This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religious war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a common misconception that the Troubles in Northern Ireland was a religious war, but it wasn't. We should remove all mention of the troubles in this wiki page (it's in the religious wars of europe timeline) to stop further confusion about the Troubles. Paokara777 ( talk) 04:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
edit: i see that it was clarified in the Criteria for Clarification section, and agree with that clarification. Let's remove it from the timeline to outline those clarifications. Paokara777 ( talk) 04:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that this article nowhere mentions the two movements Al-Qaeda and Islamic State which most obviously represent religious war in this era, and it made me examine the idea more closely.
The term 'religious war' seems to be a folk term not found in most dictionaries. When originally introduced to Wikipedia [1] it was described as a "term used in the programming community" (and at least I recognize that). The older term, "holy war", which Encyclopedia Britannica describes as "any war fought by divine command or for a religious purpose" [2], puts a rather different slant on the idea. Mirriam-Webster defines it as "a war or violent campaign waged often by religious extremists for what is considered to be a holy purpose" and the Oxford English Dictionary similarly characterises holy war as "a war waged in a religious cause". Even Wiktionary defines holy war by referring to motivation (and doesn't currently include 'religious war').
There is no citation for this article's definition as a war "justified by religious differences" and I wonder where it came from. Most of the (secular) references used in the lede discuss the idea of "religious violence" rather than religious war, mainly discrediting it as a separate category. Cavanagh quotes Andrew Sullivan's New York Times article (" This is a religious war") but that article itself stresses that it's not "a war against the west". So is the emphasis on participants rather than motivation leading to a spurious article? Maybe it just reflects the confusion in a mainly secular society about what motivates people.
The most recent attempt to create a "Holy war" article ( [3]) used the more widely accepted definition ("any war declared or waged in support of a religious cause, by divine command or for a primarily religious purpose") and showed some promise but as is the way in Wikipedia, it was deleted after a day to point to the current less informed article.
The emphasis on participants has a curious side-effect that it becomes impossible for religious war to occur unless there are two religious sides. Since most nations these days are secular institutions the possibility of a religious war becomes much smaller, though certainly not impossible in the Middle East. If motivation is used as the criterion this artificial limitation does not exist.
I propose that the definition of religious (or holy) war at the beginning of the article be changed to one of the above definitions and the article be revised to reflect this. Chris55 ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Ramos1990: and I have done some improvements in recent days to try and make this article more balanced. Would it be okay to remove the "Unbalanced" template that @ Of 19: put here in April 2021? Secondly, I hope we can agree on what the purpose of this article should be. In my view, the most appropriate approach to writing this article about this subject is:
Most theoretical aspects (broadly coinciding with A.) are to be reserved for the first sections (1. Definitions; 2. Applicability of religion to war; 3. Prevalence; and 4. Holy war concepts in religious traditions), while the practical application of theory to historical events (broadly coinciding with B.) is to be reserved for the latter sections by historical timeframe (which I've based on the common (Western) historiographical convention of Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early modern period and Modern period, while the Timeline is grouped by continent).
There is room for C. in all sections wherever this is suitable. E.g. I think it would be fitting if critics of religion and religious apologists got a say in sections 2 and 3, as a lot of discussions in popular culture involve claims about how many/all wars ever fought have been (primarily) caused by religion, or that on the contrary relatively few or none of them actually really were, and other factors were (also) partially or entirely to blame. Heated discussions about this are well-known, and Wikipedia should say something about it, but then also let scholars nuance views on both sides of these popular claims and show that it's a bit more complicated than what many non-scholars are saying.
For the historical sections, it's also possible to do this, e.g. in the case of the Greek War of Independence. I've written that subsection with a balanced scholarly summary to say it was especially religious in the early phase, but more nationalistic in the later phase. But if we wanted to add some relevant popular opinion, we could quote some influential Greek nationalist to say it wasn't about religion, it was about independence and building a nation-state for all Greek-speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, while also quoting some influential Christian church leader or theocrat to say that it wasn't about nationalism, it was about restoring the multi-ethnic Byzantine Empire under the dominion of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. That way, Wikipedia could give a balanced view of scholars and relevant non-scholars about the degree to which the Greek War of Independence was or should be regarded as a religious war. But popular opinions are secondary; we should first and foremost give a balanced scholary summary.
