Talk:Christian Identity

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)

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)

Were any who actually know Christian Identity basic doctrine allowed to participate?

For example it keeps talking as if people just made things up from thin air like the "two houses" when the Bible emphatically mentions the house of Israel and the house of Judah as separate and distinct many times including the New testament as well. You are presenting a Jewish doctrine which I have easily debated and they have to almost immediately admit that they are wrong. That is, they teach that Israel and Judah came back together which directly contradicts the Bible which states they were enemies "to this day" for just one. It's in Kings and Chronicles, The Bible states that Israel only, not Judah, was taken by Assyria, why does this article make it sound like that is silly and made up? I would gladly debate anyone on the basic principles and facts of Celtic Israel in a proper forum. However that's not the object of those who contributed here. They have a huge movement including the ADL and SPLC to deliberately keep this knowledge hidden from white Christians, they are obsessed, and that obsession is all I saw here. They are always so worried people will find out yet these types of control of narratives create rage among some. In 35 years I've never heard anyone who knows the truth of Celtic Israel use the term "Aryan" either, seems to be one of a host of buzz words to vilify and keep people from listening. As is, it would be far better to just delete this whole article because it is and will cause rage. 71.213.2.131 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Eschatology

In the eschatology section, it leads with Christian Identity eschatology is dispensational premillennialist, including a physical return of Christ to earth and the final battle of Armageddon. This is cited to the Aho source, which has a copyright date of 1990. Certainly, among the primary teachers of early Identity and the second generation, this would seem to be consistent. However, 35 years hence, this needs to be revised. First, Aho admits in a footnote that some writers suggest a postmillennial theology. Second, in reviewing modern Identity writers like William Finck, who writes "From the correct historicist view of Scripture, the thousand years has already transpired, and now we are in the time that Satan gathers all of the goat nations against the Camp of the Saints"[1] we can see that such an all-encompassing view would appear to no longer be the case. That's either a postmillennial or amillennial view (either could say that), depending on where he goes with it - either way, it's a "realized millennium" theology and would not align with Aho's 1990 statement that "all" Identity is dispensational premillennialist which is inherently futurist (i.e. "hasn't happened yet"). I haven't found any secondary sources that specifically cover Finck's eschatology, but as he is one of the more prominent voices of modern Identity, this subsection may need some revising to account for more than the specifically narrow interpretation it currently presents. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)