Talk:Religious war

References to Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things

The Book itself states, “The Definitive Chronicle of History`s 100 Worst Atrocities”. Even if we accept the premise that it is a list of supposed “atrocities” (I don’t know, haven’t read it) it isn’t a reference for causes of wars – it only lists 100 atrocities (supposedly) when we know that there were at least 1750 wars.

So we have a sample of AT BEST 5.7% of wars with a focus on X, and are trying to draw a conclusion about causes of Y – that is intellectual dishonesty.

Interestingly the Wikipedia page (on the book) itself is strongly critical of the analytical techniques and conclusions ! References to that book should be removed – it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. ~2026-15750-86 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the claim of 11% is taken from the heading “Religious Conflict (11 Multicides)” and used 11 as a percentage based on 100 atrocities.

Here are the problems :

1) The total 11 does NOT relate to “causes of religious wars”. It defines a different topic.

2) There is a separate heading “Religious Killing”. That cites thirty religious wars / atrocities. It does not cover all the religious atrocities / wars in the book. (sic)

3) Only one of the 11 “Religious Conflicts” is mentioned in the “Religious Killings” section.

4) Religious conflicts / wars are scattered throughout the book. There is no one single place where religious wars / atrocities are listed.

5) The Crusades are cited under “Fall Of the western empire” .

6) The “French wars of religion” are under the “Genocide” heading.

7) The “Roman Jewish Wars” are under the “Ancient Innumeracy” heading.

8) Some are cited as being “an atrocity” but the description explicitly states that there are multiple wars e.g. 7 Crusade Wars, 7 French Wars of Religion, and 2 Roman Jewish Wars (16 religious wars).

9) If you add up the number of listed wars / atrocities, it is 114.

10) Of those It explicitly cites 63 atrocities / wars as having religion as a causal factor.

11) Thus the percentage of religious wars is actually 55.3% - not 11%.

If we want to cite the book we need to be intellectually honest – and state what it says. ~2026-15750-86 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The book has its limitations like all other estimates of violence (there are definitely more than 1750 wars - its just that historians classify them differently or clump some together), but only 11 are under "religious conflicts" from White. In general, there aren't many works focusing on enumerating "religious wars" and of course many researchers verify that "religion" is a modern category and that "religious war" is not really applicable to most wars in the past (Morreall, Cavanaugh). But White is just an estimate. Andrew Holt is an expert and he interprets White as 11-15%, as does Steven Pinker. Your analysis is WP:OR and not what the sources are saying. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Again - it isnt my work - It is what the author is saying. The author explicitly states in describing wars that religion is factor in 63 of them. Claiming 11 religious wars is a strawman logical fallacy - there is no such heading in the book.

If Holt were an expert he would reply to me and explain why :

· Arab Israeli Wars

· Sultanate Wars

· Holy Roman Empire Wars

· Jewish Revolts

· Muslim Wars

· Sikh Wars

Are excluded from his analysis when the encyclopedia explicitly states that they are religious. ~2026-15750-86 (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not an expert. Neither am I. On the other hand, Andrew Holt is an established expert on the topic and he provides an expert view of interpreting White. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Please take it to Andrew Holt or elsewhere. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Problems With This Page

This is for the Benefit Of Readers who might be puzzled by the Wikipedia content. This is not for the authors of this page who have made it clear that an informative balanced evidence based encyclopedia is of no interest to them. Here is a summary of some of the major problems (logical fallacies, legal issues and factual errors) : 

·     Cherry Picking Logical Fallacy

o Authors who support the claim are included, but those who provide contradictory evidence are ignored.

o Explicit Text in the Encyclopedia that contradicts the 7% claim is omitted from the Wikipedia page, but other references to the Encyclopedia are included.

o Explicit Text in the Atrocitology that contradicts the 11% claim is omitted from the Wikipedia page, but other references to the Atrocitiology are included.

o A list of 30 religious wars (a subset of all the religious wars mentioned in the book), is ignored in favour of a list of 11 religious wars that discuss a different religious issue.  

