Edge Rewrite
restyle Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Christian Identity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Adam and Adamites

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Identity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Unsupported categories removed per WP:CATV

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Categories again

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

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

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

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

Summary:

@Beyond My Ken: In this light, can you explain your reverts , and give your arguments for which categories you may wish to keep, move or otherwise improve? Place Clichy (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

TL;DNR. I assume you have a point to make. Please make it in a concise manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Categories were a mess, as shown for instance by the many inconsistencies between categories set in the Christian Identity article and Category:Christian Identity. For instance, there is little point in placing the article in Category:White supremacy in the United States, and placing the eponymous category in Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, which is a subcategory, per guideline WP:SUBCAT. I made what I believe are improvements, which you blanket reverted . Per WP:BRD, I invite you to discuss, for each category, if it is appropriate to have the article it in, or not. I also invite @FreeKnowledgeCreator and Editor2020: who have recently shown interest in the article's categories. If you have nothing to say, I'll restore my improvements. Place Clichy (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not do that unless and until you have a consensus on this page to do so. Changes made when edits are disputed without a consensus behind them are subject to be reverted. I'm awaiting your concise' statement concerning that actual changes you made, not the theory behind categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this concise statement not concise enough for you? Each category inclusion can be challenged, and they can be discussed one by one, I see no way around it. You would help this discussion if you provided at least one example of why you think a category I added, changed or removed should remain as is or not be added. You're citing consensus, but consensus is not standing alone in the way of any proposed amendment. I'm waiting your arguments on how the improvements I suggest are not improvements to this article. Place Clichy (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ "I Come as a Thief". Church of True Israel. Archived from the original on 2007-08-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Bad redirect?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Searching for "christian identity" in the search box redirects to the article "Christians". 108.200.234.93 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed it few days ago. I restored it back to this article as it has been for over a decade. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated the redirect for changing. —Srnec (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2018

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

  • Support. It is more accurate to entitle this page "Christian Identity Movement," as that is what this is, a movement. It is folly to think of the topic/subject of "Christian Identity" as a "movement." Christian Identity is not related to a movement but more to a theological framework for the Christian church, whether catholic, protestant, etc. and their subsequent ecclesiology. So I support the name change for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiha (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the article states, "Christian Identity is not an organized religion, and is not connected with specific Christian denominations; instead, it is independently practiced by individuals, independent congregations, and some prison gangs". It really does not sound like a "movement", just a bunch of different people with similar beliefs. The fact that the phrase "Christian Identity" could be used to refer to other topics than the topic of the article and might conceivably confuse some people is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A Google Scholar search shows clearly that (i) the phrase "Christian identity" is often used to refer to more than just this movement and (ii) the phrase "Christian Identity movement" is also in use, as in the subtitle of the book Religion and the Racist Right. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • First point is irrelevant as noted. No one ever questioned that the phrase "Christian identity" can be used in various different ways. I noted as much myself. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on any of the other things that "Christian identity" could be used to refer to, so there is no need for disambiguation by moving the article to "Christian identity movement". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You started with "that the phrase ... could be used to refer to other topics than the topic of the article ... is irrelevant", but of course it is completely relevant, since the issue of whether this is the primary topic for the term is only engaged because "the phrase ... could be used to refer to other topics". Hence why I pointed out that RS clearly do use the term in other ways and that therefore it cannot be taken for granted that this topic is primary. Whether Wikipedia has articles or not is, however, irrelevant. As WP:ATDAB says: "If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." Only one of the links on the first page of my Google Scholar search was for this topic. So where is the evidence that it is primary?
    And where should Christian identity redirect? Srnec (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Got Cite?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Although they have never identified themselves as such, Westboro Baptist Church adheres to most, if not all, of the tenements of the movement. " This really needs an independent cite.--Cberlet 21:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plus tenement. Just saying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC).

