats.  It is also increasingly linking up with political variant organizations, enlarging the power and potential danger of their acts."
 * on page 61 he writes: "The Taliban was created to oppose the existing government of Afghanistan. From its inception, the Taliban was a political-religious movement based on a reformed theology of Islam; however its members portrayed themselves as fighting for true and traditional Islam.  They had as their ultimate goal the creation of the purest possible Islamic state."
 * On page 113, he discusses the work of Nasra Hassan on suicide bombings at length, and notes Hassan's findings that suicide bombers act as part of a group that provides support, the plan, and an geopolitical justification, which may "include anything from occupation, resistance, and insurgency to sectarianism, Shariah law, or a combination thereof." And he notes Hassan's findings that "the hybrid cells operating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were the most dangerous because their ideology was based on a mix of religious, national resistance, mercenary, and criminal elements"
 * On page 141 he writes about Extremism, Fundamentalism, and Religion, and he notes that "Many Islamic fundamentalists, but not all, promote the concept of theocratic government and view the West as secular, profane, depraved, and immoral. Most of the Middle Eastern terrorists have been fundamentalist Muslims, but they represent the radical wing of fundamentalist Islam.  This radical ideology represents an alteration of Islam.  Its adherents are people who believe that an Islamic state should be imposed on everyone everywhere at all cost, violently if necessary.  In their ideology, "The motive justifies the means."
 * The point of all that being, that Aghai very much emphasizes the mixture of political and religious motivations in contemporary religious terrorism, much more so than the folks we have looked at before. That does two things:  1) reinforces the discussion above about multiple motivations being well within the mainstream view of religious terrorist groups, and 2) provides a solid base for including the "spreading religion" - the actual point of intersection of the religious sphere and the political sphere  -  as an aspect of religious terrorism. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially all of which is specifically about the current Mahdist/ISIL etc. groups in Islam - were Christianity to seek to have a Mahdi or Caliph,and were Aghai to so address Christianity, then a point might be seen. He doesn't.  It doesn't.    We need quotes from scholars which actually deal with the topic at hand, not an entirely distinct topic (irredentism is also a large part of the Mahdist/ISIL groups aims).   Tell us what Aghai says about Christian terrorism, please.  Collect (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that the discussion is focused on islamic terrorism. We are dealing with what Aghai actually says about religious terrorism, and it is a good question as to how  - if at all - we can generalize or specific-ize in this field. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- then you should delete all that which is not specifically about "Christian terrorism" as my glances show essentially all of the quotes above are specific to Islamic terrorism.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * um - if that is the case so strictly then we should delete almost the entire discussion we've had, as we have been moving from the general to the specific and back again all along. When I say it is a good question I mean that in a straightforward way, not rhetorically. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, is there anything in your posting that says religious terrorism is not terrorism motivated by religion? As I have repeatedly stated above none of the sources say that by definition, terrorism cannot have more than one motivation.  If fact sources that discuss mixed motivation say it can.  The purpose of this part of the mediation is to agree on the definition.  Unless you have evidence that any source provides an alternative definition can we move on.  We can discuss whether in fact in the real world there is terrorism with mixed Christian and other motivation in a future section.  TFD (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, when we look at what distinguishes "Christian terrorism" from other kinds of terrorism, we are very much also looking at what distinguishes "religious terrorism" from other kinds of terrorism. TFD, if terrorism is motivated by "theological positions", it is therefore motivated by religion, and if it is motivated by "spreading religion", it is likewise motivated by religion. I appreciate Jytdog's observation that Aghai emphasizes mixed motivations, but I'm particularly insistent that Aghai emphasizes the spread of religion, either by eliminating religious opponents or by increasing the power and numbers of religious supporters. The fact remains that Aghai, and also Bale, list the motivations as:
 * "eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners'"
 * "impose strict religious law on society"
 * "forcibly insert religion into politics"
 * "and/or bring in apocalyptic cults"
 * Those are motivations for terrorism, arising from religion. And they have every bit as much to do with "the spread of religion" as with "advancing theological positions". They do. That's an inescapable fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog writes, "if it is motivated by "spreading religion", it is likewise motivated by religion." No source says that and we should not delve into editors' original research.  We should not add to a definition something that no source deems should be included.  If someone has religious motivation to carry out acts of terror that spread religion, that is religious terrorism.  If someone carries out terrorist acts to spread religion but has no religious motivation, that is not an act of religious terrorism.
 * The logical fallacy is saying that spreading religion is by definition religiously motivated. However, if that were true, then there would be no need to include spreading religion in the definition, it would be redundant.
 * Perhaps one believes that the conquistadors and other imperialists and the U.S. Cavalry brought Christian religion to aboriginal people due to religious motivation. Other sources believe that was done in order to subjugate them into Western culture.  While those sources may be wrong, they are not wrong because they made an error in logic, but because they made an error in analyzing the empirical evidence.
 * Tryptofish, you have now posted the same excerpts from what I originally posted three times. We have all read the source and it is unnecessary.
 * TFD (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, my apologies that it sounds annoying when I repeat myself, but it feels to me like I am not really being heard – and I suspect that you also feel that I am not hearing you. I think what you attributed to Jytdog was actually something that I said. I honestly do not know how "the spread of religion" could not be motivated by religion. I suppose that, for some of the non-Abrahamic religions, there is scriptural authority that cautions against trying to get non-believers to accept the religion, but certainly Christianity has a religious basis for evangelism and the like. I take very seriously the point you make about how it would be redundant to include "spread" if it were an automatic result of "theological positions". I suppose that there is a question about what the difference between "advancing" and "spreading" really is, and I would be receptive to discussing alternative ways of writing the definition. It seems reasonable to me, however, without any original research, to expect that our readers will understand "theological positions" and the things in the bullet points that I have posted to be just different enough that we need to describe both in order to communicate clearly. It's not original research to observe that Hoffman refers specifically to "liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority" whereas Aghai and Bale refer specifically to what they write about. At the bottom line, I am convinced that those four bullet points I have repeatedly posted are about spreading religion, and about the motivations of religious terrorists, according to Aghai (and Bale). I cannot conceive of any way to argue that what I have quoted would exclude the spread of religion from the typology that Aghai and Bale use. You obviously disagree with me. How do you suggest that we get past this impasse? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest we move to the next scholar. I fear that I still see the "Evidence of absence" fallacy as being present here, and thus we are unlikely to more than add walls of text about what Aghai does not actually say.  Next? Collect (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the way that I see it at this point is that Jytdog and I have conclusively demonstrated that Aghai justifies us adding something about "spread", based upon what Aghai (as well as Bale) actually does say. If Collect agrees with that, great, but if not, then we need to resolve the dispute. After all, that's what mediation is for. And Keithbob, please take notice. I ask TFD how TFD would suggest we get past the impasse, and Collect immediately jumps in to say we need to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is two editors seem to agree that Aghai says something indirectly which he does not say directly, and two others say we can not use what is not said to mean much of anything. So at that point, with a huge plurality of scholarly sources for a single definition, leave this one for later discussion and move on to the next article lest we ring in 2016 on this same section.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those kinds of comments are not helpful in reaching consensus. Jytdog and I are reading Aghai based on what Aghai does say, and we have been engaging as best we can with editors who disagree with us. If editors who disagree with us are confident in their positions, they should either explain their positions instead of just saying let's move on, or offer ways to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- I rather think your comments have gone past the pale.  I assure you that TFD and I are fully anxious to reach a consensus result, and implying that we do not wish to do so is a tad less than helpful here. Collect (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please offer a suggestion about how to reach that consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the quotes I provided make it clear that for Aghai, religious terrorism has geopolitical goals as well as theological goals, and the 2nd and 3rd bullet points that we have all seen, are points where those two spheres meet. Where they meet. Aghai himself generalizes to bring those points of intersection into his general definition of "religious terrorism. The "or spread" language is an effort to catch those two bullet points in particular.  It is true that each of them contain a religious component, but they each have a decidedly geopolitical component as well, that the narrow definition just leaves out, and doing so doesn't respect the source. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: What is emerging in this discussion about Aghai is something that is likely to continue through every one of the remaining sources that we will discuss. For the sources that we discussed before now, we went into the discussion with some partial agreement. But from here on, we are going in with completely differing readings of the same sources. Jytdog and I read the sources one way, and TFD and Collect read them the opposite way, and all four of us are sincere in thinking we understand the sources correctly. Above, you are not seeing anyone change anyone else's mind, and that's been the case at the article talk page, before we requested mediation. The point of this mediation really is to break this impasse. There's no point in us building walls of text without anyone persuading anyone else. Please think about how you can help us get out of this impasse. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading along and watching everyday. As I've mentioned before the success of any mediation rests mainly with the participants finding common ground. Discussing the sources one by one had the consensus of the participants. I suggest we finish what's been started but if there is a consensus to stop or try a new approach I'm open to change.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved my own comment into this collapsed area, too, so as not to interrupt the main conversation. Personally, I'm strongly in favor of continuing this process of going through each source, and I was not asking to abandon it. Instead, my concern is what we do when, after discussing each source, we are unable to agree as to what the source says. Here, we have a disagreement about whether or not Aghai supports the words "or the spread of Christianity". As I see it, Aghai either does or does not support that. It's not like we can say Aghai supports the phrase on Mondays and Tuesdays, and excludes the phrase on Wednesdays and Thursdays.


 * At some point, I would like you to please consider the following approach. We begin discussion of each source as we have been doing. At about the point where we are at now with Aghai, most of the participating editors have said what we believe, and have responded a few times back and forth to one another. We are bumping up against a wall where editors read the same words in opposite ways, and I can tell you from experience that this will keep on happening for each successive source. At that point, maybe you could pose specific questions to each editor, and ask that we each reply directly to you, instead of continuing to argue with each other. (I'd also like to see all the participating editors participate, something that is not currently happening.) Your questions could be something like: "Editor1, you have told Editor2 xyz, but it sounds like Editor2 is asking you abc. Please tell me what your answer to abc is." And you could ask the corresponding question to Editor2, about what Editor1 was trying to convey. That would help make the process less personalized, and would help keep editors focused on the matters at hand, instead of talking past each other. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do any participating editors have a suggestion about how to get to consensus, aside from demanding that other editors agree with them or be ignored ? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I've commented to Keithbob inside the collapsed content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- I find that comment quite uncalled-for. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think that asking to move on to the next source before reaching consensus on this one is asking for us to ignore the views of editors who disagree with you, and I was asking for suggestions other than those things, rather than complaining about those things. But I struck it anyway. So, do you have a suggestion about how to get consensus? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have more than a dozen sources yet to consider - at the rate we are proceeding, I rather fear doomsday shall arrive first<g>. Perhaps if we see how many other scholars treat the topic, we will have a better view of where compromise is called for, and where the mainstream definition dominates.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, about getting what I might call a bird's-eye view, in order to gain perspective. On the other hand, I think that everyone here has already gotten familiar with the source material and formed various opinions about it, so it's not really a mystery where the discussion will be going. (If you are aware of a source later on the list, that you believe will disprove contradict what I have been saying about Aghai, I have no objection to you pointing it out now.) Instead, we truly do seem to be having a problem agreeing about the most basic aspects of what the sources say, and I fear that we could move through every source with zero agreement, and then look back and find zero agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, this is not a matter of "proving" or "disproving" anything at all - the goal as I recall is to find out whether there is a specific mainstream definition to work with, and that if there are discordant definitions to then determine how to treat them - and avoiding clearly "fringe" definitions" while setting forth the ambit of the article. Correct? Collect (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, a source that contradicts what I have been saying about Aghai. (And I trust that you are not implying that other editors are pushing fringe definitions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, Aghai does not say that religious terrorism has geopolitical goals, but refers to "[w]hen political terrorism and religious terrorism mix." In other words, motivation for some terrorism may be both relgious and ethnic/nationalist, left-wing, or right-wing. No one has claimed that the definition of religious terrorism precludes terrorism that has mixed motivation. Whether or not it actually does in the real world, specifically in the case of Christianity, is something that we can discuss in a future section. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of Christian terrorism.

Tryptofish, if an atheist decides to spread Christianity in order to subjugate a non-Christian ethnic/nationalist group, it is bizarre to state that his motivation is his Christian religion. Napoleon for example said, "As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Would you say that by definition Napoleon promoted Christianity because of his belief in Christianity? Or would you agree that he had a non-religious motivation for doing so?

Of course terrorists may spread Christianity for religious reasons, and violent actions they undertake to do so are rightly called acts of Christian terrorism. But it is Christian motivation for actions rather than the actions themselves that make it Christian terrorism. In fact all terrorism is only defined as such if certain motivations exist. For example if a person commits a crime against a person of color it is not necessarily a racist act, although it is the type of attacks racists carry out. We do not call a person of color who attacks another person of color a white supremacist.

But there is no need for all this original research. Let's stick with what the sources say and not add anything they do not say. None of them so far say that "spreading Christianity" is part of the definition.

