Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

anti-Catholic

I have noticed that this particular article seems to not only paint Catholicism in a highly negative light, it also seems to be justifying these organizations actions. this article is in serious need of an impartial re-write.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.25.122 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rexism

Recommend deleting this section, as it doesn't present any instances of terrorism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

KKK

I have removed this section for the above reasons

1. KKK were not a Christian movement as far as I can see.
2. None of the incarnations worked on terror, although probably intimidation.

The section was also largely composed of inaccuracy (KKK opposed Reconstruction, for example) and details of modern hate crime.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:59 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Your changes: [1]

• The Christian theology of the KKK is widely known (and was referenced) - it was not random that the burning Christian cross became their symbol. "It was revived during the Civil Rights era and continues today as a small organization that continues to stage demonstrations in favor of white supremacy and fundamentalist Christian theology."[2] Reconstruction!=Christian Reconstructionism. "Their theology is strongly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism"[3]

Look at the WP article, it uses neither the word Christian nor terrorist. True that present day Klans include "white Christian" groups, but the first two Klans, while undoubtedly composed largely of Christians were politically and racially motivated. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

• If blowing up the Houses of Parliament wasn't an act of terrorism, then blowing up the World Trade Center wasn't an act of terrorism. Shall we therefore remove the Sept. 11th attacks from Islamic terrorism? I thought not.

Ah the WP:POKEMON defence? 5/11 was an attempted coup. Whether 9/11 was an act of war or terrorism or another "spectacular" has of course been debated widely: nonetheless it is generally regarded a such. If, however, you wanted to remove it from the Islamic terrorism page (I assume there is one) go to it! Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

So, according to you, blowing up the government and murdering hundreds of politicians would be a "coup", and not an act of terrorism? This logic astounds me. 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Clifford Peeples: a Christian Pastor imprisoned for terrorism who specialises in "recounting lurid stories of Catholic savagery towards Protestants, and in finding biblical justifications for Protestant retaliation". How on Earth is Mr Peeples inappropriate?

I forget. Let me go and look. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 18 November 2008 (UTC).

OK he's a "self styled Pastor" whose attempted violence is based on the following: " But when his flower shop on the Crumlin Road in north Belfast was ransacked four years ago, he blamed it on loyalist protection racketeers." In the scale of NI being caught with weapons is scarcely a blip. So he's a wannabe terrorist, barely or not notable for that, motivation dubious, maybe notable in the wider context of sectarian conflict. If we are going to include NI terrorists by name - even just those who, say, successfully killed someone, or detonated bomb then the article will be four times as long. It makes more sense to briefly summarise The Troubles and refer to the main article. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 18 November 2008 (UTC).

He was an ordained Pastor and the leader of a terrorist group that carried out a bombing campaign against Catholic churches because they were (in his words) "bastions of the Anti-Christ". He was arrested, found in possession of bombs, and found guilty of offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It is clear that he was a Christian terrorist. But whatever. Have fun removing as much of this article as you can. 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article Sucks

Warning to all who read this article: Not only is it terribly written and all over the place but it is full of outright falsehoods. This entire article should be deleted and re-written , but until then believe NOTHING here that you can't independently verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, this article is biased up to over its ears. It looks like it's made specifically to "balance" 'muslim terrorism' thinking "if there is muslim terrorism, then there must be christian terrorism, otherwise it isn't politically correct". 90% of the content in this article is not christian terrorism as the people mentioned were simply christians but not motivated by christianity. Eric R. Rudolph and other anti-abortion warriors do qualify I think but the rest is pushing it. The northern Ireland section is absolutely bullshit. This article needs to be rewritten from the bottom up. PS: Don't be a coward and delete this T.R. 87.59.78.243 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following text,:

The religious divide between Roman Catholics and Protestants was the defining difference betwwen the two sides in The Troubles, although this was expressed in political terms.

As this is conflating identity and causation, much like the NATO Objection.

and:

First Minister of Northern Ireland The Revd. and Rt. Hon. Ian Paisley often cast the conflict in religious terms. He preached that the Roman Catholic Church, which he termed "Popery", had deviated from the Bible, and therefore from true Christianity, giving rise to "revolting superstitions and idolatrous abuses". Paisley held that there were links between the Catholic Church and the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a group which is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.. He once said "The Provisional IRA is the military wing of the Roman Catholic Church" and has claimed several times that the Pope is the Antichrist, most famously at the European Parliament, where he interrupted a speech by Pope John Paul II, shouting "I denounce you as the Antichrist!" and holding up a red poster reading "POPE JOHN PAUL II ANTICHRIST".

Pastor Alan Campbell has also identified the Papacy as the Antichrist, and has described the IRA as "Roman Catholic terrorists". Campbell preaches a Christian Identity theology; he is strongly against race-mixing, and supports the British Israel hypothesis, claiming that the Celto-Anglo-Saxon people of Ulster are the true "Israel of God".

As claiming that another religious group is causing terrorism or inciting hatred is not terrorism.

and:

Sweeney argued that self-immolation, in the form of hunger strikes by Irish republicans, was religiously motivated and perceived. He wrote:

"The Rising catapulted the cult of self-sacrifice to centre stage of twentieth century Irish militant politics in a strange marriage of Catholicism and republicanism. A religious and a sacrificial motif can be detected in the writings of those who participated in the 'bloody protest'".