Tenets vs Beliefs

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

A Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Ezra and St. John

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Recent edit about William Finck and his "Christogena"

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Editing "Groups" section

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Within the last 30 days or so, over a series of edits, the "Groups" section was pared down to basically nothing. Through these edits, a number of well-known Identity groups were removed as "unsourced." I have reverted it back to the previous state, with the exception of a couple that I could not verify as being Identity with certainty. If someone takes further issue with the list, please identify which group you feel needs a source. Every one of these could be cited, but that is going to make reading it rather tedious. Most of them are wikilinked to their own page where their Identity association is well documented. Butlerblog (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a further edit to this section that took out the Traditionalist Worker Party and Traditionalist Youth Network groups as these are not necessarily "self-evident" as Identity. They are white supremacist and nationalist, but that doesn't mean they are Christian Identity. I didn't see anything, including the SPLC and ADL entries that include them they are Identity groups. If they were Identity, I would expect SPLC and ADL to say so. I also took out Yahweh's Truth (James Wickstrom) as I do not think this is an active "group" following Wickstrom's death (I don't think it was all that active even before that). Matthew Heimbach and Thomas Robb were removed because they are individuals, not groups (and they're both in the "see also" list of individual anyway). The rest as far as I can see are "self evident" as Identity groups. Butlerblog (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Editing Beliefs section

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Beliefs section has grown over time with a lot of "me too" references. This has resulted in some presentation of information in a way that is both disjointed (information does not flow in a related fasion), and redundant (where specific beliefs are stated more than once). I've been reworking it to move information into a more logical order as well as put related information into sections it is related to. The biggest change so far is the change of the "Opposition to miscegenation, homophobia, and anti-Semitism" section. After moving some of the info to other more related sections, this wound the section down to something that really didn't fit the current section title (which really wasn't all that well formed to begin with). It's still not a great section, but it will do for now. Hopefully, this move can be improved upon. Butlerblog (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuing this thought, I wound the section mentioned above down to just homophobia - usury was moved to the section on banking and the Fed, anti-semitism (which actually was only a mention of why CI adherents do not see themselves as antisemitic) was moved to the section on Origin beliefs (since it is more related to that section - they see themselves as Israel, and hence do not see themselves as anti-semites). I think at this point, the Beliefs section is far less disjointed now and there is less redundancy in the various sections. Butlerblog (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The list of "other related topics" has grown quite large over time (especially recently), and some of the topics in the list would be a stretch to call "related." I did some pruning of this list, but not before reviewing each of the articles that were removed. I'll point out some of the topics removed and why. The topics of "Christian(ity) and (something)" really were not related to Christian Identity. Most of them were specific to historical Christianity and what would be considered "organized" religion, something that CI is not (as actually noted in the article's lede). CI is not denominational Christianity. I also removed topics that are actually exact opposites of CI positions, such as Zionism and Supersessionism. Reconstructionism and its concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy are more closely related to denominational Christianity, and are not Identity positions. And Reptilian conspiracy theory - I think that might be self-evident? I do think there are additional topics here that could be pruned as well as they don't necessarily improve the article, they really are more of a "rabbit hole." If you think something should be added (or added back) or removed, it would be interesting to hear the case for it so we could know the reason. Butlerblog (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I did some additional (and severe) pruning of the "related topics" list. It is really far too long to be at all useful. Just a few months ago, it was less than twenty, and now it is nearly 40 (and that's after the links removed mentioned above). A lot of these are generally broad topics, and not related to Christian Identity in a direct way. Many are listed in the categories this article is part of. 7 links are terrorism, another 7 are antisemitism. There are actually several links in the article already for antisemitism, and the article is in several related categories, so it is unnecessary to also link every article on antisemitism in the related topics section. I've trimmed it down to items that are directly related movements, or are somehow more tightly related. If you're adding something back, fine. But consider whether it's really a necessary link that benefits the article and isn't already something a user can get to elsewhere in the article. Butlerblog (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sole progeny of Adam and Eve edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the recent good faith edit in the lead stating that [the listed people groups] are "the sole progeny of Adam and Eve (non-white races being "pre-Adamic")." As written, this is not necessarily true of all CI and requires too much nuance for inclusion in the lead. Yes, most CI adherents would say that they are the sole progeny of Adam AND Eve - with emphasis on "and". But for a Serpent Seed believer, Eve had progeny with the Serpent, resulting in the line of Cain, making a cursory reading of that sentence false, or unclear and easily misunderstood at best. These topics are covered in detail in the beliefs section already, so it is not necessary to include it here. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Timoth McVeigh & Terry Nichols