TFD (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, yesterday when you said in part, "The logical fallacy is saying that spreading religion is by definition religiously motivated. However, if that were true, then there would be no need to include spreading religion in the definition, it would be redundant", I replied in part that "I take very seriously the point you make about how it would be redundant to include 'spread' if it were an automatic result of 'theological positions'", and I meant that. I've been thinking hard about that point since then, and what you have said here is consistent with what I responded to yesterday. I'm trying very hard to see if I can come up with a path to consensus in this discussion.


 * You've just said that "it is Christian motivation for actions rather than the actions themselves that make it Christian terrorism." The more I think about it, the more I think that's exactly correct (so long as the "actions" are terrorist actions, because I think we all agree that Christian motivations can give rise to completely non-terrorist actions, so in that way the "actions" do matter – and that fact, in turn, means that there are all kinds of "Christian motivations" that have nothing to do with terrorism). I've never said that an atheist would be a Christian terrorist, and I cannot imagine why anyone would think that I would believe that.


 * I also have to say that I am coming to question why I am spending so much effort defending a definition about "spread" that was proposed by Bryon, when Bryon hasn't even bothered to show up for the discussion.


 * So, it increasingly seems to me that a proper definition of "Christian terrorism", reflecting those sources that we have discussed up to this point, defines it in terms of "Christian motivations", or at least that (idiosyncratic) subset of all Christian motivations that give rise to terrorist actions.


 * I've asked myself whether it would be accurate to consider a new wording of our definition, that would be: Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity. I think it comes close, but it slightly misses, because it makes it sound like the idiosyncratic thinking of the terrorists is identical to Christianity. Therefore, I think we need to be more specific than that.


 * So I am proposing, as a working draft, not a finished product, and subject to revision as we discuss more sources:
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, including motivation by Christian theological positions and Christian geopolitics
 * Obviously, I took the "theological positions" phrase from the earlier proposed definition. I took "Christian geopolitics" from what Jytdog said, as something that is really more precise than what Bryon had previously proposed about "spread".


 * What I ask of TFD and Collect, in turn, is to recognize that Aghai (and Bale) do, explicitly and not based on original research, emphasize geopolitical motivations in what they say about identifying religious terrorism. Again, those bullet points that I repeatedly posted are, on their face, very much about geopolitics, and it seems to me to be original research to say that Aghai and Bale are not treating geopolitics as important. TFD quotes Aghai about when those things "mix", but it is also original research to characterize Aghai's list of motivations as only being about "mix". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aghai does not say "motivated by Christian geopolitics", and therefore unless we find a least one source that does, we should not use it. What do you mean by it anyway?  TFD (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, please quote to me a passage from Hoffman, in which Hoffman uses the exact words "motivated by Christian theological positions". Not words that effectively mean the same thing, but those exact words. Otherwise, please explain your defense of "theological positions" coupled with your objection about Aghai, on the grounds that Aghai, while not using the exact words "motivated by Christian geopolitics", does use the exact words "forcibly insert religion into politics". (What I mean by it is what Aghai and Bale say, obviously.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said above, "As I've said repeatedly before, I personally read Hoffman and the other sources so far as treating advancing theological positions as needing to be a primary motivation, as Collect does. [19:51, 18 January 2015] If you now think you were wrong, and would like to revisit the previous section, then please ask the moderator to suspend this section and we can go back to Hoffman.
 * Re: Aghai Are you saying that by "motivated by Christian geopolitics", you mean "forcibly insert[ing] religion into politics?"  I do not think that is a good paraphrasing.  "geo" means world-wide, while politics can be local.
 * TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But, when I said that about Hoffman, I was not requiring Hoffman to use the exact words "advancing theological positions". I don't think I was wrong, and it's a little snarky to ask if I think I was. What I did was read Hoffman, based on what Hoffman actually said, according to a common sense understanding of what he said. It is reasonable to conclude that what Hoffman said could be paraphrased as about theological positions. You, on the other hand, just objected on the grounds that Aghai did not use the exact words. By any reasonable, common sense, reading of Aghai, he is writing about imposing religious laws and inserting religion into politics.


 * And, by quoting me instead of quoting Hoffman, as I quite reasonably requested, you have tacitly admitted that Hoffman does not use the exact words "advancing theological positions" at the same time that you endorse using those words in our definition. And yet you seem to object to paraphrasing Aghai.


 * About the choice of words, I'm very receptive to alternative choices of words (as opposed to just saying "no" all the time). To what extent do you read Aghai and Bale as being about local political issues as opposed to being about more global ones? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While the sources do not have to use the exact wording, they need to use words that mean the same thing, which I do not see. How is alleged Christian terrorism in the United States, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, or Northeast India related to geopolitics, which is "the study of the effects of geography (human and physical) on international politics and international relations?"  TFD (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm receptive to using another word instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aghai has a very clear focus on the mixing of political and religious goals, as described above and in his 2nd and 3rd points that have been quoted too many times already. How would you describe that difference from authors we have discussed before, TFD? Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is about the definition of religious terrorism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether terrorism can have both religious and political motivation. In no definition presented by me or anyone else or any of the sources has mixed motivation been ruled out.  Point two:  religious terrorists may seek to impose religious law on society.  No one said they could not.  Nor has any source said that using violence to impose religious law is ipso facto religious terrorism.  Point Three:  "forcibly insert religion into politics".  Same as point two.  There are no differences between how this author sees the definition of religious terrorism or how any other writer presented sees it.  02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)TFD (talk)
 * Hi TFD. The issue here is one of nuance, for sure.  I do not understand the point you are trying to make when you write: "Nor has any source said that using violence to impose religious law is ipso facto religious terrorism."  Are you just emphasizing that not all violence is terrorism?  Is so that seems a bit off target.  Aghai is emphasizing (2 of his 4 points) that the the intersection of purely theological motivations, and purely geopolitical motivations, is important to his definition of religious terrorism - he is talking about non-terrorist violence.  Neither am I.  Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No I am saying that an act of violence to impose religious law is terrorism, whether or not it is religious terrorism depends on the motivation for the violence. If the motivation is religious, then it is religious terrorism.  If there is some other motivation, such as ethnicity/nationalism, but no religious motivation, then it is not relgious terrorism.  The National Liberation Front (Algeria) (NLF) for example, which was a Marxist ethnic/nationalist terrorist organization, imposed religious law on society.  No sources question they did that.  But no sources say that makes them by definition religious terrorists,  Rather they saw religious law as the only feasible alternative to the European civil law and a tool to unify and control society.  Of course some sources may disagree, but they are not disagreeing over the definition of religious terrorism, but because they believe the reason the Algerians wanted independence from France was they were Muslims.  Ironically the NLF is now challenged in the Algerian Civil War by groups described as Islamic terrorists.
 * Juergensmeyer incidentally refers to the NLF as a "Western-style secular government." (Global Rebellion)
 * Aghai is not saying that the intersection of religious and secular motivated terrorism is important to his definition. He says that terrorism can have both religious and secular motivation.  No one disagrees with that.  Incidentally, it is not his definition but Bale's.  The four quotes cited are direct quotes from Bale and the rest is close paraphrasing.   That is fairly common in the sources we are describing because there is no debate about the definition of religious terrorism.
 * TFD (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, in my post yesterday, I listened really carefully to what you have been saying, and I tried my best to take what you were saying seriously and to find ways to move towards consensus based on what you said. I'm asking that you reciprocate. You said to Jytdog "No I am saying that an act of violence to impose religious law is terrorism, whether or not it is religious terrorism depends on the motivation for the violence. If the motivation is religious, then it is religious terrorism." Did you take seriously what I proposed as a working draft for the definition? It begins: Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, including motivation by... It limits consideration to terrorism that is motivated by Christianity, and excludes terrorism that is motivated by anything other than Christianity. Why then do you continue to object based on terrorism that is not motivated by religion?


 * Similarly, you say "Aghai is not saying that the intersection of religious and secular motivated terrorism is important to his definition." I'm not claiming that either. But I am directly reading the four bullet points that I repeatedly quoted from Aghai (and Bale) as saying that the intersection of what you call "theological positions" with what Aghai calls "impose strict religious laws on society, forcibly insert religion into politics" is an important aspect of what Aghai (along with Bale) says about how he differentiates "religious terrorist groups" from "ethno-nationalist separist and irridentist groups", "secular left-wing groups", "secular right-wing groups", and "single-issue groups", among "the five basic types" of "modern terrorism". Aghai and Bale make laws, politics, and group power central aspects of how they define religious terrorism relative to other kinds of terrorism. That's exactly what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was replying to Jytdog, who wants to have "imposing religious law" as part of the definition. But I still do not know what "Christian geopolitics" means.  Please explain.
 * While Bale does say that some religious terrorists seek to impose religious law, his definition of religious terrorism requires religious motivation. You are making the logical fallacy:  "Some dogs have fleas, my cat has fleas, therefore my cat is a dog."
 * TFD (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm doing everything I can to take what you say seriously, and you respond with that condescending comment about dogs and cats and fleas, and imply that I'm so stupid that I confuse one thing with another.


 * I don't see Jytdog actually saying that. I see you asking him about it, but not him saying it. Can you acknowledge that a working draft of Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, including motivation by... excludes terrorism that is not motivated by Christianity? Can you acknowledge that it limits itself to motivations?


 * As I said above, I'm receptive to an alternative wording in place of "geopolitics". The wording has to encompass "seek to eradicate the enemies of God and other 'sinners', impose strict religious law on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults." Just saying "theological positions" does not accomplish that, because advancing theological positions does not really mean the same thing as eradicating people, changing laws and taking over politics, or putting cults in control. If you are looking for an example, please consider the Gunpowder Plot, an example you already have agreed with. Attempting to destroy a legislative body and kill the head of state, based upon a religious belief that Catholicism is right and Protestantism is wrong, is a good example, and it gets short shrift if we limit it to a theological dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, while some religious terrorists may seek to "impose strict religious law on society", some non-religious terrorists may also seek to "impose strict religious law on society." For example, the atheist and Christian leaders of Arab ethnic/nationalist terrorism sought to impose Islamic religious law. No source presented, including Bale, say that terrorism to impose religious law on society is religious terrorism, merely that it is something religious terrorists often do. You are making the same logical fallacy as the example I gave: Some religious terrorists seek to impose strict religious law on society, x terrorists seek to impose strict religious law on society, therefore x are religious terrorists. How does your reasoning differ from the cat and dog example?

Also, the gunpowder plot was religious terrorism because it was terrorism motivated by Christian belief, or "based upon a religious belief that Catholicism is right and Protestantism is wrong." In another time, anarchist, left-wing, right-wing or ethnic/nationalist terrorists may have carried out a similar attack. It does not mean they too are religious terrorists.

TFD (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked you to reconsider what you said to me about fleas and so forth, and you obviously do not care.


 * I asked you to consider that I suggested Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, including motivation by.... You appear to be ignoring what I said, because you continue to argue based on the false assumption that I am not in favor of limiting the definition, for the sources so far, to what "is motivated by Christianity". I know you do not like it when I repeat things, but the fact is, that I said Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, including motivation by.... You are acting like you did not "hear" that.


 * I asked you to consider an alternative word choice, in place of "geopolitical", but you offered nothing, nor even acknowledged that I had asked. The inescapable appearance is that you are interested only in saying "no" to any wording other than "advancing theological positions". Your participation in mediation requires you to make a reasonable effort to comply with what Keithbob described as "the success of any mediation rests mainly with the participants finding common ground." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It could be that you have in mind a coherent definition, I just do not read it that way. When one says, "motivated by Christianity, including motivation by" one expects to see something like "Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.,"  not a list of actions motivated by their Christianity.  I suppose one could say that when a Christian terrorist group blows up a building the motivation is to blow up the building, but we would not say "including motivation of blowing up buildings."  Also, I cannot offer you an alternative to "geopolitics", because I do not know what you intend to say.  TFD (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Talking about Aghai's definition, we have gone off track by characterizing the political aspect as being about the kind of action. It is a motivation.  Aghai makes the point very clearly that the religious terrorists he is talking about have both political and religious motivations and the motivations intersect.   They want to have the state express their religion - they want to "impose strict religious law on society" and to "forcibly insert religion into politics".    Trypto and I are absolutely affirming that religion is a motivation in Aghai, and indeed the essential one for giving it the label, "religious terrorism".  What I am aiming for here is an acknowlegement that for Aghai, the political motivations are a characteristic of the religious terrorisms Aghai describes, as well.  Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In some cases there may be a mixture of motivations. A group may carry out terrorist acts in order to advance religion and a national state.  Or they may see a national state as a means for achieving religious goals or religion as a means for achieving nationalist goals.  None of this has anything to do with the definition of religious terrorism.  We can get into these discussions when we consider how to report terrorism described as religious terrorism.  It's a bit like arguing that some chess players also play checkers so that in some way changes the definition of chess player.  TFD (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK we are a complete dead end here. Keithbob, please mediate. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A mediator has rather limited ability to do what you seem to ask him to do. His task is to facilitate discussion, and to find out where agreements may be found, not to "rule" on any positions, and certainly not when we have so many other sources still to discuss.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aghai discussion continued

 * Maybe we should strike this source from the list. "Aghai's definition" is actually a direct quote/close paraphrase of Bale.  I do not know if Aghai's book meets rs.  It is self-published, has never been reviewed in a reliable source and has no cites in Google scholar.  I can find no information about him except that he is a real estate agent in Encino, California.  Tryptofish, why did you choose this book instead of Bale's essay?  TFD (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting point - if the person is not generally recognized as a scholar in the field, then we should simply strike his personal opinions from the list. Tryptofish and Jytdog - might you tell us his scholarly credentials in the field before we spend further time on this?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that we finish the discussion of whether or not Aghai is a RS and then move on to the next one. I think each participant has made clear their reading of the source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Aghai: Terrorism, an Unconventional Crime: Do We Have the Wisdom and Capability to Defeat Terrorism?  by Vahab Aghai; Xlibris Corporation, 2011 - Fiction - 214 pages

Xlibris is an on-demand and self-publishing publisher. is likely relevant here: "Under Author Solutions, Xlibris still charges a lot more than most POD publishers, anywhere from $299 for very little to $12,999 for a book. One difference is in the quality of the cover: For $299, $499, and $899, writers get a generic cover made from a template. For $1599, you get a custom cover. " Which appears on its face to yell vanity press,alas. I doubt it falls under the "generally RS publishers" which would include all the university presses and text publishers. One probem is that the author apparently self-categorises the work as "Fiction".