As hunger strikes do not constitute terrorism.--Dishcmds (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_terrorism#POV_pushing_in_this_articleCLS (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gotten past the anti-abortionists. If these crackpots, criminals, and murderers are considered "Christian terrorists" then every crackpot Muslim who ever lifted an AK47 yelling "God is Great" deserves to be immortalised as an Islamic terrorist, without fine distinctions of "Islamist" or "Islamic" or "suicide martyr etc." This does look (mainly) like a tit-for-tat ("balance") article to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this article "sucks" is an insult to articles that suck. It is hugely POV and I have little doubt that it's author(s) really hate Christians with a passion. It's because of articles like this that many people simply don't trust anything on Wikipedia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The following should be deleted, as Christianity is only part of their motivation.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Russian National Unity

Russian National Unity is an outlawed far right party responsible for several terrorist attacks, including murders on religious grounds, and the bombing of the US Consulate in Ekaterinburg.[68] In their manifesto "Bases of social conception of RNU" they advocate an increased role for the Russian Orthodox Church in all areas of life.[71]

[edit] Russian National Socialists

The Russian National Socialist Party bases itself on four principles: Orthodox Christianity, a strong state, aggressive Russian nationalism and non-Marxist socialism. Party leader A. Barkashov has advocated "a Hitlerite racial biology, and proclaims the need for creating an armed resistance movement against the supposed Jewish dictatorship in Russia."[69] In August 2007, a 23 year old member of the group was arrested for distributing a video on the Internet that showed two Muslims apparently being beheaded and shot by a militant wing of the RNSP.[72][73][74]

NATO Christian terrorists?

Why NATO is not recognized as a NATO Christian terrorist organization? Wikipedia is showing its bias opinion?? More than 90% of the NATO countries are Christian fundamentalist nations with over 80-90% of the army made up of Christian terrorist soldiers. Then, why NATO is not a Christian terrorist organization? In Afghanistan and Iraq there are many NATO lead Christian missionaries. Therefore by definition, creating a war to eliminate one religion and popularize other, is a religious terrorist act. Period. You cannot have both ways!

Ah, the human tendency to exaggerate how awful the other side is. NATO is a secular body commited to western security. Western does not automatically equal white or Christian security. There, apart from The Vatican, is no such thing as a Christian fundamentalist nation. Sioraf (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I agree with Sioraf. It just cross my mind because when some people describe armies such as Indian Army for example, they say "a Hindu" army even though it is not. So, if Indian Army is a Hindu army, NATO should be a Christian army. That's why I asked the question here. I don't want to offend anyone here :) Please note that, since Russia ALSO a SECULAR BODY, we should not attack Russia just because they are Communist. Also it is a fact during the NATO mission to Afghanistan and Iraq, so far MOST of the non-combat people went in to the area have hidden agenda of popularizing Christianity in Middle East. For example, "Secular Canada" have provided safe passage to Christian missionaries in Afghanistan, while refused to provide a safe passage to Islamic missionaries because they are labelled as "terrorists". Let me get this thing straight; so... if you allow the NATO security forces to search anything you carry into the region, why refuse to provide safety for one group while providing it for the other? That's look very suspicious. I am not a Muslim nor I support f*** Islamic terrorists. But every story has two sides. I don't want to be a victim of another 9/11, but I fear because of our double standard in NATO, we created more enemies than friends. For example, home grown terrorism as a result of our own action?

NATO armies are neither considered terrorists nor Christian. The US army for examples has jewish, muslim and wiccan chaplains.also your opinion is not valid. that is it is original research. If you had a valid source saying that NATO was a Christian terrorist group, then you could talk. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK City Bomber & KKK

KKK is not Christian, but ultra-nationalist. Nowhere can I find an assertion that Tim McVeigh or the other two were Christian either. I have removed the KKK section and will remove the Oklahoma City bombing too as "not Christian" -- not "Christian Identity" or anything at all. Please discuss before you re-add. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK clearly belongs in the article according to references that were deleted (e.g. "It was revived during the Civil Rights era and continues today as a small organization that continues to stage demonstrations in favor of white supremacy and fundamentalist Christian theology") and other historical citations (e.g. "Young set forth the Klan's goal in terms of Christian morality v. sin."[4]). Warped as they may be, the KKK groups are reliably-sourced as operating in the name of Christianity, and to claim otherwise is WP:OR. —EqualRights (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

the KKK has some sections that might belong, but generally they do not because it is not Christian, but mixes a number of different belief systems and is often antagonistic to Christianity, much of it is pagan. Hardyplants (talk)