Everything else seems to be beyond the scope of this article. E.g. I don't think it's of particular importance here to tell the reader that al-Ghazi's nickname was 'the left-handed', or that Cristóvão da Gama was 'son of the famous navigator Vasco da Gama', because that doesn't tell us anything about whether the Ethiopian–Adal War was a 'religious war' or not. Similarly, I doubt whether it is of much added value for the purposes of this article to mention how many casualties this or that war has had, unless we compare such figures with wars that one or more relevant scholars do not consider to have been 'religious' (e.g. wars of succession, wars of territorial conquest, violent trade wars, colonial wars, revolutionary wars against own government (e.g. wars of independence), wars caused by ethnic tensions, etc.). It seems to me that such figures are only relevant when they are part of an argument about how costly religious wars are/have been vis-à-vis other wars, otherwise it's useless information for the purposes of this article. Anyone who is interested in how many casualties or damage war X has done, can read the main article about that war; as an overview article about a particular type of war, or aspect/dimension of war, this article need not be concerned with such details. Note that it is very well possible and legitimate to try and make up a balance of a death toll of a particular war, or a well-defined set of wars, as has been done in European wars of religion#Death toll. However, because unlike that article, this article covers all religious wars that there have allegedly ever been in the history of the entire world (a hotly-contested set – or rather category – of wars, as this article as well as this talk page shows), I would seriously discourage such an enterprise. It may have some room in the Prevalence section, but casually mentioning the number of casualties in examples in the historical sections of this article seems pointless and gratuitous to me.
I am interested in what you two and others think about this approach to this article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I notice some bias here. I feel like the author of this article may have tried to write it so like religion comes out blameless by making very narrow definitions on what it considers religious reasons, dismissing many wars because they also made material gains.
Example:
Ghenghis Khan was litterally the messenger of Tengri, the entirity of the mongol conquest should definitely be clasified as a religious war, even if it's a religion Western Scholars dismiss and the mongols where friendly towards other religions (as long as Tengri was greatest) after those conquests and is not as totalitarian as Abrahamic relgions.
Also: regardless of secular gains, would it not be more logical to look at reasons for mobilization? Of course most people at the top have (mis)used religion for political gains since it's conception, but that does not take away that the millions actually getting slaughtered did in fact believe they were fighting for their god(s) 94.111.220.203 ( talk) 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religious war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a common misconception that the Troubles in Northern Ireland was a religious war, but it wasn't. We should remove all mention of the troubles in this wiki page (it's in the religious wars of europe timeline) to stop further confusion about the Troubles. Paokara777 ( talk) 04:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
edit: i see that it was clarified in the Criteria for Clarification section, and agree with that clarification. Let's remove it from the timeline to outline those clarifications. Paokara777 ( talk) 04:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that this article nowhere mentions the two movements Al-Qaeda and Islamic State which most obviously represent religious war in this era, and it made me examine the idea more closely.
The term 'religious war' seems to be a folk term not found in most dictionaries. When originally introduced to Wikipedia [1] it was described as a "term used in the programming community" (and at least I recognize that). The older term, "holy war", which Encyclopedia Britannica describes as "any war fought by divine command or for a religious purpose" [2], puts a rather different slant on the idea. Mirriam-Webster defines it as "a war or violent campaign waged often by religious extremists for what is considered to be a holy purpose" and the Oxford English Dictionary similarly characterises holy war as "a war waged in a religious cause". Even Wiktionary defines holy war by referring to motivation (and doesn't currently include 'religious war').
There is no citation for this article's definition as a war "justified by religious differences" and I wonder where it came from. Most of the (secular) references used in the lede discuss the idea of "religious violence" rather than religious war, mainly discrediting it as a separate category. Cavanagh quotes Andrew Sullivan's New York Times article (" This is a religious war") but that article itself stresses that it's not "a war against the west". So is the emphasis on participants rather than motivation leading to a spurious article? Maybe it just reflects the confusion in a mainly secular society about what motivates people.
The most recent attempt to create a "Holy war" article ( [3]) used the more widely accepted definition ("any war declared or waged in support of a religious cause, by divine command or for a primarily religious purpose") and showed some promise but as is the way in Wikipedia, it was deleted after a day to point to the current less informed article.
The emphasis on participants has a curious side-effect that it becomes impossible for religious war to occur unless there are two religious sides. Since most nations these days are secular institutions the possibility of a religious war becomes much smaller, though certainly not impossible in the Middle East. If motivation is used as the criterion this artificial limitation does not exist.