Vahab Aghai is apparently non-notable in the area of terrorism. His other works: Obama's Empty Promises Vanished Hopes: An Analytical Review of a President's Policy Failures (also vanity press Xlibris),   AMERICA?S SHRINKING MIDDLE CLASS (ditto - AuthorHouse),    Who Owns America (likely ditto - Hancock Press),  Commercial Loan and California Law (Washington Int'l. Educational Center  whose president is Vahab Aghai! (surprised?)),  Residential Lending and California Law  (same publisher and same president)  and that is it. I strongly suggest we deep-six him as being not only self-published, but definitively not an expert on any topics involved here at all. By a few miles.

As to c.v.:   lists Vahab Aghai of Encino as a "tax preparer." In short no basis for assigning a microgram of weight to his opinions. Thanks TFD for noting the real and significant problem here. Collect (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The not important part of what I am going to say:
 * I've been asked why I cited Aghai, and I figure I ought to answer questions that have been asked of me. It's not clear to me that the person who is the tax preparer in Encino is the same person as the author of the book, but I can easily explain how I came to cite Aghai. I wasn't the first editor in this discussion to cite Aghai. Collect was. Here is the diff: . Collect presented Aghai as a source for the "advancing theological definitions" definition, and I apologize for not checking the publisher at that time and for having AGFed Collect's citation instead. (I wonder why TFD and Collect became so interested in checking the quality of their source only after it became apparent that it did not support their preferred definition.) I read the source, and realized that the language was different than the language of most of the sources that supported the "theological positions" definition. It's as simple as that. I also did not recognize that Bale had used such similar language. That was an oversight on my part, amid reading a lot of source material, and I apologize for that too.


 * Something of medium importance:
 * I think it's clear that, while we can assign low importance or no importance to Aghai, Bale remains a reliable source: . Given that his article's title is "Definition of Terrorism", I think that we can safely conclude that he is providing definitions. He lists "The Main Categories of Non-State Terrorist Groups", and defines four kinds, one of which he calls "religious terrorist groups". I think we can look at his definition (since we have pretty much been discussing it throughout our discussion of Aghai), without going through all of the formality of asking for a separate section on this mediation page.


 * I will quote Bale's definition verbatim: "groups relying heavily on terrorism that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (i.e., those who seek to "politicize" religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults). This type of terrorism comes in five main varieties:..." He then goes on to describe those five varieties, and I think we can safely call what comes then a "description". But, on a plain reading of the source, what I just quoted is how Bale defines religious terrorism, versus the other three kinds of modern non-state terrorism.


 * The most important thing I want to say here:
 * TFD said above: "When one says, "motivated by Christianity, including motivation by" one expects to see something like "Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.," not a list of actions motivated by their Christianity." I'm continuing to try very hard to listen seriously to what other editors are saying, and to try to find things where we can agree, and I think TFD makes a good point.


 * TFD and Collect favor defining Christian terrorism as:
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions


 * I'll modify what I suggested in this section, to:
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity
 * Full stop, without the "including" subordinate phrase. But I also think we need to consider how we paraphrase the sources.


 * I'm fine with paraphrasing Hoffman as being about advancing theological positions. But as for Bale, I don't see how we paraphrase Bale that way without engaging in original research and misrepresenting the source. I think if we paraphrase Hoffman and Bale together, we could say that the terrorism "seeks to advance Christian theological positions or to spread Christianity". So, is Bale better paraphrased as "seeks to advance Christian theological positions" or as "seeks to advance Christian theological positions or to spread Christianity"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect does not appear to have cited Aghai, he cited Bale. You probably Google-searched for the quote and got Aghai.  I found it was not rs, because I was reading through the book to see if he provides an actual definition of religious terrorism and then searched for his name in case he provided it elsewhere.  I found it odd that Bale defines religious terrorism as terrorism motivated by religion and provides examples, while Aghai merely provides examples which you then misinterpreted as a definition.  We can talk about Bale in another section.  If you want to discuss Hoffman again, then we need to re-open the section.  Not too keen on synthesizing Hoffman and Bale:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  TFD (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I never presented Aghai as anything more than a case where Bale's definition appeared to fit the mainstream view - and the actual use of Aghai was made by Tryptofish on 28 December - not by me.  I find the bolding of my name where I did not even mention Aghai's name to be far less than relevant here, and I would note that I used it for only a single quote and not as a specific scholarly source. When finding salient quotes one will find the odd self-published book with a scholarly quotation (I trust Bale is acceptable and a scholar?)  Cheers.  Gotchas do not help mediations. Collect (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see where you quoted him at all, except after he was presented by Tryptofish. Check the link Tryptofish provides.  TFD (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I provided a diff, and I will reproduce here what is in the diff:


 * Religion is about "theology" and I daresay that if we can not reach a logical definition, then we will end up with strawberry jam for an article. refers to "impose strict religious rules on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults."  seeks to define religion in general. MonTREP  defines terrorism "In marked contrast, bona fide acts of terrorism are triadic, i.e., they involve three parties or protagonists, the perpetrator(s), the victim(s), and a wider target audience (or audiences)" and distinguishes it from all general acts of dyadic violence. "groups relying heavily on terrorism that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (i.e., those who seek to “politicize” religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults" which appears the same at the other definition, albeit more verbose.  LawBrain is satisfied with the terse "Christian terrorism is motivated by interpretations of the Bible." which seems a tad short and misses the elements found in the other two sources. So reliable sources would indicate that we limit the "terrorism" to the triad formulation, and the motivation to either be "to impose strict religious tenets on society, insert religion into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse" - which is a tad less elegant than simply saying "theology" is the motivation. I stand by my suggested definition, and would ask what compromises on that language would work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Click on the first link cited (50). It goes directly to Aghai, whom Collect then quotes verbatim. It's the third link (52) that goes to Bale. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- tell me where I ever attributed the words to Aghai? Are you saying that if Asimov quoted Shakespeare and I cited Shakespeare's words from Asimov's lengthy tome that I really truly only quoted Asimov?   What a wondrous concept indeed. Collect (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that you linked to and then said that the source "refers to 'impose strict religious rules on society, forcibly insert religion into politics, and/or bring in apocalyptic cults.'" I have no way to know whether or not you had taken note of the name of the author you linked to and quoted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, trypto provided a link to the dif and actually copy-pasted it above. if your point is that you didn't write the word "Aghai" that is of course true, but also pointless. Let's move on. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aghai discussion continued (Bale)

 * But that was from what I said was a relatively unimportant part of what I wrote. In all this strong reaction, the only response to the more important part of what I said was TFD's objection to synthesizing Hoffman and Bale. OK, I'll bite. Which is the better paraphrase of Bale: "seeks to advance Christian theological positions and to spread Christianity", or "seeks to advance Christian theological positions"?


 * And based on all the reliable sources so far, which is the better definition: Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions, or Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is not about Bale. We are discussing one writer at a time.  Time to move on.  TFD (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Refusing to engage with content on the basis of formalities does not move us closer to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The procedure you have chosen to follow is in the first part to discuss each source you presented individually, We are finished with this one.  TFD (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the mediation process you agreed to involves making a good faith effort to find consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But I'll try again: Which of the following two definitions is better, based on the understanding we have reached at this point in the mediation discussion?
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions, or
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity

I think the second one is superior, because of concepts we have discussed in this discussion section. First, it focuses on motivations, instead of "avowed purposes". I don't think the phrase "avowed purposes" really reflects any of our sources, whereas we seem to have agreed that motivations are central to a proper definition. Second, it is framed in terms of the religion, and we have apparently agreed that terrorism motivated by religion is central to what distinguishes religious terrorism from other kinds of terrorism. On the other hand, "theological positions" is a poor paraphrase of some of the sources we have considered (regardless of the discussion section we discussed them in). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the second is better although I would remove the first "Christian" so it is not used twice in the same sentence. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had actually come to the same conclusion and had already removed that first "Christian", which you didn't see due to an edit conflict. I'm glad that we agree about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tautological definitions seem outré.  So far we have a large number of sources basically saying theology is absolutely part of "Christian terrorism"  which is simple and clear.  Saying "Christian terrorism is motivated by Christianity" or the like  is an interesting try - I suppose it is sort of true in a tautological way like saying "stretchiness is caused by stretch" or "Democrats act for the Democratic Party" - the point is that absent theology, just what does one mean by "motivated by Christianity" at all?   That one likes the smell of incense at St. Peter's and that causes an act of terrorism?  That a person sees American Sniper and sees Kyle's Bible (certainly a sign of Christianity) thus setting the person off on a shooting spree?  As a strange tautology it might have an appeal but it is the appeal of a wide-open barn door at that point,alas. Collect (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to justify theology in terms of Bale: "groups relying heavily on terrorism that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (i.e., those who seek to "politicize" religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults)." Certainly, theological positions are part of it, but to reduce all that to a divinity school gone bad seems like keeping what you called the "barn door" more tightly closed than the sources do. And I want to know: where you say there is a problem with leaving that door too far open, what exactly would be "getting in" that should not get in? In other words, what kind of terrorism that is motivated by Christianity, would not be Christian terrorism? (Reliable sources do not call members of the US armed forces "terrorists", even when they appear in motion pictures.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the diff that Trypto quoted, Collect proposed a definition: "So reliable sources would indicate that we limit the "terrorism" to the triad formulation, and the motivation to either be "to impose strict religious tenets on society, insert religion into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse".  This seems to be quite useful.  I find enough of the "spread" notion to be there (I don't really care that it isn't stated explicitly) to be good with it, at least for summarizing Aghai.  Sorry for not picking up on that earlier. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think I could work with that, too. In another part of this discussion, TFD raised the issue of not being descriptive in a definition, and I wonder whether that would be too descriptive. Not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, can you propose an exact wording of that definition, and write it in terms of "motivations" (ie, "is motivated by...")? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Modifying what Collect wrote as little as possible: "Christian terrorism is terrorism motivated by a desire the motivation to either be "to impose strict religious Christian tenets on society, insert religion Christianity into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse" - without markup: "Christian terrorism is terrorism motivated by a desire to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse" Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good. So let me reformat the question as it has come to be revised. We are comparing:
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions,
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity, or
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by a desire to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for an Apocalypse
 * For that third one, I might revise it by changing "a desire" to "the intention". And maybe we need to specify a Christian attribute to that Apocalypse. I could work with either the second or the third. I still think the first one does not accurately represent the sources so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking further at the third one, I see that it is paraphrased from Bale, who actually names four motivations, rather than three. The one not included here is "to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers". I doubt that we would quote that verbatim, but would we paraphrase it as "the intention to harm or eliminate non-Christians"? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to go with the third one listed above, I'd suggest revising it as:
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by the intention to harm or eliminate non-Christians, to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for a millenarian Apocalypse
 * I could be equally happy with either that, or the second one in the three listed just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of explanation, Bale's exact wording is: "and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults)". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another issue with that newest proposed definition: in the first motivation, it isn't just non-Christians, but also Christians of different denominations or beliefs. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Aghai skipped Bale's definition and merely provided his examples. So let's shut down this conversation. TFD (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said above that you agreed with
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity
 * Are you saying that you prefer that, over the longer definition proposed by Jytdog? If so, that works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We are probably about to move on to the next source, and I want to note that we actually have made some progress recently. We went into the Aghai discussion with no consensus as to the best definition, and no clear majority preference among the participating editors. We still do not have a consensus preference. But we have determined, largely from discussing Aghai and then Bale, that three of the four editors active in this discussion feel that "the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions" is no longer the best wording for the definition. What is the best definition is still to be determined, but we have a lot more sources to review, in order to determine that. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jytdog's "definition" The proposed definiton is actually a list of what they do.  So we could say for example, "Christian terrorism is terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity.  Christian  terrorists may intend to harm or eliminate non-Christians, to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for a millenarian Apocalypse."  The problem with treating the second sentence as a definition is that when they are only Christian terrorism if motivated by Christianity.  Hence some European imperialists may have decided to exterminate heathen brutes, yet themselves be non-religious nominally Christian.  TFD (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * and with that crack, I am out of here. it was Collect's "definition".  God I am sick of this.  I have no hope of reaching any kind of reasonable compromise with this kind of complete fucking misrepresentation and sarcasm going on. I fucking compromised and I got spit on for it.  Sickening.  Male. fucking. egos.  Ugly.  This is not why I edit Wikipedia.  I am unwatching the article as well.   Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (reconsidered Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC))


 * Jytdog, please sleep on it before deciding that. I don't read what TFD said as a crack against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No offense meant. I merely meant that things such as spreading Christianity are not part of Bale's definition but a description of some of the things they attempt.  The problem with the Aghai source is that he does not fully reflect what Bale says.  But since we have agreed the source fails rs, it is moot.  TFD (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD and Jytdog, thank you both very much. It's understandable that emotions can get heated in a discussion like this one, and I hope that everyone will realize the importance of respecting what one another says, even when we disagree. But I'm glad that Jytdog is not leaving us, and I'm also glad that TFD and I have found something where we agree with each other. That really is a step forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The "harm non-Christians" is a non-starter as opening the definition to any Christian who attacks any non-Christian ab initio. Way, way, too broad a hole. The case of trying to cause the Apocalypse in any way is not part of any Christian theology - the idea of being "prepared" may be part of some groups, but generally is on the order of storing a year's supply of food or the like. TFD by the way used "may" in his formulation of what Christian terrorists might do, which is not the same as saying that anyone who does any of those things is a "Christian terrorist". Leaving:
 * Christian terrorists may use terrorism in order to impose a Christian religious order on society, including in politics.