If there are reliable sources, you should add that qualification. —EqualRights (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling the topic mostly yields information quoted from this very page, which may suggest that we are responsible for unduly propagating a view held by a minority. I recommend removal and/or taking the debate to the actual KKK article itself, which does not currently make this assertion.   — C M B J   18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Time reference, ("Young set forth the Klan's goal in terms of Christian morality v. sin") we are talking 1920's. This is all ancient history, soon to be a century ago. Young was a fundraiser, and apparently effective. Of course, "Christian" morality v. sin, is not in itself a "Christian" thing so much as it is a cultural thing. After all, they are/were "virulently" anti-Catholic, so at best we could say they are a "Protestant" group. Perhaps we can say something about them as an historical phenomenon, but so far I can't see how they qualify as a "Christian group" as we define such groups these days these days. But I will check out the other reference(s) as apparently I missed something. Thanks for weighing in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a rationale for any form of inclusion unless the KKK article forms a consensus to support it first. Doing so would merely establish a POV fork.   — C M B J   04:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a valid point about a POV fork. I did check those references, and most do not establish the KKK was based on a Christian theology. This one: refers to them as a "paramilitary" group (pg 13, and says "virtually everyone in the Souther operated under a broadly shared evangelical Protestant ethos that pervaded the region" (to speak to the view I stated above that Christian morality=culture not religion). The book White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction can be searched at Amazon and has only one reference to "Christianity" but consistently refers to them as "politically motivated." Neither of the two books given as references include page numbers. The PBS link is too complicated to search. According to the About.com link: "The Ku Klux Klan is America's oldest, most visible and most (in)famous hate group." They do add: "Today the KKK has been greatly weakened as their views have become more and more radical. They consider themselves a Christian organization and base their doctrines upon their own reading of the Bible," but it is not clear how long they have been this way. Nor am I sure that About.com qualifies as a wiki RS. Nor is not at all clear that this group started out "Christian." I do take your point that this should be in the KKK article before it is brought here as an aspect of US "Christian terrorism." Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK has a varied history and is not one single group with a consistent history. The KKK of the 20's and 30's does belong here (it was more like a white protestant cult at that time), unlike 70 percent of the groups that were listed in the article. The modern version of the KKK is a different horse. Hardyplants (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The KKK is primarily viewed as a racist group, yet an article on Christian terrorism can not be written without mention of them. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, to assert that the KKK does not consider itself a Christian group and hasn't historically is nothing short of denialism. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

If the Hutaree nine are convicted of the charges against them, then I would say that they deserve an entry in the United States section for conspiring to murder law enforcement officials with IED's. However, in the spirit of WP:Crystal, not to mention presumption of innocence, I've reverted their addition for now. Groupthink (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They have been charged with a serious crime and it is thus notable. Check out their website to confirm their motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.198 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is their website? Let me check it myself. Alexius08 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, but shouldn't we wait until these people are found (or plead) guilty to include this? Groupthink (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The formatting is terrible but nonetheless: http://hutaree.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.198 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If their website were well-designed and they said they were totally nonviolent and they talked only about caring for abandoned small animals, would we take them at their word? Meanwhile, there has been WP:RS discussion of the FBI informant in their midst who heavily coached them (they couldn't even put together a pipe bomb without lots of help). They would not have amounted to anything without government assistance. The deliberate creation of enemies by a government is an interesting topic, but the fruits of that process shouldn't be presented as 'evidence' without noting the circumstances (WP:NPOV). I removed it but I'd say it's okay to recreate it if the controversy is noted.Jeremystalked _{T C} 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I can understand the argument that, if there were some sort of entrapment, the accusation might be unfair, that would not make it not notable. Events can be and are notable even if Wikipedia editors find them objectionable. Therefore, I'm going to restore the deleted passage. However, per NPOV, I think it's a good point that the controversy needs to be noted, so I'll do that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats a rather flimsy fringe view my freind. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

??? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

In 2010, a group called Repent Amarillo has terrorized Amarillo, Texas, targeting groups they say do not match their definition of morality. When a community theater attempted to open "Bent", a play about the persecution of homosexuals during Nazi Germany, Repent members complained to fire marshals and helped shut down the play, the day before opening night. On New Years eve, they began harassing a discreet club of swingers they discovered in town, blaring Christian music at the swingers’ club building. The swingers were then videotaped at every following visit to the club. Repent also obtained the swingers’ license plates and dug through their trash, informing neighbors and coworkers of what was once private. Repent Amarillo's website contains a page linked to as "Warfare Map", which highlights nearly 40 businesses around Amarillo each of which they consider a "Sexually Oriented Business, Occult Witchcraft, Idol Worship, or Compromised Church's [sic]".

Primary source and a Dubious source at best, i would think if this group had done what was alleged here there I would have heard something about it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Google show no reliable sources, just a blog and a op-ed. i take that back one local source mention but again i would say : A. Group has not done any acts of terror or been indicted. B. it is a local fringe group, does not seem notable enough to be included with groups like the Hutaree and KKK and what not Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched too, with similar results, although there do seem to be a lot of non-local op-eds as well. Seems like a lot of talk about it, but not taken up by independent secondary sources. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to include a brief mention, but not going on at UNDUE length? I'd like to see some more talk about this before making a decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw alot of like Blogs more than op-eds; To me why include this small group who as far as i can tell have no violence what so ever (as far as i have read). It seems like to me some one didnt like these guys and stuck them here, When really from the looks of them their a wanna be Westboro than terrorist. I could pest an formal RFC or request for comments at the WIkiprojects involved? but to me doing so seems like a easte of time as it seems like WP:DUCK of someone with a grudge post this here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm saying let's continue to leave it out while waiting to see what anyone else might say. This doesn't rise to the level of an RfC, not by a long shot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh i see; i agree Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, sorry I wasn't clearer about that to begin with. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the link to cause stalking / terrorist stalking / political stalking

Terrorist stalking by (christian) anti-abortionists is verifiable[5] and is sometimes called cause stalking[6]. The only question, perhaps, is: would a link to cause stalking be appropriate (because the article is currently being reviewed for deletion) or should you just link to terrorist stalking?Jeremystalked _{T C} 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was an article I would support. Your trying to link it to a single sentence in the larger article of Stalker Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Understand what "terror" is - in this context it is a climate of fear, in particular one created to achieve political or social ends - a terrorist is one who deliberately creates this climate of fear, usually partly or mainly by violent means. While a Christian terrorist is vacuously a terrorist who is also Christian, Christian terrorism needs to apply only to terrorism that is motivated, or possibly justified, by Christian beliefs. There will be enough of these without shoe-horning other cases into the article. Explicitly we should not include:

• Violent agents who are not terrorists.
• Agents who are not motivated by Christian belief.
• "Wannabe" terrorists.
• Agents who happen to espouse a bunch of particularly hateful ideas but do not fit the category
• Those who are merely "associated with", have "strong ties to" or had membership relations (were members of, had as members, shared members with) legitimate subjects of the article.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

NLFT are fundamentalist Christian?