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Re: adding them to "related" links, aside from the fact that that list is entirely too long already, I have never seen any reliable source noting either of them as a CI adherent. I have seen plenty of sources (reliable and otherwise) that note a connection to CI groups and followers, especially the obvious one - Elohim City. But having an association with CI groups isn't the same as being a follower of CI. In their case, I'm fairly certain the association is merely one of mutual interest in terrorist activity, but not mutual theology. Additionally, the only RS-backed information I've seen on McVeigh as far as religious beliefs are concerned is that he was once Catholic, and then shifted to more atheist/agnostic tendencies. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you dispute any of the following?
- McVeigh and Nichols were white supremacists
- McVeigh and Nichols were anti-government extremists
- The OKC bombings were revenge attacks for Ruby Ridge and Waco Groupthink (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, the edit was to the "Related" section. Do you deny any relation? Groupthink (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Reverted. The articles are not related. Springee (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I try to assume positive intent, but given that the relationship between these two topics is obvious, and based on your other edits to my changes, I'm calling your motivations disingenuous. I could technically perform one more revert by the letter of 3RR, but I will refrain in the interest of its spirit. Groupthink (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The only "relation" is that McVeigh was at Elohim City. It's a stretch to include them, and it implies that they are more related than simply white supremacist anti-government extremists. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I may need to clarify my statement of "only relation" - yes they were all white supremacists, and all anti-government extremists; and even all anti-Semitic. But CI isn't just those things, and McVeigh's staying at Elohim City really only seems to be a commonality around anti-government extremism and nothing more. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
McVeigh's phone call to Elohim two weeks before the attack? The Turner Diaries? The date of the attack? The Ruby Ridge/Waco revenge motivation? All unrelated coincidence? Groupthink (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Groupthink: You're WP:NOTLISTENING. As has already been noted, with the exception of Elohim City, nothing you've listed has anything to do with CI. You're conflating CI with all neo-fascism. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I have reverted the NPOV tag on this article because there is no discussion regarding the article POV. I would assume your inclusion of it is related to this particular discussion, which calls into question the motivation on tagging. Simply including/excluding a related article has no bearing on article neutrality. If you have some legitimate POV issues (and I can't see that there are any), then outline them specifically in a separate (and obvious by heading) discussion. But whether or not to include a link has zero to do with POV. You are making a Michelin-starred three course meal with drinks and a fumble in the park on the way home out of a dry nothingburger. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
In regard to sources and links referencing CI including mentions of McVeigh and Nichols in relation to CI...
Bring the War Home by American historian and professor Kathleen Belew
JSTOR The Identity Christian Movement: Ideology of Domestic Terrorism - Tanya Telfair Sharpe
middlebury.edu "The Peak of the Christian Identity Movement: The peak of congregation-based Christian Identity occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. These congregations gained national prominence due to their significant influence on the Aryan Nations and The Order as well as Timothy McVeigh’s attack in Oklahoma City. After Wesley Swift died in 1970, his close associate Richard Butler moved to Hayden Lake, Idaho, where he established a white nationalist, CI, and neo-Nazi organization and compound called the Aryan Nations, which was deeply connected to the CJCC. The Aryan Nations was known for its creation of a substantial network of neo-Nazi white supremacist groups. Butler’s compound was also famous for holding the Aryan World Congress, a yearly gathering of prominent neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, and Klan leaders. At its peak, Butler’s organization was linked to several antisemitic and racist attacks and was one of the most well-known white supremacist organizations in the country"
ADL "In the 1990s, Identity criminal activity continued apace, including efforts by an Oklahoma Identity minister, Willie Ray Lampley, to commit a series of bombings in the summer of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh."
SPLC "Though McVeigh held a brief membership in the Ku Klux Klan during his Army days, and though his inspiration for the bombing came from the notoriously anti-Semitic and racist novel The Turner Diaries, he maintained until the day he was executed that his beef was with the government. :James Nichols made similar claims. But the radical Posse Comitatus ideology that clearly fueled the Nichols brothers' animosity toward the government includes a religious element — Christian Identity — that is as virulently anti-Semitic as The Turner Diaries, written by the late neo-Nazi leader William Pierce. Now James Nichols has pledged both himself and Terry to be warriors in the cause of Christian Identity."
TAMU.edu TX A&M Honors Thesis by KATHRYN L. SINCLAIR (p.10) "Perhaps the most infamous and well-known act of Christian Identity violence was the actions of Timothy McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma City Federal :Building."
Homeland security digital library "Timothy McVeigh’s act is somberly remembered for the motivations behind it, the scope of the attack and, most importantly, for the lessons learned from it. Firstly, McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the end of the siege at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. For this right-wing extremist and Christian Identity follower, the Government’s handling of the siege was illustrative of the “Zionist Occupied Government” which was intent on suppressing liberty and bringing about a New World Order. McVeigh had been to Waco during the stand-off and had returned shortly after the compound’s destruction. McVeigh wanted to avenge the deaths at Waco in addition to those at Ruby Ridge in 1992. Importantly, April 19th was also the date of a FBI raid on a Christian Identity (CI) movement compound at ‘Elohim City’ in Adair County Oklahoma in 1985. “The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA)” a white-supremacist organization is also based on CI and linked to McVeigh."