As the closest your definition could be tweaked to conform with what the sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I take your point that not everyone who seeks to harm non-Christians is a Christian terrorist, and I can work with something like what you suggested there. Any definition here has to be limited to acts that are terrorism, and that are motivated by something to do with Christianity. The relationship of theology to the Apocalypse, given the fact that Bale specifies causing the Apocalypse as a motivation for religious terrorism and gives Christian millenarians as his example, seems to me to be one more reason why "theological positions" does not comport with the source material. About "causing harm", Bale's exact words are "to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers". I agree with you that it will take some further thought as to how to paraphrase that, and I expect that examination of further sources will help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be wise to see if we can find Christian apocalyptoids (coined word) who have engaged in acts of terror where that was the primary focus of their acts. If not, we likely can elide that as a criterion.  In short - if they all meet other criteria, we could certainly skip that one as being a tad difficult to find an example for. Collect (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The motivation is not "something to do with Christianity" but Christianity, or least the terrorists' version. My worry is that we will see that two authors disagree on whether a group is motivated by Christianity but by our definition we can say they are Christian terrorists because it has something to do with Christianity.  Similarly we could say that the Arab nationalist terrorists (Algeria, PLO, Abu Nadir), many of whom were Christians or atheists, were all Islamic terrorists because they all supported a return to Islamic law, despite the fact that no mainstream sources classify them as such.  TFD (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept that my use of the words "something to do with" was a poor choice of words. I was thinking at the time that I wanted to leave the specifics open for subsequent discussions, but I can see now how it could have sounded like a fudge to allow poor examples in. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I do not yet have a strong opinion about what about Christianity we should say, and that I want this to be determined by our subsequent discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to TFD's concern about two authors disagreeing, I think we can expect authors to not see things exactly the same way when it comes to applying labels. In my view we don't want to create a scope (the definition of CT) that excludes reliable sources on the topic; I don't think we need to worry about someone making a claim about a group if no reliable sources supported that - none of us would be OK with that in our work on the article. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to Collect's question about Christian apocalyptoids, this source (Morgan, 2004) says that Christian Identity terrorists have an apocalyptic ideology -- see page 80 35, 2nd paragraph. There are a few sources in our Christian Identity article that go there too. So we would seem to have one example. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The one specific example he gives is Timothy McVeigh -- which no one else seems to regard as an act of "Christian terrorism." The Wikipedia article has examples of Afrikaner violence in South Africa - where again the evidence is that racism is the cause, and not any Christian theology or belief. (also the report you cite says "A recent FBI strategic assessment of the potential for domestic terrorism in the United States focused on such groups as Christian Identity and other ultraconservative movements associated with Christian fundamentalism. The most extreme of these fanatics attribute a subhuman status to people of color, which in their eyes mitigates any moral compunction to avoid harming such individuals"  which appears to say some fundamentalist Christians are racists.  Not much there.)  Sorry - the examples there are not  likely to pass muster here.   Can you find an actual example of such a Christian apocalyptic group committing actual acts of terrorism please?  McVeigh ain't it. Collect (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and the very next sentence after the passage quoted by you, Collect, from the source I cited says: "In addition, they view themselves in a perpetual battle with the forces of evil (as manifested through non-white races and a powerful, sinister government) that must culminate in the apocalyptic crisis predicted by the Book of Revelations. The Christian terrorists view it as their duty to hasten the realization of this divine plan, which permits and even exhorts them to greater levels of violence. That violence is directed against existing social structures and governments, which are viewed to be hopelessly entangled with such “dark forces” as Jewry, normous financial conglomerates, and international institutions trying to form an ominous “new world order.”" Right Collect?  Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the examples of such terrorist acts?   So far that source only actually presents McVeigh, but there are no actual sources for McVeigh being generally regarded as a "Christian terrorist."   Examples of Christian terrorist acting against the "financial conglomerates"?  So far all we saw was the "Occupy" group which I do not recall was Christian Terrorism.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not engaging in this sort of antagonistic discourse; this is not a deathmatch but rather an effort to reach mutual understanding, together. let's move on.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We will come to her later in the mediation discussion, but Stern calls McVeigh a Christian terrorist on pages 18, 27, and 29. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the dispute in reliable sources, unlike the dispute here, is not about definitions, but which groups fit them. So for example Juergensmeyer says that the motivation  for terrorism in NI is religion, therefore it is religious terrorism.  OTOH, some scholars say the motivation is not religion, therefore it is not religious terrorism.  Neutrality requires us to report the dispute according to appropriate weight for each side.
 * What I would like to avoid is saying something like all authors agree the terrorism by Catholics and Protestants has "something to do with Christianity" therefore lets call it Christian terrorism because it meets our agreed definition. That approach would be tendentious because it would imply that there was no question the conflict was motivated by religion.
 * TFD (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear that. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

seems to me we are a bit adrift. are we trying to come up with a new general definition, or are trying to agree on how aghai (really Bale) defines religious/christian terrorism? Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we want to discuss Bale's definition, we should do so in another section. Bale writes about "ideological categories of non-state terrorists," in other words he implicitly defines them by motivation.  My concern is that by a selective reading of his article we re-define religious terrorism as terrorism by people who have even tenuous connections with religion.  TFD (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had my own questions about Aghai and Bale resolved to my satisfaction (or at least as well as I can reasonable expect) at this point, and I have no objection to moving on to the next author. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. If there are no objections, I can open a thread for the next source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Informal summary
I don't mind if the discussion drifts outside of the particular source we are discussing as long as that side discussion is moving us closer to final consensus. I think that has been the case with the discussion above. Before we move on to the next source I'd like to summarize where we are at with the proposed definitions.
 * Collect and TFD originally proposed the definition:
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions
 * However at this point in the discussion Jytdog, Tryptofish and TFD feel that that definition is not the best possible definition and that the best definition is still to be determined.
 * Collect also offered the definition in compromise:
 * Christian terrorists may use terrorism in order to impose a Christian religious order on society, including in politics.


 * Tryptofish prefers and TFD “agrees” with the definition:
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity


 * Tryptofish would also consider supporting this (see below) more elaborate definition if that was preferred by other participants:
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by the intention to harm or eliminate non-Christians, to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for a millenarian Apocalypse
 * (note: the above definition is a modification by me at the invitation of Tryptofish, of a definition of religious terrorism offered by Collect away back on Dec 22, here. It closely follows Bale Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog, I'm not clear on which (if any) of the above definitions you prefer. Could you clarify that for us? Also if anyone feels I have misrepresented their position, please let me know and I will restate the summary. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with that summary. I'll note that Collect added a definition to the summary, and that I would consider that one along with the one listed last. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as I wrote above, i am not clear if these are meant to be definitions of CT generally, or of Aghai/Bale's view of CT. Sorry, I am just unclear on the level at which we are talking. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've understood it to be CT generally (albeit informed by the Aghai/Bale discussions). At least, that was what I have been thinking when I've expressed my opinions of the various versions; I would have said different things if it were to be restricted to Bale. I've also understood all of it to be "as of this time", subject to revision as we discuss more sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is my 'read' of the discussion also. Meaning they are proposed definitions for Christian terrorism and they are "as of this time" and subject to revision as we proceed through the sources.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very helpful. Looking back over the three we have discussed so far, a big difference between Koller and Hoffman on the one hand, and Aghai/Bale on the other, is that for Koller/Hoffman, religious authority (in the form of a person or text) "justifies" (Koller) or "sanctions" (Hoffman) the violence, while Aghai/Bale are silent on that.  I think this is worth including in a definition. I would be OK with:
 * "Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity or justified by a Christian religious authority " (the last bit is clunky but I am trying to make sure it doesn't include, say, Barack Obama (an authority who happens to be Christian) ordering seal team 6 to kill Bin laden);and
 * "Terrorism by groups or individuals that is justified by a Christian religious authority, or is motivated by the intention to harm or eliminate non-Christians, to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for a millenarian Apocalypse" :::::I note that for Koller and Hoffman each make an "and" -- motivated and justified -- but since it is absent in Aghai/Bale, I have made it an "or". Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, a couple of things. First, I can also work with what you are saying there, especially since we are in a mode of "as of this time". I've been thinking very hard about this aspect of an "authority", because I've been noticing it too, and I think that it will be useful to examine how that might hold up as we move through future sources in this discussion process. Anyway, I can work with any number of the versions that we have been considering, just so long as we move away from that "avowed purpose of advancing theological positions". Second, part of Keithbob's question to you was for you to respond to those versions that we already had on the table. In particular, I don't remember you expressing an opinion on "Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity", although I do realize that you incorporated it into one of your new proposals. Even if Keithbob wasn't specifically asking, I would like to know what your opinion of that, standing alone, is. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry for not responding fully. I am ~OK~ with either of the two that I presented without my added language.  I do hope that we can eventually consider adding something about "justifying" before we wrap up. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear Jytdog. Which, if any, of the proposed definitions below, could you "live with" if needed?
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions
 * Christian terrorists may use terrorism in order to impose a Christian religious order on society, including in politics.
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity
 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the 2nd and 3rd. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 FINAL SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED WORKING DEFINITIONS - AT THIS TIME:
 * 1) Collect offered this definition and Jytdog [and Tryptofish] say they could 'live with it'.
 * Christian terrorists may use terrorism in order to impose a Christian religious order on society, including in politics.


 * 2) Tryptofish prefers this defintion, TFD “agrees” and Jytdog 'could live with it':
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity


 * 3) Tryptofish would also consider supporting this definition revised by Jytdog:
 * Terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by the intention to harm or eliminate non-Christians, to impose strict Christian tenets on society, insert Christianity into politics, or to prepare for a millenarian Apocalypse
 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also consider supporting the first definition, offered by Collect and that Jytdog could live with. (Also, the third definition was originally proposed by Collect and subsequently revised by Jytdog.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've made those modifications above in [brackets]. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also note that Collect may or may not support the revision Jytdog made to his proposal.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 4) Collect says: In fact, I did not consider it a "proposal" when I cited it. my proposal (supported by TFD) was (and remains)
 * Terrorism by Christian groups or individuals with the avowed purpose of advancing theological positions. Collect (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bryonmorrigan and User:Bladesmulti which, if any, of the proposed working definitions seen above would you support?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support (3) or (1), but from a lawyer's position, (2) and (4) appear to be designed specifically to exclude. (For example, (2) would be used by editors to say that any motivation that combines Christianity with any other motivation would be excluded, because of the "bright-line" language of the definition...language that also does not appear to be supported by the RS, I might add, as the scholars are not so "bright-line" as that.)  Given the lack of a coherent, bright-line definition that is accepted by all scholars, I would think that (3) is best, as it acknowledges the variety of viewpoints.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also support the first and the third one, it would cover much more. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks folks, that is very helpful. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Purpura
Purpura (link)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior comments reposted here as a courtesy:
 * Purpura ("An Introduction With Applications") Says:  "Extreme violence is used by religious groups to force changes.  Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God."

And specifically excludes the KKK from being "religious terrorism" placing it in the specific category of "right wing extremism." It also places Northern Ireland primarily in the category of "national or ethnic terrorism." One more source for basically the same definition as everyone else. Collect (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Note too that Purpura is not providing his own definition but explaining Dyson's definition.  TFD (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My primary interest in Purpura is with respect to what he says about "overlap" between Christian terrorism and non-religious kinds of terrorism. In previous parts of these discussions, TFD agreed with me that sources that define Christian terrorism as "terrorism that is motivated by Christianity" can also allow for mixed motivations, so I am hopeful that we can agree without too much difficulty that what Purpura is saying is consistent with that, just that Purpura spells it out more explicitly.