According to the constitution for the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the groups goals and ideology seems to reflect along socialist and nationalist lines than Christian fundamentalism.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/documents/papers/nlft_const.htm

Additionally, the group's charter explicitly says that Tripurans of any creed may join their ranks:

MEMBERSHIP :

(a) Any person irrespective of caste, sex or creed who is dedicated to what is best in the traditional culture and belief of the Country and subscribing to the aims and objectives of the party's subject to his/her subscribing the aims and objectives of the party and to the rules and regulations hereafter.

While I acknowledge that the same website does claim that the group has since broken up - with the split supposedly occurring over the controversy of alleged forced conversions of Hindus to Christianity, the article on Wikipedia does not seem to differentiate between the NLFT that is secular and the break away group that supposedly is trying to create a Christian theocracy and force Hindus to convert to Christianity.

Indeed, this claim seems, to an extent, to trace back to a BBC article from 2002 which claimed the manifesto of the NLFT calls for the establishment of a Christian theocracy when no such claim in their manifesto exists - which is linked to above for anyone to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.164.160 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the link given(http://tripurasociety.org/religion.htm), the Tripura are Hindus, not Christians; the only reference to Christianity in the article is that one of their symbols resembles a Christian cross. What's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia examples - removed

I've removed the Indonesia examples because they are pretty weak and in my mind don't have anything but a weak association to the title of this article.

First,

The Holland-based Republik Maluku Selatan sought to create an independent South Moluccas out of a part of Indonesia that was culturally different from the Muslim majority country."

This was a movement, so at the very least it should be made clear that the events were primarily decades ago. In addition, many past supporters of separatism were Muslims while most Christians today do not support it; support crossed religious lines then and now. Also, if the article itself (on Republik Maluku Selatan) doesn't have information on how there was a Christian religious motivation for violence or terrorism or how it was primarily Christians involved against other religions, and we can't be bothered to describe the connection in this article here, it belongs on the talk page for now, especially without a source.

Second,

"Likewise the Free Papua Movement seeks an independent Republic of West Papua because of cultural dissimilarities with Indonesia."

Is this even a Christian organization? Christian isn't even mentioned in the article. Again, nothing about being inspired against other religions, or by the bible. And no source either. Ufwuct (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I agree with the removal. I personally don't know anything about it, but I followed the internal links to those movements, and I don't see anything about religion on our pages about them. Given the lack of sourcing, it's probably best to leave this deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

sources

for controversial claims, or really anything thats been challenged per WP:BRD, needs to be addressed. if the sources exist they should cited here as asked. Please cite them if they exist becasue the allegation seems dubiousLihaas (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is sourced to Inside terrorism.[7] However it seems to be an obscure topic and most of the naterial in the article is original research.[8] TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I think that Lihaas was referring, specifically, to this: [9], not to the page in general. My thinking in that series of edits was that there are links to other pages where, I think, the sourcing is present. But I think now that Lihaas' request is fair enough, and I'll look to add those sources inline when and if I add those words back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, and then feel free to add RS cited content.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition back is okay, ive not problem with is, but can we cite who alleges the case of it being "antisemitic" and "fascist" obviosuly hthe 2 are loaded words and defined by different people in various ways.(Lihaas (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

Done, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some recent edits

About this and this, it seems to me that, for one thing, it's a contradiction to talk about "terrorist militias". Of course, as stated in the first edit summary, "terrorist militias" whatever they are "are no way organized", but are they really militias if they are "no way organized"? I'm not objecting to calling them terrorists, but to claiming that there is such a thing as "terrorist militias". Also, please look carefully at those edits: they also have the effect of reverting edits I made to the section, unrelated, about Timoty McVeigh, which, without explanation, appears simply to be an erroneous removal of sourced information, as now agreed to by a third editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I note that there have been some further conflicting edits. I'd like to encourage everyone involved to discuss it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: #Lebanon section: removed, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts

The following groups should be considered for removal, on a case-by-case basis:

• Continuity Irish Republican Army

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism

• Irish National Liberation Army

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, Marxism

• Irish People's Liberation Organisation

Type: Paramilitary

Ideology: Irish republicanism, Irish nationalismt

• Iron Guard

Type: Political, paramilitary

Beliefs: Romanian Orthodox

Origin(s): Founded by an ex-leader of the National-Christian Defense League

Ideology: Ultranationalism, fascism, antisemitism

• Lord's Resistance Army

Type: Militancy

Beliefs: Christian syncretism (Christianity, Mysticism, Islam, Ugandan traditional religion, and witchcraft)

Origin(s): Holy Spirit Movement, Uganda People's Democratic Army

Ideology: Ugandan nationalism, religious nationalism (contested)

Goals: Remove current Ugandan administration; end oppression of the Ugandan/Acholi people; restore competitive multi-party democracy in Uganda; end human rights violations against Ugandans; restore peace and security in Uganda; ensure unity, sovereignty and economic prosperity to all Ugandans; end NRA policies that repress dissidents; establish a constitution based on laws that reflect the Ten Commandments (contested)

• Loyalist Volunteer Force

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• National Liberation Front of Tripura

Type: Militancy

Origin(s): Splinter group formed by an ex-leader of the Tripura National Volunteers