Cheers...DN (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
As noted above, none of that indicates McVeigh was a follower of CI. The CI groups mentioned are all staunchly anti-government, and were also known to work with others outside of CI circles, so simply interacting with them does not necessarily imply it was his belief system, and there is no evidence that his actions were motivated specifically by religious beliefs (aside from someone's undergraduate honors thesis that I surmise would not withstand the scrutiny of Michael Barkun). To give an analogy of the point, if I were a pro-life evangelical and spent time working with Human Life International, a Catholic pro-life organization, that doesn't make me Catholic. It's an association based on one specific commonality. There is no hard evidence that McVeigh was a follower of CI beliefs; rather, it appears that he shared a common anti-government view with specific anti-government CI groups. A discussion of his associations and cooperative effort would be fine in the McVeigh article or within specific groups he associated with, but it's not necessarily relevant to CI as a whole. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying follower as if that is the only metric that applies here. Reliable sources clearly discuss McVeigh, and or the OK city bombing, as they relate to CI. DN (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oxford academic journal of church and state "An epilogue discusses the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, exploring possible connections with Christian Identity (it appears to be indirect at best) and pointing to the growth of extremist militias throughout the country."
  • CNN "The Oklahoma City bombing -- according to the FBI, as recently as 1994, convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh associated with individuals who identified themselves as Christian Identity."
  • LA Times "And two weeks before the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh called the Oklahoma compound and spoke for nearly two minutes, phone records show. Elohim City’s leader is Robert G. Millar, a former Mennonite who brought his flock here 24 years ago. He is 71 and favors kilts and clerical collars. His followers, most of whom are related to him by birth or marriage, call him “Grandpa.” Elohim (pronounced eh-loh-HEEM) is a Hebrew word for God. Millar is considered one of the most important leaders of America’s Christian Identity movement, a theology common to an assortment of right-wing extremist groups."
Can we agree that while McVeigh was not a CI follower or even religious at this point, investigators and academics have repeatedly discussed the OK city bombing in conjunction with the CI movement in reliable sources? While it may be an indirect connection, it's prominence in mainstream RS seems to give WEIGHT to an appropriately limited form of acknowledgement in regard to their proximal relation to McVeigh and the OKC bombing. The "related" section seemed like the best place. DN (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't disagree with the connection. BUT (and I have reinterated this over and over and the point seems to be missed) that connection is to specific groups and individuals, not CI itself and it belongs in those articles. It doesn't have specific relation to this article, which is about CI itself. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "Christian Identity arguably became most infamous for its connections to Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995." - Stuart Wexler, author of "America's secret jihad: the hidden history of religious terrorism in the United States" (p. 678,696)
Speaking of Michael Barkun....From Syracuse University - "a new chapter written for the revised edition of (Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement), he traces the role of Christian Identity figures in the dramatic events of the first half of the 1990s, from the Oklahoma City bombing and the rise of the militia movement to the Freemen standoff in Montana."... You say you don't disagree with the connection "BUT" that connection is to specific groups and individuals"...? This seems like a case of self-contradiction. RS is crystal clear that the "groups and individuals" McVeigh associated with were Christian Identity adherents, such as Robert G. Millar, the Ku Klux Klan during McVeigh's Army days and the Nichols brothers "who were fueled by the Posse Comitatus (organization)'s ideology that included the religious element of Christian Identity" - SPLC. All backed up by RS. Now, no one here is suggesting that McVeigh belongs in the lead, but your refusal to consider any inclusion of this agreed upon "connection" within our article seems to also miss the point...If we cannot come to some form of consensus here to at least mention their "connection" with McVeigh or the OKC bombing, there are other options. I would prefer to save us both the time and effort by finding a simple solution we can both agree on here. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
RS is crystal clear that the "groups and individuals" McVeigh associated with were Christian Identity adherents, - you're clearly missing my point, and to be frank, it's exhausting. So fine... go ahead; add it to the related section. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Since you find mention of McVeigh objectionable, perhaps using the OKC bombing event may be a more appropriate solution? DN (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I have added the event to the See Also section, which is further removed than the "Related" section. If you come up with a better solution, I'm all ears. DN (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, I have worked to incorporate key elements from the "related" section into the article itself so that it's not just a random dumping ground of CI related articles (we don't need to link every CI article - that's what categorization is for). All that was left were some less than "key" people that, while of interest and technically related, are not necessary for the article. From the original list and what I worked into the prose so far, they were the leftovers. The one possible exception to that is August Kries, who might be mentioned as the successor to Aryan Nations, but honestly, that's more relevant to the AN article, which is already linked in this article. TBH, all of them are available by looking at the category. If someone objects, I'm open to listening to your compelling reason. But IMO, it makes more sense to incorporate anyone "worthy" (for lack of a better term) of inclusion into the article itself (which I have done with as much of that list as I could). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