On page 17, Purpura summarizes a typology cited to Dyson, of six categories of terrorism, one of which is "religious terrorism". A separate category is "national or ethnic terrorism". Purpura puts the Northern Ireland conflict in the latter, but he also says: "this conflict overlaps religious terrorism because of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland." That's the "overlap" I am referring to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unclear that Dyson's glossary is good for much of anything in this discussion as it is intended to give extremely terse overviews of terms used. This short section can only be applied to Dyson and not to Purpura otherwise. Purpura proffers no other general definitions of religious terrorism, alas. What we can directly use Purpura for is "Numerous typologies of terrorism are offered by scholars." Recommend we simply drop him as he offers no opinions of his own at all. Sorry about that - but otherwise we will end up revisiting others on his overview list. Collect (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are unclear about Dyson's usefulness, he is the next author on our list, so we can try to clear up any issues about him there. Unless there is some reason to feel that Purpura fails WP:RS (and he doesn't!), there is no real reason to say that we are dropping him, assuming that "drop" means that he cannot be cited on the page. Instead, what I see him being cited for is as one of the authors who treat "overlap" as part of the subject. It's undeniable that he says that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Overlap is not part of the definition, so is best discussed in another section. TFD (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I partly agree that it is not an actual part of the definition, but I think that it is part of understanding the definition. Do editors agree that "overlap" is a significant part of what Purpura says, as opposed to something that does not exist in the source? (I cannot imagine how anyone would not agree that it exists in the source.) If we can agree about that much, then that's all I am looking for. But if anyone contends that Purpura is not a source for the existence of "overlap", then we have a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll wait 24 hrs to see if there are any further comments before moving on to the next source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's a reliable source then it could be utilized in the article with appropriate weight. It's on the list we all agreed upon so this is the thread for it. Please continue the discussion as needed. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Keithbob. That kind of procedural clarifying statement is very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the bottom of page 9 is especially relevant to the overlap (and even classification-confusion) with regard to religious and political terrorism. i also want to point out that when Purpura says "blessed by" he is solidly in the realm of justifying/sanctioning by religious authority, that i mentioned in the last section as something we should probably consider in our definition. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I largely agree with you, and I think your point about "blessed by" is a good one. I agree that the bottom of page 9 is well worth looking at (I was previously quoting from page 17). However, I also think that a fair reading of page 9 is that he uses the example of bin Laden as a case of primarily political terrorism that could be mistakenly thought to be primarily religious terrorism because of the "religious language" used, in Purpura's opinion. I want to make it clear that I understand that point, and I do not want to knowingly misread any source to misapply the "religious terrorism" label where it does not belong. But, again, Purpura does see these things in terms of "overlap", rather than in terms of uncrossable boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We can say something like what Cronin does, "Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas...." But whether or not some terrorism mixes Christian with other motivations is not part of the definition, which is what we are discussing.

Does anyone think that any terrorism that has no religious motivation can be classified as Christian terrorism? If not, then we could agree on the definition on move on to the next part.

TFD (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first, no, I do not think that, and I do not read the sources we have discussed so far as being consistent with that. As you know, I'm receptive to defining the subject as terrorism that is motivated by Christianity. As for the first part of your comment, I am comfortable with that, too. I agree with you that what Purpura says about "overlap" is consistent with what you quoted from Cronin. If we have consensus that the emerging definition (by which I mean emerging from our discussions) encompasses, rather than excludes, some sort of concept of "overlap" or of "mix of motivating ideologies", then I am quite satisfied. Whether or not it is formally a "part" of the definition, I think we need to have a consensus that those things are not excluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, would you delimit "motivated by Christianity"? Would it include "I want my food served by a Christian" as a reason for bombing a restaurant?  Would it include "That radio station played non-Christian music"?  Where exactly do you think the line would be drawn, as the basic wording looks too open to extremely broad interpretation. Collect (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would if their motivation for doing so was their Christian religion. So for example they might think that God wanted them to destroy a restaurant and they were carrying out God's will.  TFD (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

TFD and Collect, would you please comment on the "justified by religion" theme found in this source, and our first two ? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (correct "them" >> "theme" Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)) (amended to strike Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC))


 * The source does not say that, it says the terror of revolutionary France was not justified by religion. Are you tring to say that even if the motivation is not religious, we can call it religious terrorism if some sort of religious justification is provided?  Well no source says that.  So if a bank robber pleads insanity and says God told him to rob a bank, he would be by that definition a religious terrorist.  TFD (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * no i am not saying that.
 * TFD, on 3 Jan you quoted Koller:
 * "John M. Koller writes, 'In all of these cases and many others, it is not merely that someone who happened to be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Hewish or Muslim resorted to violence, often extreme violence, but rather that they did this because their religion motivated them and, in their minds, justified their violence. ('Religious Violence', p. 1)' (emphasis added)"
 * TFD later that day you quoted Hoffman:
 * "'Bruce Hoffman writes, I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role. (emphasis added)"
 * Collect later that day you quoted Purpur::
 * "'Says 'Extreme violence is used by religious groups to force changes. Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God.' (emphasis added)"
 * Do you see the theme of justified/sanctioned/blessed?  Do you see that all three took care to include this religious justification in addition to the religious motivation?    Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (amended to strike Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC))


 * You are not reading the sources correctly. Koller says, "they did this because their religion motivated them and, in their minds, justified their violence."  Note that he says both religion motivated them and religion justified their violence in their minds (my italics).  IOW there must be a causal connection between a religious belief and violence.  If you want to define religious terrorism as having some other definition, then please provide a source.
 * Also, why are you bringing up closed discussions? The whole point of discussing them one at a time is so that we can discuss them one at a time.
 * TFD (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am brought them up because neither of you responded when I brought it up in the revisitation above, and it is in Purpura. Either that, or I did it because I am such a moron that I cannot read correctly nor follow simple conventions of discussing things where they so, so obviously belong.  But please forget I asked about the other two.  Would you please comment on Purpura's use of "blessed"?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (amended by striking Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Um -- what precisely do you think? It says that those religious terrorists who resort to violence believe that their religion likes such violence.   I doubt many people act deliberately in a manner they feel their religion abhors - and then use the religion as an excuse.  "Blessed" does not mean anything more here than "consecrated"  (origin is old AS meaning "consecrated with blood" by the way) which does not mean "God asked us to do it"  in any sense. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * um... Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between doing something that your religon abhors, something your religion is neutral on, and something that as you say the act is actually "consecrated" by your religion. The point here is exactly that at least some authors see some religious terrorists as seeing their actions as actually blessed/santified/justified by their religion.  As actively supported and encouraged by something external to themselves.    As TFD notes above, these authors are making a "direct connection".  You can only "connect" things that are to some extent separate.  Three of our sources so far, took effort to explicitly discuss this.   Metaphorically, motivation is the engine, and justification is the release of the brakes.  I am dieting and I want cake (I am motivated by a desire for sweets) and whether I choose to eat some now will need some justification.  (and to bring up a closed discussion, As Hoffman noted, the religious justification is a key factor in how swiftly religious terrorists convert to violence and for the extent of the violence.  It is a key part of his definition)  In my view, Purpura focuses primarily on this justification aspect when he discusses religious terrorism.
 * the "blessed by" quote already mentioned.
 * p 55 "The Christian Identity movement... members...justify their rage through twisted religious teachings"
 * p 64, grey box "In addition to the crime of terrorism, terrorists are involved in a variety of other crimes, many of which are perpetrated to support themselves and their operations. They have a flagrant disregard for international, national, and local laws and justify their behavior as part of their struggle for their cause."
 * Purpura doesn't only define religious terrorism (or any other kind) primarily by justification. At the bottom of page 14 he starts summarizing White 2003 (ISBN 9780534621698) (and we should maybe think about discussing White's Terrorism and Homeland Security, ISBN 978-0495913368 ) who forgoes lists of definitions of various kinds of terrorism and instead discusses "contexts" of terrorism, of which religion is one.   Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretations on this, and suggest we follow to the next author as I believe is intended. . Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * above, you wrote: "It does not mean "God asked us to do it" in any sense."  You seem to think I mean that there is some kind of instruction from God involved.  I'm not saying that - I mean exactly "consecrated" - in other words, sanctioned (Hoffman) or justified (Koller).  Do you see that this is different from "instruction".  Its more about authorization.  As in the response to, "I want to do X.  Is that OK?" Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the "blessed by" concept is an interesting one, but it is one that will be subject to a better understanding as we examine sources that come later on the list. (We may just even find some sources that dispute that concept, hint, hint.)

How I would delimit "motivated by Christianity" would be how we ultimately find that the reliable sources do it. How I would not delimit it would be on the basis of original research or editors' personal opinions.

As I see it, nobody has provided any reason to deny that Purpura is a source for "overlap", nor provided any reason to believe that Purpura's concept of "overlap" is outside the realm of the sources that we have discussed before. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, are you saying that the sources say violence by individuals and groups motivated by religious belief but not justified by relgious belief is not religious terrorism, while violence not motivated by religious belief but justified by religous is religious terrorism?
 * Tryptofish, we can discuss overlap when we talk about how sources classify the different groups. The purpose of this stage is to agree on a definition.
 * TFD (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No I not saying that. It is messy. I am saying that both Hoffman and Koller say motivated and justified, and Purpura really just says "justified".  To be anal about it, I don't see where Purpura says "motivated".  I am however willing to read that into what he says.  I am asking you to deal with what he does actually say (namely, "blessed by"), and to see the connection with what Hoffman and Koller say.   Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i want to say that i am working on this element - this authorization - because it is becoming to clear to me as we really work through the sources together, that several authors view the authorization as a really key element of terrorism that is religious, that distinguishes it from other kinds, and in my view we have just been missing that. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
 * TFD, I'll be happy to discuss overlap in more detail at that later stage of the mediation discussion, but if and only if we agree now that, per Purpura, the working definition does not exclude overlap. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "...see their cause and violence blessed by God" and "motivated by religious belief." I can see a slight difference in nuance.  In the first case, God is aware of what they will do before they do it, while in the second case He may not be (although since He is all-knowing He probably is aware) although would provide His blessing if aware.  In my opinion, you are using semantics to identify shades of differences in the sources where none exist.  If they did exist, then out of the 20 sources you have chosen to examine in painful detail, one of them would have mentioned the alleged dispute in definition.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. What page of Purpura is that on?  I missed it, I really did.  I provided quotes about from Hoffman and Koller where they make the distinction, as does (apparently) Purpura.  I am just doing close reading as you have been doing.  Please don't dismiss that as "semantics".  With regard to your question above, "violence by individuals and groups motivated by religious belief but not justified by relgious belief is not religious terrorism, while violence not motivated by religious belief but justified by religous is religious terrorism?", I would say that Hoffman and Koller would generally say that motivation and authorization tend to come together for terrorism that is religious, Purpura likely the same.  But I don't think any of them would try to hold a super-rigid defintion - Hoffman and Purpura especially acknowledge that terrorism resists strict definitions.   Now I say, (and Hoffman does too) that it is definitely worth doing, but you cannot be too rigid or it will break in your hands.  I don't know that you have said this anywhere TFD but my sense of what you are trying to do is to a) define a kernel that we confidently say is shared by all, and b) avoid nuances/complications but keep it as tight and therefore as broadly applicable as possible... the occam's razor, most minimal and general as possible.   Is that accurate? Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Jesus asked God to "forgive" ("bless") those who killed Him (in Christian theology). I doubt any theologian would assert that those who crucified Jesus were "Christian terrorists" even if one posits that they were "forgiven" or "blessed" (see theological ruminations about "Saint Judas Iscariot"). Collect (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * not responding to this. it is a bad faith response that additionally makes no sense even on its face. stop being antagonistic, please. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is directly on point for the meaning of "blessed" in case you had not read up on that topic.  And it is neither "antagonistic" in intent nor in appearance in my opinion.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) none of us would consider those who crucified Jesus as "christian terrorists". 2)  there weren't even Christians at that point yet.  3) And as far as i know jesus asked god to forgive, not bless, those who crucified him. 4) i never suggested justify/sanction/bless to be an exclusive definition.  you are just throwing shit at the wall, raising a bullshit objection, and not even coming close to dealing with the heart of the matter.  it is just being antagonistic and talking in bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before - read up on "Judas Iscariot" and the theologians who say that his betrayal was forgiven by Jesus at the Last Supper, and that he was specifically blessed when he was told to do what he had to do. Also consider the "Last Words of Christ" and the myriad theological discussions thereon.   As for your intemperate claims that everyone but you is "throwing shit" - I commend you to read the policies and essays on civility on Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it's not a valid objection. name one source - any serious and valid source on terrorism - that considers Judas or the Romans to be terrorists with regard to Jesus' crucifixion, much less that they are "christian terrorists". Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Crucifixion was a powerful instrument of state terror",  "torturing to death through crucifixion was the favored form of terror,"  "as a form of public terrorism ...", and crucifixion is still widely used by terrorists, see the latest newspapers.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * nothing there about christian terrorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit demanded any serious and valid source on terrorism - that considers Judas or the Romans to be terrorists with regard to Jesus' crucifixion. Several such sources were then provided, and the use of crucifixion currently is also deemed "terrorism."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect may perhaps want to remember that I have previously pointed out that the definitions that we are considering restrict application to acts that already have met the definition of terrorism. In this case, acts of terrorism that have been blessed by Christian religious authority, which are not the same thing at all as acts of any nature that have been blessed by Christian religious authority. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you say "Thanks for the quote. What page of Purpura is that on? I missed it, I really did." "...see their cause and violence blessed by God" is at the top of this discussion thread, it is what we are talking about, you quoted it verbatim 02:36, 1 February 2015.  Please read the discussion thread, including your own comments, before replying or use the search tool for the text.  TFD (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am done trying to talk like a human being talking to other actual human beings; I will behave like you instead. Here goes.  The quote "motivated by religious belief" is not in Purpura and has never been attributed to Purpura on this Talk page .  You are not reading Purpura at all, much less correctly.  I never quoted Purpura as saying that.  Stop attributing things to me that I did not say.  Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, there are sources that we will come to later in this discussion that I believe will not be compatible with the "blessed by" formulation, and that is something that I expect to argue when the time comes. I do not expect "blessed by" to survive the entire discussion. That being the case, perhaps it is not worth expending too much angst over it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it is not just "blessed" it is the justify/sanction/bless "authorization" theme that I am seeing as something common on the sources we have discussed. I agree it is pointless to continue this. As of now, I think Purpura provides little to no support for the "motivated by" definition.  Moving to the next source is fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unclear, sorry, but when I wrote "blessed", I intended it to apply to the entire justify/sanction authorization range as well. I'm keeping my mind open as to what definition we will ultimately settle on. What I want for now is a consensus that, whatever the definition ends up being, Purpura talks explicitly about "overlap" and therefore any eventual definition must not exclude overlap. If we have that consensus, I'm ready to move on. If we do not have that consensus, I think we have a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Purpura definitely discusses overlap, and emphasizes the difficulty of precisely defining terrorism at all, much less any specific variant of it. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's go beyond the semantic nitpicking and focus on what the authors mean. Do they mean that the people carrying out terrorist actions actually believe that they are carrying out a divine mission or do they merely claim that they are? Overlap is something we should discuss when looking at what groups sources include. TFD (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made my perspective clear and you have brought nothing that is actually from Purpura to support the "motivation" definition. You have been reading sources very closely and have called any interpolation out of bounds/OR - if you now want to call that approach "semantic nitpicking", well, that is what it is.  I am fine moving to the next source; it is obvious that there is no common view on Purpura. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion has ranged a bit, which is OK if it's productive. It can also continue as needed but at the end of the thread I'd like ask each participant to summarize in a few sentences their position or interpretation of the Purpura source so we can have them as a reference point. :-)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Purpura (part 2)