Ideology: Tripuri nationalism

Goals: Secede from India; establish an independent ethnic (Tripura) state; attain liberation from neocolonialism; instill consciousness against exploitation; secure furtherance of indigenous Tripura culture; unify all tribal political parties

• Nagaland Rebels

Ideology: Various; primarily Naga nationalism

• Official Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Provisional Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Real Irish Republican Army

Ideology: Irish republicanism

• Red Hand Commandos

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• Russian National Socialist Party

Ideology: Neo-Nazism, Russian ultranationalism, non-Marxist socialism

• Russian National Unity

Type: Political, paramilitary

Ideology: Russian ultranationalism

• Ulster Defence Association

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

• Ulster Resistance

Ideology: Irish unionism

• Ulster Volunteer Force

Ideology: Irish unionism, Ulster loyalism

Consensus must be established on how to handle groups that are primarily engaged in ethnic and secular struggles. Many of these organizations are largely described as being motivated by causes unrelated to Christianity.

To compare and contrast, the Army of God openly admits that it sanctions violence based on its interpretation of Judeo-Christian values. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, on the other hand, seeks to establish a socialist state and secede from the United Kingdom.   — C M B J   22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the violence in Northern Ireland is a question of Occupation. The Conflict between the Catholics and Protestants is only a conflict of religion on the surface. Identifying the "other" by their religion came about long after the beginnings of the Occupation by the English Aristocracy and the subsequent "Ulster Plantation" which transplanted the ethno-religious group later referred to as the "scotch-Irish." Furthermore, when our man inserted:

Sweeney argued that self-immolation, in the form of hunger strikes by Irish republicans, was religiously motivated and perceived. He wrote: "The Rising catapulted the cult of self-sacrifice to centre stage of twentieth century Irish militant politics in a strange marriage of Catholicism and republicanism. A religious and a sacrificial motif can be detected in the writings of those who participated in the 'bloody protest'".

Brian O'Higgins, who helped in the rebel capture of Dublin's General Post Office in O'Connell Street, recalled how all the republications took turn reciting the Rosary every half hour during the rebellion. He wrote that there "was hardly a man in the volunteer ranks who did not prepare for death on Easter Saturday [sic] and there were many who felt as they knelt at the altar rails on Easter Sunday morning that they were doing no more than fulfilling their Easter duty - that they were renouncing the world and all the world held for them by making themselves worthy to appear before the Judgement Seat of God... The executions reinforced the sacrificial motif as Mass followed Mass for the dead leaders, linking them with the sacrifice of Christ, the ancient martyrs and heroes, and the honoured dead from previous revolts... These and other deaths by hungerstrike transformed not only the perceived sacrificial victims but, in the eyes of many ordinary Irish people, the cause for which they died. The martyrs and their cause became sacred."

Sweeney went on to note that the culture of hunger strikes continued to be used by the Provisional IRA to great effect in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in a revamped Sinn Fein, and mobilising huge sections of the Catholic community behind the republican cause.

The major problem with this statement is how ignorant it is of the origins of the Hunger Strike in Ireland. This is a tradition that dates back to Brehon Law in Ireland. If a man of a higher status in the community had wronged a "lesser" member of the community the practice of positioning yourself in front of his home and refusing to eat was the strongest way to call attention to your grievance and also the quickest way to secure redress in most cases. The logic being, if you would let your fellow man starve due to your pride, your status in the community was very quickly lowered. (Burnsie27 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

• "I concur, the violence in Palestine is a question of Occupation." - Why don't you see how far that gets you on Talk:Islamic_terrorism?
• I like it how every group is "Nationalist not Christian"! And yet... The Iron Guard were overtly religious, and they based their entire organisation on religious ideology. The Lord's Resistance Army justify their atrocities with passages from the Bible, and want to replace the Constitution of Uganda with the Ten Commandments. The NLFT have converted entire villages to Christianity at gun-point, and the Church have admitted supplying them with money and weapons. etc. etc.
• Anyway, I'm sure you can construct some excuse as to why the Army of God should be removed from the article ("they commit violence because they are anti-abortionists, not Christians!"). Why don't you just go ahead and delete the whole article? 129.215.37.163 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that you jest, because Hindu terrorism actually was deleted.   — C M B J   03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that groups relating to the Northern Irish troubles (PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, UDA, etc.) should be removed, as the root of the conflict is based on secular political goals and ethnic division. Although the ethnic and political divisions are casually identified based on the religions of each community, the disagreement between these paramilitaries is not rooted in religious doctrine. The difference is based on the fact that the Irish of Ulster before plantation had not been converted from Catholicism during the Tudor dynasty, while Scottish and English migrants to Ulster who arrived later during the plantation of Ulster had already been converted. Therefore the religious divisions were useful in identifying whose ancestors had been displaced during plantation and whose had done the displacing, thereby signaling one's political relationship with Britain in accordance with land interests. The divergent aims of Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries were concretely secular; they were paramilitaries who (generally) happened to be Christian.