About the name

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I see there are some controversies about the name of this article. Maybe the name of the article could be changed, even if "Christian Identity" is the primary name of the topic, so that readers do not get confused. Similarly, the article Eastern Orthodox Church is not called Orthodox Church for the sake of clarity. I think the readers' comprehension is more important (WP:NORULES) than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Veverve (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree. If you look at what the recent user was saying, it was abundantly clear that there was very little effort on their part to even read the lead (which contradicts everything they complained about). The explanation is right there in front of them, which indicates a significant degree of intellectual laziness on the part of the user. Changing the article title can't fix that. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Butlerblog: we cannot expect readers to be qualified when it comes to those Byzantine, very niche subjects, and even less when it comes to religion. We cannot expect the readers either to not be surprised by an article whose title contains the notions of Christianity and of individual identity - and only those - which then describes fringe racialist groups.
Is there no clearer (more distinctive), less polemical title which could be used for this article? Veverve (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand - and I agree with the premise. However, the article has an {{about}} hatnote that specifically states "This article is about the white supremacist ideology. For people who identify as Christian, see Christians and Christendom" followed immediately by an opening sentence that gives a specific definition of what it is (i.e. what the article is about). It takes no special qualifications on the reader's part to understand that doesn't mean "Christianity is a white supremacist ideology" which is what this recent reader seems to have been inferring from it. I don't think you can reduce to a lower denominator than it already is. I'll resolve to consider any suggestions with an open mind and treat them as fairly as possible, but it would have to be more compelling than simply trying to appease reader laziness. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Then I suggest the name Christian Identity (Ideology) or similar. As a casual reader shouldn't have to read a blurb to understand that this article refers to an interpretation of Christianity (i. e. a cult), not to a Christian's identity or to Christianity itself. 167.89.209.81 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
A previous discussion for this was to not move, for the same reasons the undiscussed (bold) move that facilitated this discussion was reverted. We don't add disambiguation to titles unless it is necessary per the article titles policy, usually one that is similarly named. It's covered by the hatnote, the purpose of which is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for, and if that doesn't cover it, the lead, which is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, certainly does. God forbid you have to actually read something to know what the article is about. We wouldn't want people to have to do that in an encyclopedia. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Pelley in the early influences section

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I took out the sentence about Pelley being influenced by British-Israelism. The section is specifically about the early influences on the development of CI. As it was describing Pelley being influenced by BI and is unrelated to CI's early development, it is out of place in a random, shoe-horned in there kind of way. Further, the source was very weak on connecting Pelley to any influence on CI. It makes one statement suggesting that "it could be argued" that his millenarian views were an influence, but leaves it at that - essentially making the off-the-cuff comment based on conjecture with no support. If this is going to be brought back in, it needs to make more sense in the relational context as well as needing stronger sourcing. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That all being said, the source is good for the article on Pelley himself or the Silver Shirts, and undoubtedly, there was crossover with related individuals in CI - but that's more suited to those specific articles where it makes sense to explore those relationships. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_Identity/Archive_2&oldid=1353299810"