 * Purpura's definition is: "Extreme violence... used by religious groups to force changes. Such terrorists see their cause and violence blessed by God."  For Christian terrorism, that would be Christian groups and a Christian conception of the god who blesses.  The definition is based on a) the identity of the terrorist group and b) the authorization of the action.   He also emphasizes the difficult of precise definitions and with regard to specific groups, frequently sees more than one basic motivation for terrorist groups - there is frequently overlap in motivations. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I read "see their cause and violence blessed by God" as synonymous with "motivated by their religious belief." Can someone "see their cause and violence blessed by God" but not be "motivated by religious belief?" Incidentally, it is not Porpura's definition, it is Dyson's.  TFD (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can replace "Hoffman" with "Purpura" in this comment you made. I don't know if Purpura thinks motivations matter at all because he doesn't discuss that. That is my response to you. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your point. As I said above, "As I have repeatedly stated above none of the sources say that by definition, terrorism cannot have more than one motivation. If fact sources that discuss mixed motivation say it can."  (15:54, 22 January 2015)  It has nothing to do with my question, "Can someone "see their cause and violence blessed by God" but not be "motivated by religious belief?""  What I want to know is if you think the sources presented say that religious belief could play 0% of the motivation, yet still be religious terrorism because religion was used as a justification.  TFD (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. I am following your suit, of only allowing close reading, exemplified in the diff I provided above which I'll now quote: "I do not know if Hoffman requires religious motivations to be significant because he says nothing about that in his interview.". Likewise I don't know if Purpura thinks motivation is important, because he says nothing about that, that I have seen. If you have something from Purpura that shows he says it, please bring it. You cannot read closely and argue against reasonable interpolations on the basis of SYN as you have done so far, and throw that out the window now. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it is not Purpura's typology, but Dyson's. Notice that Purpura prefaces the list with, "Here is a summary of Dyson's other typologies with his examples." (p. 17)  This may sound pedantic, but Purpura does not say he agrees with this typology, but includes it because it is widely used.  Dyson writes, "All terrorists are driven by their political beliefs. In the case of religious terrorists, many of their basic political beliefs are derived from, related to, and bolstered by their faith convictions."
 * As I said above, "I read "see their cause and violence blessed by God" as synonymous with "motivated by their religious belief."" I suppose one could read it differently, although it would be out of context.  Both sides in the U.S. for example thought their cause and violence was blessed by God, yet one would not term it a religious conflict.
 * TFD (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also read "blessed by God" as pretty much synonymous with "motivated by religion". I think that something like blessed by clerical authority, on the other hand, is saying something about which human being is giving orders or justification to whom, to commit the terrorism, although it still fits within the parameters of "motivated by religion". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know as you have written that several times now. That loose reading is inconsistent with your close reading elsewhere and I don't agree with it here. As I have said, I see the authorization aspect as distinct and important.  Purpura makes it central to his definition. It is not for you or me to criticize him for that; we are just trying to define what he is actually saying.  Finally we are discussing Purpura here, who has written a whole book. Dyson is next. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not Purpura's definition. He is merely telling us what Dyson says.  For all we know he disagrees with Dyson.  It is fairly typical for textbooks to outline what different writers say. But as we are discussing Dyson in the next section, perhaps it would be better to continue the discussion there.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keithbob asked each of us to provide a brief summing-up of our individual interpretations of Purpura for the end of this discussion section. I don't know if this is the end of the section or not, but here is my brief summary:
 * Purpura defines Christian terrorism similarly to the experts that we discussed before we came to Purpura, except that Purpura is significantly more explicit about saying that religious terrorism "overlaps" with non-religious terrorism.


 * --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a postscript to my summary, taking Collect's summary into consideration, it is true that Purpura cites Dyson, but Purpura uses different wording, as opposed to verbatim quotations, as we will see in the next discussion section. Purpura says, and I am quoting directly, that he is reviewing "typologies of terrorism", and he includes a type based on Dyson that he calls "religious terrorism". He writes about what makes that kind of terrorism different from other kinds of terrorism, and about where the different kinds "overlap". To say that he draws no apparent conclusions about Christian or religious terrorism does not seem to me to factually represent the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sum: Purpura quotes others, including extensive quoting from Dyson, while making no apparent conclusions about "Christian terrorism" at all, nor about "religious terrorism"  separately. Collect (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC) +  Purpura does know enough not to commit major copyright violations <g>.  Still makes no independent definition of the topic. Collect (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Porpura prefaces his description of religious terrorism and other types by saying, "Let us review a few typologies of terrorism from scholars so we can compare and contrast their work. Dyson (2001: 20-21) divides terrorism into two broad categories, domestic and international.... Here is a summary of Dyson's other typologies with his examples. [Left-wing extremism, Right-wing extremism, Single-issue or special interest terrorism, Religious terrorism, etc.]" It seems clear that Porpura is not re-inventing the wheel, he is merely reporting what Dyson says.  It would be incorrect to say that anything he wrote about religious terrorism in this section is his opinion:  it is merely his summary of what Dyson wrote.  TFD (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially because we will discuss Dyson next, perhaps we can find some agreement about Purpura in saying that Purpura is a type of secondary source that has reviewed the typologies that were originated by other authors. Purpura serves as evidence that what we will read next in Dyson is not only Dyson's individual thesis, but also an analysis that has been taken note of by other sources. (Certainly, Purpura is not some sort of idiot who merely quotes from other sources in a mindless way, but rather a serious author who is assessing the existing literature!) Consequently, when we look next at what Dyson's original words were for what Purpura paraphrased as "overlap", what we will see Dyson saying will have all the more due weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some sort of rough or partial consensus is best. I only asked for summaries because it appeared there was non-agreement on everything and it looked like the thread was about to end. If there is some resolution or some common ground, we should highlight that instead.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no further discussion in the next 24 hrs I'll open a new thread for the next source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Dyson

 * Dyson (link)

Comments below are being reposted as a courtesy
 * Appears to nowhere give a specific definition, but his discussion at page 29 is clear:
 * Religious terrorism refers to the use of extreme violence by religious fanatics for the purpose of forcing changes in the government or on the part of the population"

It continues that some people (presumably a minority of experts) deem struggles within a religion or church as being "religious terrorism"  but says most people use a view which is  more restrictive - such as a group overtly seeking a theocracy in a region. Dyson also says that Northern Ireland can be called religious terrorism "in that the violent groups ... are Catholic and the English are Protestant" which does not come close to Dysopn calling it "religious terrorism" only that one small aspect may be religious. Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He says, "The struggle in Northern Ireland has largely been religious in nature." But clearly he defines religious terrorism as terrorism motivated by religion.  TFD (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we have concentrated on it, maybe that's why a lot of content was removed from this page. Here the author has proposed a definition that some of us used to advocate from the day 1, author says "extreme violence by religious fanatics". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bladesmulti. I saw the comment Keithbob left on your talk page, and I think he was asking you about, above. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My view of Dyson: In the previous discussion section, we had a partial consensus that Purpura was paraphrasing Dyson, and that consequently Dyson merits some reasonable amount of due weight, because Dyson's analysis has been taken notice of secondarily by other sources. Purpura had paraphrased Dyson by saying of the NI conflict that "this conflict overlaps religious terrorism because of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland." So let's look at Dyson's original language for the same thing, instead of the paraphrase:
 * "The English-Irish conflict could also be characterized as religious terrorism in that the violent groups seeking Irish freedom are Catholic and the English are Protestant."

Dyson does not call it overlap. He actually says that it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". In other words, he places the NI conflict in his section about "national or ethnic terrorism", and not in his section about "religious terrorism", and nonetheless says that it also is religious terrorism.

We have previously agreed partially that experts who require "religious terrorism" to be motivated by religion may, to some extent, also not rule out mixed motivations. And Dyson's basic description of religious terrorism remains consistent with what we have seen before. When he says in the "religious terrorism" section: "Religious terrorism is often entwined with other forms of terrorism", that's consistent with mixed motivations. But Dyson goes beyond simple "overlap". He says explicitly that something can legitimately be labeled religious terrorism and another kind of terrorism simultaneously, and we have partially agreed that Dyson's statement merits weight. Thus, we are fully out of where the sources require the motivations to be only about religion; there still has to be a motivation founded in religion, but it does not have to be the only motivation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dyson begins chapter 3, "Religious-Based Terrorism, by writing, "All terrorists are driven by their political beliefs. In the case of religious terrorists, many of their basic political beliefs are derived from, related to, and bolstered by their faith convictions." (p. 37)  He then says the Northern Ireland conflict has been largely religious in nature and says they "could" be called religious terrorists.
 * It is confusing that Dyson follows the mainstream opinion in one chapter by categorizing the conflict as ethnic nationalist, then in another saying it is largely religious. But none of that has anything to do with how religious terrorism is defined.  If the objectives are religious, as he thinks is the case in Northern Ireland, then it is religious terrorism.
 * Incidentally if there were two types of "religious terrorism", one motivated by religion and one not motivated by religion, then one would expect there to be some sort of commentary on that, and we would have two separate topics, e.g., religious religious terrorism and non-religious religious terrorism. One author actually does that and calls the latter "religious communal terrorism" and groups it as a subcategory of ethnic/nationalist terrorism.
 * TFD (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I can find plenty of things where we can agree within what you said. First, could you please clarify for me who the author is who describes "religious communal terrorism"? In any case, I agree with you that we have not yet encountered any sources for "non-religious religious terrorism", and I perceive that phrase as an oxymoron. I, for one, do not currently see any reason to argue for labeling terrorism that is "non-religious" as "religious". I also share your feelings that reading these sources can sometimes feel confusing. I think that situation reflects the fact that the source material is still in some ways unsettled, and I think that we should recognize that as we figure out how to convey what the sources say. I also agree with you that Dyson is not really presenting a different definition of religious terrorism than the definitions given by the sources we discussed earlier. So, taken together, that's a lot of points where I agree with you. The point where I hope that you can agree with me, is that Dyson says, explicitly, that terrorism can satisfy both the definition of "religious terrorism" and the definition of "national or ethnic terrorism", simultaneously. That does not make it "non-religious". It still has to be "religious", at least in part. But Dyson says (and Purpura makes secondary note of Dyson) that it need not be exclusively religious. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That sentence has interesting complications in that (using a normal meaning of political) Dyson is saying all terrorism is "of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country" (Google). In such a case, any terrorism aimed at individuals which has no bearing on the "government or public affairs of a country" is not terrorism as he defines the term. Thus a hypothetical Gnarphism believer who kills his neighbours because they are not Gnarphists is not a terrorist as the act does not relate to the government or public affairs of the country. As a result of that argument, I am left to believe that we may be taking his sentence out of actual context. Collect (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dyson does not say explicitly that terrorism can satisfy both the definition of "religious terrorism" and the definition of "national or ethnic terrorism", simultaneously. It is possible that he says that implicitly, although that is questionable.  He seems to contradict himself by saying that the conflict in Northern Ireland is ethnic/nationalist, then saying it is "largely religious in nature."  The conflict cannot be both primarily ethnic nationalist and primarily religious in nature.
 * Collect, that is a good point. Dyson thinks that terrorism must have as an objective influencing government or the general public, and rules out violent struggles within religious groups.  There is a disagreement in the sources about how to define terrorism, and that will probably need to be reflected in the article.  But there is no disagreement over what "religious" means.
 * TFD (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dyson uses "Christian" very rarely in his work -- several times specifically about the "Christian Identity" religious movement, and once about "Hutaree" which was accused of planning  to kill a single police officer. shows that case did not succeed - the group were acquitted. (U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said the members' expressed hatred of law enforcement didn't amount to a conspiracy to rebel against the government. ) So exactly how Dyson would delimit "Christian terrorism" is a huge puzzle. And the line about all terrorism being political is even a greater puzzle for Dyson if we take it to be his "definition" in any way. Let's examine Dyson's second sentence: "In the case of religious terrorists, many of their basic political beliefs are derived from, related to, and bolstered by their faith convictions"  as being far more important than his prior sentence. This leads simply into statements that people driven by religion can be dedicated extremists. What we are left with is that Dyson did not intend for this introduction to be a definition of any sort in the first place - he intended it to simply lead into the conclusion about "dedicated extremists".

