Talk:Christian Identity

Sole progeny of Adam and Eve edit

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)

About the name

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)

Timoth McVeigh & Terry Nichols

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)

Related list

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)

Pelley in the early influences section

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)