I also agree that the reference to hunger strike should be removed as 'evidence' of a Republican religious motive. The act may have appealed to the concept of martyrdom but the practice is entirely rooted in the Gaelic traditions of Brehon law which is in accordance with the Republican value for Irish nationalism. Kilkeel (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Kilkeel

I'm going to go ahead and delete the Northern Ireland section of this page; it's been a while since this was suggested and there haven't been any comments against it, while there have been a number in favor. There seems to be a consensus, and the facts support the view, that the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the belligerents involved were motivated by secular political and social issues. Theological differences are not at all at the forefront as defined by the introduction of the Christian Terrorism article. The section as a whole is written more as a thesis than as a statement of facts. Kilkeel (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

Christanic Terrorism in Iraq

not a WP:FORUM + WP:NOTSOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article will never be complete so long as there are defenders and supporters of Christianic terrorism editing the entry. The crimes against humanity and treason that the Bush regime and his fellow Christian terrorists committed against the people of Iraq and those Christian terrorists who are still raping, torturing, and slaughtering Iraqis will never be allowed to be enumerated here since Christian terrorist simpathizers won't allow it. Over one million dead Iraqi citizens due to Christianity's latest wave of religious atrocities committed in the name of their gods. Let's have some perspective here. The Christian terrorists who murder people in ones and twos are utterly insignificant compared to the Christianic terrorism against brown people in foreign countries. Yes, Islamic terrorism and Israeli terrorism are very bad, but Christian terrorists rape and kill far more innocent people than their Islamic colleagues could ever pray to Allah to accomplish. A little truth in WikiPedia would be welcome. Of course Christian piles of shit won't allow it. Fredric Rice (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Western troops aren't in Iraq because of Christianity, they are in Iraq to establish a Western friendly government which will help to secure and stabilize global oil supplies. The one thing that you appear to be right about is that there are Christian editors who have undermined this article - after checking the history I can confirm that this article used to be much more balanced and informative e.g. this older version of the article contains over 150 references. It seems that a small number of individuals (one of who self-identifies as a Christian attending a religious school) have slowly removed most of the content, usually with the excuse that the groups are partly "nationalist". From reading the discussion archives it appears that the point has already been brought up that the Islamic terrorism article includes such groups - Chechnyan and Caucasus separatists, secular Ba'athist groups, even Hezbollah which was formed primarily as a separatist group fighting a foreign occupying military. Such bias is to be expected, it is known as observational bias. The majority of English language Wikipedia editors are of white Christian ethnic origins, so it is not surprising that in controversial articles there will be a bias towards that view point (indeed, it would be more surprising to find that there were no bias). I expect the Arabic language articles on Wikipedia are similarly slanted more towards a point of view that originates from a majority Muslim ethnic background, German language articles will represent a more Germanic point of view, etc. There is nothing that can really be done about this - it is an inherent problem of multiple writers that share a common language/cultural/ethnic background (ideally writers would be randomly selected from different cultures and locations, but that is not possible given the constraints of Wikipedia). So, sorry, but that's just the way it is. Nathaniel Black (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, but the man that is at the head of all this, Bush, has declared that "god" told him to invade Iraq. pjh3000 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Iraq war was waged in order to convert or attract Iraqi citizens to Christianity, nor is there any evidence that a significant number of the troops that have been or are deployed there believe they are fulfilling a religious obligation. The Iraqi constitution that was approved in 2005 defines the country as an Islamic one, and the current Iraqi national assembly is almost entirely Muslim. End of story. --Jamieli (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC) citation please? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Of course the war crimes against the people of Iraq were and are Christanic terrorism. Witness the Christanic terrorist ideologies spewed by the Bush regime and pay particular attention to William Boykin, Robertson, and the Christanic simpathizers on FOX "News." http://returngood.com/2008/08/04/thoughts-on-gen-boykins-christian-justification-for-violence/ http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/patprophecy.asp The war crimes against Iraq were committed to seize control of Iraq's oil, absolutely, however the Christanic religious extremists undeniably sought such atrocities under the arena of "fighting Satan." Denial that the Iraqi war crimes and terrorism were Christanic terrorism is one of the reasons why Christanic terrorism continues to be the worse in the world. Slobodan Milošević's war crimes resulted in him being captured and put in prison, and Milošević's terrorist atrocities were equal to the Bush regime's. His faction was one of seven Christanic factions committing terrorism and war crimes in Lebanon at the time and he was jailed for it. The current crop of Christian terrorists still running free in the United States committed the same crimes and terrorism that Milošević did, all predicated upon their religious ideologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87 Christanic terrorism is far, far worse than Islamic or Israeli terrorism which is admittedly very bad. At the same time the Christanic terrorism committed in the Southern hemisphere of the world under the auspics of the "School of the America" continues to be the world's worse Christianic terrorist training camp. http://soaw.org/ Also don't forget that for the past 250 years or so, crimes committed by Islamic and Isreali terrorists were treated as just that: crimes. When Islamic terrorists committed attacks against the United States, hijacked aircraft, and committed other related crimes, the United States successfully handled each incident under the dictates of the law, resulting in an extensive draw-down of such acts through cooperative police work. At the same time you may recall that political factions routinely hijacked aircraft to Cuba and other destinations in South America, vieing for political and religious recognition, all of which was denied by the United States, all of which was treated as law enforcement issues -- not religious or political. One of the major complaints of the Islamic terrorists based in Saudi Arabia was that the United States refused to see their (the Islamic terrorists') acts as predicated in some Titanic religious stuggle of good against evil. For two Centuries the United States successfully treated Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem specifically to refuse to recognize Islamic and Israeli terrorist acts as a religious war. The Bush regime changed that stance, something that the Saudi Arabian terrorists of September 11'th and all the Islamic loons prior had desperately desired. With the Bush regime's desire to seize control of Iraq's oil came the denial of all the successful political stances of Centuries past, relabeling the law enforcement / crime-and-punishment arena in to the religious, handing Islamic terrorists their most-sought reclassification, allowing the Islamics to realize their hope that America would "wake up" and realize that they were the evil in a religious stuggle that Islamic crazies wanted Americans to accept was occuring. And Bush and his fellow Christainic terrorists did it predicated upon their Christianic religious ideologies first and foremost. The oil was primary however once the people of Iraq started to successfully defend themselves, Christianity's and Islam's endless war against each other became top priority. So long as Christians refuse to accept and admit that their death-centric cult is the worse when it comes to world terrorism, this Wikipedia article will never be allowed to be complete. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Fredric Rice, sounds like you have been sold an awful lot of lies, and you seriously want to believe them. "Death-centric cult"? Do you even know a Christian? Have you so much as read the Bible? If not, you might be interested in this passage: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to anyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you...Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:27-31, 36. There are many, many more verses commanding Christians to always show kindness, even to people who despise them. Nothing remotely close to ordering death to those who do not convert. You claim mass killings and rape of Iraqis committed by Christians, but can you name even one incident? On the other hand, I can name off the top of my head quite a few terrorist acts perpetrated my Islamists, mostly against Christians. The following are some examples: 1. America, September 11, 2001 (death toll: nearly three thousand) 2. In Alexandria, Egypt, twenty-three parishoners are incinerated by a Shahid suicide bomb attack on New Year's Eve during church mass. Seventy-seven are injured. 3. On December 30, 2010 in Helmand, Afghanistan, the Taliban bomb a minibus packed with civilians, taking down at least fourteen. 4. On Christmas day 2010 in Bejaur, Pakistan, forty-seven people lined up for emergency food were blown into bits by a female suicide bomber. Children are among the dead. 5. December 24, 2010, at least eighty-six Christians were killed in a series of Islamic attacks, mostly targeting Christmas Eve services. Located in Jos, Nigeria. Seventy-four injured. I could continue on listing them, but I won't. There have been over sixteen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since the 9/11. That is a fact, though there are many who will go to great lengths to deny it all and find some way to point the finger at Christians and Israel. You seem to be one of them. Futhermore, American military forces are not there in the name of this religion, but I'm not going to get into this as another commentor already did so. You know, you go on and on about these alleged "atrocities", but never in any substantial detail. You seem to think that the evil Christian Americans just love tearing up the Middle East, killing Iraqis, and inflicting misery on human beings. I usually try to be polite to people when talking via internet, or just in general, but your claims really make me angry. Get a reality check. You think these soldiers enjoy being thousands of mile away from their friends and families, living in such uncomfortable living conditions, and not knowing for certain if they will live to see another day? Let me tell you, I have been to a Navy ship. Sleeping quarters are cramped and the food is not the best in the world, but these people are willing to sacrifice their comfort in order to protect their country. I hope you rethink what you have said, but there are just some folks who are so grounded in their own oppinions that they will never even consider admitting that they might be wrong. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Motivation