So when he says that the struggle in Ireland has "largely been religious" he is not stating that it is "religious terrorism" only that the disputes involved two religious groups. This makes the section of the book make a great deal more sense - again he is not seeking to define religious terrorism here in his historical overview without calling everything "religious terrorism." So we go past the overview section to where Dyson deals with "religious terrorism" in a specific manner by describing his conclusions: These represent Dyson's actual conclusions about the religious terrorists he looked at in his overview, thus this set of conclusions is what he is clearly using to delimit the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) . "Religious fanatics ... are more likely to go out in a blaze of glory."
 * 2) . "Religious based terrorists truly know their group's theology."
 * 3) . "The religious terrorist is motivated by his or her beliefs, and is usually governed by the rules and restrictions of his or her religion."


 * I think he is saying that the conflict is based on religious beliefs, and he writes about the IRA in the section "Foreign Religious-Based Terrorism", which is part of the chapter "Religious-Based Terrorism." Whether or not his passing description of the IRA is significant for the article is something to consider in another section, but I do not think he his calling the conflict religious merely because the two sides are associated with two different religions.  TFD (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dyson discussion continued

 * In my most recent previous comment, I went out of my way to identify areas of agreement. It seems to me that the subsequent comments make no such efforts, but go to great gymnastics to cast questions over what Dyson plainly says. But I'll keep trying to engage with what other editors are arguing. TFD raises the issue of whether any kind of terrorism can simultaneously be primarily one thing and primarily something else. Obviously, that's logically impossible, but Dyson seems to be leaving open the possibility of neither motivation being more or less important than the other. In any case, we will come later to sources that explicitly address the question of primary versus secondary, so we can return to that then. The three numbered points that Collect quotes seem to me to be largely descriptive, rather than definitions. When, starting at the bottom of page 29, Dyson has sections about each of the kinds of terrorism, he is clearly saying what he thinks each kind is, and that is basically how Dyson is defining each of them and differentiating each one from the others. It may not be a precise definition, but it is how a reliable source, subsequently cited by other reliable sources, explains what religious terrorism is. I agree with TFD that Dyson is not calling NI religious terrorism merely because they were Protestants and Catholics, but because Dyson sees motivation by religion as having played a part. But he does say, plainly, that it would be correct to call it religious terrorism.

WP:OR applies to article content and only to article content. It has no applicability to the discourse here. Collect (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already said, Dyson does not in any way indicate that religious terrorism is totally non-religious. Maybe editors think that Dyson contradicts himself, maybe editors think that Dyson did not intend what he said to be a definition, and maybe editors find Dyson puzzling, but that's all original research. Absent original research, we have what Dyson plainly says: he places a conflict in "national or ethnic terrorism", and then he says that it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to determine whether a source is internally inconsistent or whether it provides a definition. If a source for example says "The president of the U.S. is Obama", it is not OR to say that the author does not intend his statement to be a definition, and if he later says "Biden is president of the United States", it is not OR to determine that it is inconsistent with the first statement.  TFD (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is OR to say, when a source plainly says something, that what the source says should be omitted from the page because editors do not feel that it makes sense according to their preferred personal views of the subject matter. We are not talking about Dyson saying "Obama" on one page and "Biden" on another, or anything like that. Dyson says that it "could also be characterized as religious terrorism", and nowhere does he contradict himself about it. Just above it, he has a paragraph about how: "Religious terrorism is often entwined with other forms of terrorism." What Dyson says made enough sense to Purpura that Purpura chose to cite it. Editors cannot merely wave what Dyson says away. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In this mediation we are discussing article content. That is the sole purpose of it. Since the WP guideline WP:OR applies to article content it could be an appropriate part of a discussion here at mediation. However, if an editor was to remove information from a WP article that was contained in a reliable source or in some way prevent that information from being included in the article (with appropriate weight) that would not be a violation of WP:OR. Rather it would be a violation of WP:NPOV which says: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Please note I am not accusing anyone of violating any guidelines I'm only clarifying what I see as the correct application of WP guidelines under theoretical circumstances as they've been raised in this discussion.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keithbob, and I think that you make a good point. Quite frankly, I was trying, maybe a bit too hard, to avoid accusing other editors of POV-pushing. But I can certainly agree that it would be an NPOV violation to omit Dyson and Purpura simply because editors disagree with what Dyson says, or to misrepresent what Dyson says as something that Dyson does not say because of a desire to define Christian terrorism more narrowly than Dyson does. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We are seeing Dyson saying in one chapter that the NI Ireland conflict is ethnic/nationalist and in another that it is primarily religious. Note that he only mentions Ireland in passing and provides no analysis of it.  He refers to it when talking about foreign religious terrorists operating in the U.S.  Whether the conflict is nationalist or religious is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they obtain arms and raise money in the U.S.  You are claiming that because he says the conflict is primarily nationalist and elsewhere that it is primarily religious that we can say something can be both primarily nationalist and primarily relgious.  In order to say that you would need a source that makes that comment rather than your original research that that is what the author means.
 * Incidentally, if the terrorism is "primarily religious", does that mean that Dyson is using a second definition of terrorism or is this just another distraction?
 * TFD (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, I am continuing to try to discuss these issues in good faith, so please do not characterize what I am saying as "just another distraction". In case you missed it, I said just below the section break: "TFD raises the issue of whether any kind of terrorism can simultaneously be primarily one thing and primarily something else. Obviously, that's logically impossible, but Dyson seems to be leaving open the possibility of neither motivation being more or less important than the other. In any case, we will come later to sources that explicitly address the question of primary versus secondary, so we can return to that then."


 * I don't think that I have argued or implied that Dyson is using a different definition, as such. He still seems to fit with defining religious terrorism as "terrorism that is motivated by religion". But I also do not read Dyson as calling anything primarily religious while calling the same thing primarily something else. Instead, I read him as I did in what I just quoted from my previous post. If one assumes incorrectly that Dyson means "primarily motivated by religion" instead of just motivated by religion, then that is imposing something on the source that is not in the source. Dyson only seems self-contradictory if one imposes that incorrect assumption upon what he says.


 * Earlier, you and I appeared to agree that definition of religious terrorism as "terrorism that is motivated by religion" does not necessarily rule out mixed motivations. I hope that we still agree about that. I think Dyson (and Purpura) are consistent with authors we discussed earlier, except that they are more explicit in what they say about mixed motivations. Earlier, we appeared to agree about a definition of Christian terrorism as "terrorism by groups or individuals that is motivated by Christianity". At this point in our discussions, I am not arguing against that. I suppose one could say that Dyson forces us to consider the possibility that, if sources we discuss subsequently also point this way, then "motivated by Christianity" might become "motivated in part by Christianity", or might become "motivated to a significant degree by Christianity", but probably not "motivated primarily by Christianity". None of that is a firm conclusion by me at this time, because we are not yet finished examining sources. But if editors decide now that we will close our eyes to sources if the sources treat the subject as "in part" or "to a significant degree", before even reading those sources, well then that might just end up being what Keithbob pointed to about POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)



The distraction is discussing how authors classify actual existing terrorism in the real world, which is the subject of another section. I do not agree that Dyson seems to be leaving open the possibility of neither motivation being more or less important than the other. If you want to say that then you need where he explicitly says that, otherwise it is original research. OR is not allowed in Wikipedia because different reasonable editors may draw different conclusions based on the same set of facts. But if your theory is important enough for us to discuss then some source will provide it. OTOH it seems to have nothing to do with the definition. I will give another analogy. A bank robber robs banks, but may also commit other crimes - that does not change the definition of bank robbery. TFD (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe when I am less distracted, someone will explain to me why it is OR to say that Dyson's writings make sense, but not OR to say that Dyson contradicts himself. And why it is OR to say that Dyson does not rule out motivations of similar importance, but not OR to say that the earlier-discussed authors do not rule mixed motivations out. Anyway, I am fine for now to say that we have not significantly changed the definition yet, but that Dyson says, for whatever reasons editors want to think, that there was at least one example that can be correctly assigned either to religious terrorism or to another kind of terrorism. My mother is gravely ill, and I want to give notice that I am likely to be away from Wikipedia for an undetermined amount of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mothers rank far higher on the scale of importance than a few lines in Wikipedia for sure - I hope she recovers for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear this news Tryptofish. If its alright with the rest of the participants, I'd like to suspend the mediation for a few days out of respect for Tryptofish and his mother and then begin again when the time seems right. Is that OK with everyone?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Certainly we can suspend discussion.  TFD (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies to everyone for this delay. I trust that Tryptofish will notify us as soon as he is able to proceed. Meanwhile I am checking this thread everyday. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still checking daily. Thanks for your patience.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Still checking in daily.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish has not edited since Feb 10th. So we are still in waiting mode.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish made a post on his talk page Feb 10th that I did not see until just now.. The message says that he will be off WP for sometime but does plan to return. I'm checking with the Committee to see what steps should be taken in regard to this case as we cannot let it languish indefinitely.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "deadline" as far as I am concerned on this - and I trust the mediation committee will note this - for now why not say we are "adjourned" until 6 April in any event? Collect (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Collect. How do the other participants feel about further adjournment of this case?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i have considered this adjourned, yes. that is fine. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish has not edited since Feb 10th. It's time to either continue this case or close it without prejudice. Thoughts? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am OK waiting. WP:NODEADLINE. I am not sure if can participate going forward or  not, in light of this recent arbcom decision.  (I am really not sure) Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would wait too. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, I am banned from this entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we can continue to wait a bit longer but in the meantime I have accepted another case to mediate. So when, and if, Tryptofish returns and all other elibible parties are ready to renew this mediation, this case will have to wait until I am free of other cases that I am mediating. I do not have time to mediate two cases at the same time. I also don't know how long the Mediation Committee will allow this case to remain in limbo but for now they are not complaining so we'll let things be. All the Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your forbearance and patience during my lengthy absence. If everyone else is willing, I'd be happy to resume our discussions here now. Keithbob, I hope that this is OK with you.

I want to thank Collect (whom I will separately contact at his user talk) and TFD for your generous comments expressing willingness to wait for me to return. I think that's a great thing about Wikipedia: we can (and have) strongly disagreed about matters of content, and yet in spite of that, we can treat one another, as fellow editors, with consideration and respect. It's something that makes me feel good about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unmoderated discussion
While being away, I spent some time pondering the impasses we have had in this mediation, and something occurred to me that, I hope, might be useful in making progress. I guess I'm saying this particularly to TFD. This mediation includes two questions:


 * 1) How does the source define "Christian terrorism"?
 * 2) How does the source place specific historical examples according to that definition, as Christian terrorism, or not as Christian terrorism?

We have already agreed, and I still agree, that #1 is something we have been discussing here, whereas #2 should be set aside until a later stage of the mediation. But what has occurred to me is a third question:


 * 1) How does the source define "Christian terrorism"?
 * 2) Within that definition, does the author of the source treat the definition as a rigid definition (a definition that draws a clear line between what is, and what is not, Christian terrorism), or does the author treat the definition as a flexible or as an ambiguous definition (one that sometimes leaves some lack of clarity as to whether or not an event was Christian terrorism)?
 * 3) How does the source place specific historical examples according to that definition, as Christian terrorism, or not as Christian terrorism?