I propose that the definition of religious (or holy) war at the beginning of the article be changed to one of the above definitions and the article be revised to reflect this. Chris55 ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Ramos1990: and I have done some improvements in recent days to try and make this article more balanced. Would it be okay to remove the "Unbalanced" template that @ Of 19: put here in April 2021? Secondly, I hope we can agree on what the purpose of this article should be. In my view, the most appropriate approach to writing this article about this subject is:
Most theoretical aspects (broadly coinciding with A.) are to be reserved for the first sections (1. Definitions; 2. Applicability of religion to war; 3. Prevalence; and 4. Holy war concepts in religious traditions), while the practical application of theory to historical events (broadly coinciding with B.) is to be reserved for the latter sections by historical timeframe (which I've based on the common (Western) historiographical convention of Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early modern period and Modern period, while the Timeline is grouped by continent).
There is room for C. in all sections wherever this is suitable. E.g. I think it would be fitting if critics of religion and religious apologists got a say in sections 2 and 3, as a lot of discussions in popular culture involve claims about how many/all wars ever fought have been (primarily) caused by religion, or that on the contrary relatively few or none of them actually really were, and other factors were (also) partially or entirely to blame. Heated discussions about this are well-known, and Wikipedia should say something about it, but then also let scholars nuance views on both sides of these popular claims and show that it's a bit more complicated than what many non-scholars are saying.
For the historical sections, it's also possible to do this, e.g. in the case of the Greek War of Independence. I've written that subsection with a balanced scholarly summary to say it was especially religious in the early phase, but more nationalistic in the later phase. But if we wanted to add some relevant popular opinion, we could quote some influential Greek nationalist to say it wasn't about religion, it was about independence and building a nation-state for all Greek-speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, while also quoting some influential Christian church leader or theocrat to say that it wasn't about nationalism, it was about restoring the multi-ethnic Byzantine Empire under the dominion of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. That way, Wikipedia could give a balanced view of scholars and relevant non-scholars about the degree to which the Greek War of Independence was or should be regarded as a religious war. But popular opinions are secondary; we should first and foremost give a balanced scholary summary.
Everything else seems to be beyond the scope of this article. E.g. I don't think it's of particular importance here to tell the reader that al-Ghazi's nickname was 'the left-handed', or that Cristóvão da Gama was 'son of the famous navigator Vasco da Gama', because that doesn't tell us anything about whether the Ethiopian–Adal War was a 'religious war' or not. Similarly, I doubt whether it is of much added value for the purposes of this article to mention how many casualties this or that war has had, unless we compare such figures with wars that one or more relevant scholars do not consider to have been 'religious' (e.g. wars of succession, wars of territorial conquest, violent trade wars, colonial wars, revolutionary wars against own government (e.g. wars of independence), wars caused by ethnic tensions, etc.). It seems to me that such figures are only relevant when they are part of an argument about how costly religious wars are/have been vis-à-vis other wars, otherwise it's useless information for the purposes of this article. Anyone who is interested in how many casualties or damage war X has done, can read the main article about that war; as an overview article about a particular type of war, or aspect/dimension of war, this article need not be concerned with such details. Note that it is very well possible and legitimate to try and make up a balance of a death toll of a particular war, or a well-defined set of wars, as has been done in European wars of religion#Death toll. However, because unlike that article, this article covers all religious wars that there have allegedly ever been in the history of the entire world (a hotly-contested set – or rather category – of wars, as this article as well as this talk page shows), I would seriously discourage such an enterprise. It may have some room in the Prevalence section, but casually mentioning the number of casualties in examples in the historical sections of this article seems pointless and gratuitous to me.
I am interested in what you two and others think about this approach to this article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I notice some bias here. I feel like the author of this article may have tried to write it so like religion comes out blameless by making very narrow definitions on what it considers religious reasons, dismissing many wars because they also made material gains.
Example:
Ghenghis Khan was litterally the messenger of Tengri, the entirity of the mongol conquest should definitely be clasified as a religious war, even if it's a religion Western Scholars dismiss and the mongols where friendly towards other religions (as long as Tengri was greatest) after those conquests and is not as totalitarian as Abrahamic relgions.
Also: regardless of secular gains, would it not be more logical to look at reasons for mobilization? Of course most people at the top have (mis)used religion for political gains since it's conception, but that does not take away that the millions actually getting slaughtered did in fact believe they were fighting for their god(s) 94.111.220.203 ( talk) 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)