In order to satisfy the definition of christian terrorist it has to be verified that they were acting from their religious beliefs or their adherence to religious dogma. However, where do you place the Northern Ireland troubles, for example? The obvious case can be made that each side use religion as a pretense for their actions, but are doing so disingenuously. How then do you decipher whether they were truly acting from religious motivations, or under the guise of religious motivation? The discussion can sink deeper into the underlying drives that cause people to adhere to religion anyway, so that one could say that in Islamic terrorism, for example, the acts are not so much borne from their adherence to Islam, but from a narcissistic wound that is given voice through their religion. How then to define christian terrorism, islamic terrorism or any form of terrorism in the name of something? Ninahexan (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. An islamic terrorist is not any terrorist who happened to been born into a muslim family. As well a christian terrorist is not any terrorist who happened to been born into a christian family. There should be shown a motivation based on religion. Otherwise a terrorist should not be called islamic or christian or any other religious terrorist. The causation from religion to terrorism should be proven before calling terrorism religious. Uikku (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uikku. The burden of proof must be on the contributor to use cited evidence regarding motivations. But in the case where there is no expert third party consensus on a group or individual's motivations, we have to give their own claims as being either religiously motivated or not the benefit of the doubt. It is for that reason that I disagree with the first part of what Ninahexan wrote regarding Northern Ireland, as the reverse is actually true. You can see on their pages that few Northern Irish paramilitaries claim to be religiously motivated at all. Kilkeel (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

Timothy McVeigh

Any article covering Christanic terrorism should include some of the most notable acts of Christian terrorism such as Timothy McVeigh's mass murdering and the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq.

Also the Klu Klux Klan, Christian Identity, National Vanguard, Save Our State, Vational Alliance, Aryan Nations et al. are all Christian organizations, membership is exclusively Christian and the ideologies of hate and bigotry are perfectly in accord to Christanity. Removing references to acts of Christanic terrorism while demanding "that's not Christianity" is why these Christianic terrorists get away with committing their crimes against us.

Christians pointing at other Christians routinely applaud and defend each other, right up until the mass murder committed in the name of the Christian gods, after which most Christians start demanding, "They weren't Christians."

Any honest article on Christanic terrorism must include the history of Christanic terrorism without religious cultists pointing at each other and denying what their death cult stands for, historically as well as in contemporary times.

Fredric Rice (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the war with Iraq is not religiously based, so therefore it cannot be considered an act of "Christian terrorism." Iraqis were making nuclear bombs which have the potential to cause mass destruction; that is why Americans stepped in and put a stop to it. Secondly, in regards to your reference to "the Christian gods," there is only one God in Christianity. It is a monotheistic religion. That may have merely been a typo, but I thought I'd say something anyways in case it wasn't.