It seems to me that the "new" question that I added in the second position is a legitimate one, and one that is useful in differentiating amongst sources, even if those sources use equivalent definitions. Please note that I do not believe that "flexibility/ambiguity" ought to be an excuse for editorial OR in including specific examples on the page; rather, I still think that we need appropriate sourcing in order to include content – so please do not worry that I am trying to introduce a "loophole". I just think that this may be a way to make it easier for us to agree about what the sources are saying. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments and welcome back. I think 2. has been discussed.  Theoretically it is possible that a terrorist attack could have more than one objective, just that there are few if any examples.  One example brought up in another terrorism article was Zionist terrorism in British controlled Palestine.  Irgun was right-wing, religious and nationalist.  But its terrorist activities were carried out against opponents of the Israeli state - British and Palestinian - rather than against left-wingers or non-Jews.  Once its objective was achieved, it dropped its terrorist tactics.  An terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology.  TFD (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TFD. I'm cautiously optimistic that we can work with this. (For now, I think we're just discussing some ideas informally, until Keithbob wraps up the other mediation case, and that's fine with me, no hurry.) If we can agree that "2" is part of what we are discussing at this stage of the mediation (while still leaving "3" for a subsequent step), then that opens the door for us to consider the possibility that one source defines "Christian terrorism" and considers the definition to be a fairly rigid one, and another source uses the same definition (or very nearly the same), but considers that definition to be ambiguous in some way. In so doing, we may be able to get past the difficulty that we were having earlier, where I would try to say that a particular source treats the subject differently than sources earlier on the list, and you would then object, arguing that both sources used the same definition. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you mean by a non-rigid definition. Experts may disagree on which actions constitute Christian terrorism and what attributes Christian terrorists generally have but they do not disagree on definition.  Some authors for example say the (Catholic) IRA carries out attacks because they believe that is what God wants.  TFD (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll try to explain further. An example of a rigid definition is when an author says something like "although other writers consider XYZ to be Christian terrorism, in my opinion XYZ does not satisfy the definition of Christian terrorism." A corresponding non-rigid definition would be saying "although some writers consider XYZ to be Christian terrorism, other writers do not consider it to be Christian terrorism, and the definition is sufficiently ambiguous that both points of view may be considered valid." But both examples would have given pretty much the same definition. If we make "XYZ" the Troubles in Northern Ireland, then Bruce Hoffman said almost exactly the first example about it, whereas as we discuss other sources, we are starting to see them saying something like the second example about it. Now before you say something like "but Tryptofish, that's just differences in how the sources apply the same definition to particular examples," I'm pointing out that it's not only a difference in that, but that it is also a way in which two sources can articulate the same definition and express different views about the properties of the definition. This is not the same thing as author 1 and author 2 using identical definitions but author 2 just happening to apply the definition to an example that author 1 does not think applies. It's the difference between "I acknowledge that some writers apply this definition differently but I think that they are wrong" and "I acknowledge that some writers apply this definition differently, and it's important that the reader understand that these different views reflect the state of the field of study." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. The term terrorism for example is not clearly defined and therefore experts will disagree on which actions can be described that way.  Is giving money to Hamas for example an act of terrorism?  But the description Christian is unambiguous - it means motivated by Christianity.  There are of course examples where someone might write Christian terrorism when they merely mean the terrorists happen to be Christians or where religion is a defining attribute of their culture.  But that is a semantic issue.  It's the same as when some writers use the term American to refer to the U.S. while others use it to refer to the Western hemisphere.  TFD (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are all good points. It seems to me to come down to how the source is worded. If someone says, as Bruce Hoffman did, "I define terrorism as 'religious' when some liturgy, scripture, or clerical authority is involved in sanctioning the violent act. Now there are all sorts of groups around the world that use force and can be identified using religious terms but are not 'religious' in the sense that I am using the term. In Northern Ireland, for instance, Protestants and Catholics fight using terrorist (or as they say locally, 'paramilitary') tactics, but theological justifications play little or no role", that's saying that his (Hoffman's) view of the definition sets the definition sufficiently strictly that NI does not fit the definition. He's saying that other authors, who do regard The Troubles as having a component of religious terrorism, are applying the definition incorrectly – at least "in the sense that I am using the term". In contrast, we are starting to encounter other authors who consider "motivated by Christianity" to also include cases where the religion is not so much what you called "a defining attribute of their culture", but a defining attribute of the conflict that the terrorism is about. According to those authors, it's not incorrect to extend the definition in that way, and we see them using language to the effect of "some experts say this, while other experts say that, and the field is open to the extent that these are all legitimate scholarly views". I'm offering the idea that these authors aren't really using a different definition than Hoffman does, but that they give the definition different properties (language about equally valid points of view, instead of language about this is my point of view, and there are all sorts of other views but I am expressly not using them here), and that it's appropriate for us to take note of that as we go through this stage of the mediation discussion, even though we will leave the specific examples to a later step. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, authors who see the Troubles as an example of religious terrorism do see theological justifications as playing a major role. See Juergensmeyer, Terror, p. 20, "The violence in Northern Ireland is justified by...theological positions, Catholic and Protestant."  Who are these other authors you are referring to?  TFD (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SideNote: You all are welcome to continue discussion if you feel it is productive. However, as noted in my earlier post I will not be available to moderate until I finish the U.S. Grant case I am currently mediating. So far the Grant case is moving along at a good pace and it is possible I could be finished with that case in a few weeks. I'll let you know. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, thanks so much, especially for your patience while I was away. I really appreciate it, and of course, I want you, in turn, to feel free to take your time. No problems.


 * TFD, since we are in an unmoderated part of the discussion, please let me put it this way. Before you and I lapse back into arguments that lead to impasses, please let me go back to what I originally suggested: that we feel at liberty, during this stage of the mediation discussion, to note when authors of our sources use what is essentially the same definition, but nonetheless assign different properties to that definition, in terms of whether the authors say something like "I acknowledge that some writers apply this definition differently but I think that they are wrong" and whereas others say something like "I acknowledge that some writers apply this definition differently, and it's important that the reader understand that these different views reflect the state of the field of study." If you still disagree with me about the Christian "side" of the definition of Christian terrorism, as opposed to the terrorism "side", that's OK, and we will have time to discuss this soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like I was overly optimistic regarding the time frame for the other case I am mediating. It will like be two more weeks or so till I'm free. I'll ping everyone when I'm ready. Best,--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm learning never to estimate how much longer it might take for a mediation to conclude. My current case is still underway and we are making very steady but very slow progress. At present we have decided on content and we've spent the past two weeks discussing sourcing for that content and we are past the midway point. So you can make your own guesses as to when the case might resolve :-) --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who knew it would take 2 weeks just to agree on a citation for a single sentence? :-) We are now working on our final sentence so the end (or beginning) is near! I'll give proper notice to all participants here when I'm ready to go.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear ,,,, and. This mediation will officially reopen on Monday September 28th. I expect my other mediation to have concluded by then but even if it isn't I will continue with this case anyway. My condolences to Tryptofish and gratitude to all others for their perseverance and patience. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I am interdicted from any page remotely discussing US politics or involved with any aspect of US politics or any person or event involved in any way with US politics or any topic associated with US politics on any page or venue whatsoever on Wikipedia, I remain unable to make any statements whatsoever thereon. Collect (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Collect, I'll remove you from the participants list. Best wishes, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Keithbob, and welcome back! I'll be happy to resume the discussion. I will point out, however, that both Jytdog and I are likely to also be very heavily involved in an ArbCom case (completely unrelated to the issues in this mediation) that will be going on at the same time. I promise to still make time for what we are doing here, but juggling the two things may slow me down a bit. Also, Bladesmulti has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia,, and so neither he nor Collect will be here. In addition, Bryonmorrigan has stated that he has left Wikipedia, , but he has also made a few comments since then, , so I don't know. I suspect this may become TFD, Jytdog, and me, and that would be fine with me. One more thing: although I didn't follow the other mediation case very closely, it looked to me like you, Keithbob, were a bit more hands-on in that discussion, and I'd like to encourage you to do likewise here, as we go forward. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updates. Hopefully Jytdog and TFD will say they are ready to go. If not, I suppose we could postpone again. We'll see......--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan 'retired' from WP in March but has two edits since including Sept 8th so we won't count on him but he is welcome to join if he so desires.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to proceed here since only one editor (Tryptofish) has indicated they are ready to proceed.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Moderated side discussion
Then I'll take the liberty of starting to talk, and we'll see whatever the response is. Taking up from where we left off, do you each think we might be able to reach a consensus about the following three points?
 * 1) From the first sources that we discussed in this mediation, up to the Dyson source, we are basically dealing with one definition of "Christian terrorism", as opposed to two or more definitions. This definition is something along the lines of "terrorism that is motivated by Christianity", although we may consider revising those exact words as we discuss things further.
 * 2) We recognize that different sources may apply the definition to specific individuals, groups, or examples in different ways, but we have agreed to wait to discuss those differences until later in the mediation.
 * 3) Within the one definition that we have read so far, there are some differences in how the sources write about the definition, before they get to where they consider applying the definition to different groups or examples. Maybe we could call these differences different "properties" that sources apply to the same definition, or maybe it is difference in tone or approach, but these differences are found in the sources, in the ways that they explain their views of the definition (and not simply in how they apply the definition). In the case of Dyson, whom we are resuming our discussion of now, this takes the form of Dyson saying that terrorism that he characterizes as other forms (other than religious) of terrorism, such as "national or ethnic terrorism", "could also be characterized as religious terrorism" (direct quote from Dyson). Dyson also says: "Religious terrorism is often entwined with other forms of terrorism" (another direct quote). This "property" (my word) of Christian terrorism potentially being "entwined with" or applying to other categories of terrorism is also what Purpura paraphrased from Dyson as being "overlap" between religious and non-religious terrorism. It's not so much a different definition as a difference in how Dyson chooses what to explain about that definition.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 seem straightforward. I am not clear on 3 though.  No source says that terrorism cannot have more than one motivation.  Whether or not there are cases where it does is something that we can discuss when we consider what groups should be included and what should be said about them.  TFD (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TFD. If we can now agree that no source says that terrorism cannot have more than one motivation, I would be happy to work with that. Perhaps we can observe that some sources do not explicitly say anything about it either way – in other words, some sources do not explicitly talk about the possibility of more than one motivation, and some sources say explicitly that there can be more than one motivation – and Dyson would be an example of an author who talks about more than one motivation. That would be fine with me (assuming that does not object), and I think that it could make our subsequent discussions a lot easier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good, please continue. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, I figured that I should let some time pass after your advice to "please continue", to allow other editors to do so if they wanted to. By now, I'd say that plenty of time has passed. So please let me suggest the following. Unless anyone objects, let's conclude our discussion of Dyson with two observations:
 * We now have a consensus that the sources do not rule out the possibility that terrorism can have more than one motivation, religious and something else.
 * Dyson's source is an example of a source that talks about more than one motivation.
 * If there are no objections to that, I'd be happy if we drew those conclusions and moved on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Discusson of Schbley
Ok, since there appears to be no objections we are moving on to the Schbley source. Comments?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to say that I am particularly looking forward to discussing this source, but that it will take me a bit of time before I get around to commenting. Please see my user talk page for why. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This Mediation has been closed as unresolved
Well we gave it our best try but we were unable to conclude this mediation even after one year. I have no choice but to close it. Thank you all for your good faith efforts to resolve this dispute.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not anything close to a year since the last comments were made, and I strongly object to the fact that you did this without first attempting to ask the involved editors. I have been dealing with some very difficult other issues here, but I was planning to resume this very soon. I am very disappointed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry my friend but the case has been open for more than a year. There has been no progress for several months and some participants have been banned or blocked, others have shown no interest. I gave the situation and the participants every benefit of the doubt. But it was not to be.
 * If you wish you may open a new case and assemble a new set of participants. Hopefully they will be ready to adopt sections of this case that have already been discussed and/or resolved. There was just too much water under the bridge for this case to go forward regardless of the best intentions of yourself and others. I understand your frustration. It's been a long haul but I feel this is in everyone's best interest. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I remained interested. There was no prior notice, nor any attempt to provide notice. It just dropped out of the blue. Perhaps I will open a new case. This was just wrong, shame on you . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Struck. I apologize to Keithbob for my loss of temper. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An attempt to salvage what has been achieved
I move that we agree that the following consensus was achieved by this mediation, and can be reported as a consensus back to the article talk page:
 * There is a consensus that the sources do not rule out the possibility that terrorism can have more than one motivation, religious and something else.

It would be a tragedy to have all this work go to waste, without at least establishing that we did, indeed, agree about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * True. OTOH sources have not established that any terrorism has more than one motivation.  TFD (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TFD. Then I would like to revise that accordingly:
 * There is a consensus that the sources do not rule out the possibility that terrorism can have more than one motivation, religious and something else. However, there is also a consensus that, at the time the Mediation was closed, no sources had been identified that affirmatively attribute multiple motivations to any terrorism.
 * Does that work for you? Also, do you have any interest in pursuing these discussions further? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I have decided to withdraw my offer of that second version. As I see it, it is worth noting that, in a limited way, we have some consensus for the first version, the one that I did not strike. That does not and should not rise to the level of any kind of formal closing statement, but it's something to keep in mind informally back at the CT page. With that, I guess I don't see much value in continuing the case any further, and I'm comfortable with closing the case down now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)