·     Ad Baculum Logical fallacy

o Refuses to accept work from a well known author forced to publish pseudonymously (due to death threats from religious fanatics).

·     Confirmation Bias

o Limiting sources to those that confirm a position.

o Limiting text and quotes to those that confirm a position.

o Ignoring sources that present a different contradictory position.

o Ignoring text that presents a different contradictory position.

·     Strawman Logical Fallacy

o Ignores the author definitions in the Encyclopedia and redefines the meaning when used in Wikipedia.

o Ignores the author definitions in the Atrocitology and redefines the meaning when used in Wikipedia.

·     Copyright

o Asserts that the Encyclopedia claims that “7% of wars are religious”, a claim not stated in the Encyclopedia thus a Copyright violation (false attribution).

o Asserts that the Atrocitology claims that “11% of wars are religious”, a claim not stated in the Atrocitology thus a Copyright violation (false attribution).

·     Intellectual Dishonesty

o Relies on a knowingly non comprehensive list of religious wars  (that omits religious wars such as  Arab Israeli Wars, Sultanate Wars, Holy Roman Empire Wars , Jewish Revolts, Muslim Wars, Sikh Wars …) despite the Encyclopedia authors explicitly citing these as religious wars.

o The body of the encyclopedia explicitly mentions religion as a cause in over 650 of the wars detailed (over 35%).

o Relies on a knowingly non comprehensive list of religious atrocities  (that omits religious wars such as the WWII Holocaust,  Christian Crusades …) despite the Atrocitology author explicitly citing these as religious wars.

o The body of Atrocitology explicitly mentions religion as a cause in over 63 of the 114 wars detailed (over 55%).  

o Relies on multiple religious wars being categorised as one war, despite the author explicitly stating that there were multiple wars (Crusades – 7 Religious wars, French Wars of Religion – 7 Wars, Roman Jewish Wars – 2 Wars). That commentary is from the author, yet Wikipedia is treating those as three religious wars, despite the author explicitly stating that those were 14 religious wars.

o Despite the identified issues, the page authors refuse to alert the reader to potential issues, commentary (from both the same authors and alternative sources) with radically different conclusions.

o Given the litany of above identified omissions / errors / logical fallacies / legal issues,  to claim that either 7% or 11% represents either what the authors are claiming, or those figures being in anyway predicated on “evidence” is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and a disservice to the Wikipedia reader.

It goes without saying that I wont be wasting further time attempting to “debate” when this page is clearly based on ideology not evidence. ~2026-15750-86 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Already discussed above. 2026-15750-86 is only proposing violating wikipedia policy WP:OR by pushing their own POV (e.g claiming "that omits religious wars such as the WWII Holocaust") that is not found in the sources. Experts such as Andrew Holt and Steven Pinker, who are experts in academia on this topic confirm that "either 7% or 11%" are the correct figures from White and Axelrod - for example Andrew Holt says "I might add that of the 121 entries listed under “religious wars” in the Encyclopedia of Wars, one of the entries deals with two wars, so a revised figure would be 122 wars, or only 6.9% of the wars considered by Phillips and Axelrod.". Numerous other experts say similar things (Russell, Cavanuagh, and Morreall). They distinguish between wars that have religion as the primary cause for war vs other wars that do not have religion as the primary cause of war. WWII Holocaust is not seen as religious war by any scholar, so I would question the methodology of 2026-15750-86 since they are anonymous and not experts on the topic. Holt and Pinker, on the other hand are and are able to distinguish based on their expertise. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 26 August 2026

The crusaders happened after the Islamic conquests of the Middle East, the actual inhabitants of these lands asked the help of the Pope after almost 700 years of enduring the brutality of Muslim conquerors, check the history which came first, the Islamic conquests or the Crusaders. So when I google Christian wars, the first thing pops up is the Crusaders without mentioning the reason why they happened. So, every action has a reaction. What exactly is going on, did Muslims conquered the Wikipedia too like everything else?

We cannot control what browsers do. But the article does mention what you said - that the crusades began in reconquering previously lost territory. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)