You seem to have a bit of a mix up view on this religion. Maybe you knew someone who claimed to be a Christian but behaved in a less-than-honorable fashion, and I won't deny that there are a few like that out there. However, I believe the majority are good-hearted people. Why don't you read the Bible yourself? Then, even if your oppinions remain the same, you will have a more thorough and educated reason for them.--69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you fail to understand WP's mission. It isn't about what any one editor thinks, it's about gathering and describing the opinions of informed sources. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please be a bit more specific? I'm a little confused by what you mean and how it relates to my previous comment. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As a heads up, I'm going to delete the sentence about Timothy McVeigh. If he is agnostic, as the article itself admits, it should not be classified as Christian terrorism. If anyone disagrees, please tell me why here instead of simply reverting the edit without explanation. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I'm going to explain here and then revert you. You only referred to one-half of what the deleted material said. Not surprisingly amongst people who demonstrate the kinds of behavior that he did, he said contradictory things. You cannot cherry-pick his statement about agnosticism and ignore his other statement about core beliefs. Likewise, we shouldn't simply report his Christian statement and make it sound as simple as that. The correct thing to do is to present—with sourcing—both aspects of what he said. Maybe we can word it better, but simply hitting the delete button is not the solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain why it was reverted. Personally, I don't know why a person would be considered a "Christian terrorist" unless their actions were committed in the name of God. If someone who had been raised Methodist murdered somebody else for money or revenge or any cause other than religious motivation, I don't think it would qualify as "Christian terrorism." That is my understanding of the term. What is your interpretation? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Tryptofish thinks; it doesn't matter what I think; it doesn't matter what you think. WP isn't about primary research so it doesn't matter what any editor thinks. The McVeigh section is cited, including a cite expressing doubt. That's all that counts. --rpeh •T•C•E• 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with what Rpeh said (especially the part about it not mattering what I think!). But my understanding of the source that is cited with regard to his having had "core" beliefs is that the source was saying that these beliefs played a role in his actions. But I also agree as a matter of obeying WP:SYNTH that this page should not include persons simply because of their childhood upbringings. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh (2)

I don't see any reason to leave him in there, since as far as I can tell, his religion was irrelevant to his radical political beliefs. I removed him twice, but was blind-reverted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying that he "adhered to core Catholic beliefs" is not the same as saying that he bombed the Murragh building because of those beliefs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There is an awful lot of stuff like that on here.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Previous discussion: #Timothy McVeigh, above. I guess responding to you involves two aspects: content, and process.

About content, you may be right, in my opinion. It's a subjective call, and I'm ambivalent about it, open to persuasion. A big part of the problem is that, per all the sources available, it's hard to be clear what, exactly, his motivations were. He is documented as saying different things at different times. People who do the kind of stuff he did tend, after all, to be less than lucid in their thinking. But he did say, per sources, that certain Christian teachings were "core" to what he believed.

About process, it wasn't exactly "blind". Another editor, in the talk thread just above this one, expresses strong disapproval of the way in which you made your edits, and I'm sorry to say that I agree. (Please don't get me wrong, I've interacted with you numerous times and I think you do excellent work, but I think you made a mistake in this particular case.) You came to this page as an administrator and semi-protected it (which I agree with strongly). But you then made content edits, just after making it impossible for non-autoconfirmed editors who also wanted to do so. That's the kind of thing that creates bad will between administrators and the broader community. Let's also note that none of this was BLP or COPYVIO type stuff where consensus is that corrections need to be made ASAP. I made an edit that I still stand behind: simply taking the page back to where it was about 24 hours previously, just before the edit wars had started, and I asked editors to take this to talk, and I'm happy to see that this is now happening. Instead of insisting that you get your way on that edit immediately, you too could have taken it to talk (as of course you now have), instead of arguing for, in effect, taking everything except your own edit back 24 hours. Who knows, some of us, maybe even me, might end up agreeing with you about the content, after we discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree re Timothy McVeigh, though I don't have extensive knowledge on the subject, but it is difficult to know what his motivations were. Probably mostly to do with the Waco siege, and his anger at the FBI. On the one hand he said he held to "core" catholic beliefs, on the other he didn't believe in hell - a core catholic belief surely. At another time he said "science was his religion". He was also influenced to some extent by the Turner Diaries novel whose author was a white separatist and held a very syncretic set of beliefs.DMSBel (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear that we aren't going to get a coherent answer from what McVeigh said himself. It ends up being a matter of making a good faith effort to decide what the secondary sources have said about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking at my copy of Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill by Jessica Stern, and I see a chapter where she discusses radical Christian writings about the apocalypse as motivating acts of terrorism, and she says on page 27 that McVeigh "was a fan of the book" and "slept with a copy under his pillow." I need to read more, but this looks like it may be a more useful source than what we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if the book was accessible online. I have looked it up on Amazon, but I am not sure which chapter you are refering to. The Turner Diaries is not a christian writing though. The author William Luther Pierce was not a christian. According to the article here on Wikipedia he founded his own religion "He is also the founder of "Cosmotheism", a religion based on white racialism, pantheism, eugenics, and National Socialism." And the extent of the book's influence on McVeigh would be difficult if not impossible to find out: that he was reading it is known, that the fictional book describes an attack on the FBI is known. That McVeigh was interested in weapons is also known, do we know anything beyond that regarding his reasons for being interested in the novel (that isn't subjective speculation)?. Stern's book certainly should not be ignored. But we need to use more than one source here. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)(late sig) DMSBel (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really see no reason to keep McVeigh in at the present time, and agree with Sarek. If something new and reliable comes up that's another matter, but at present we have no grounds at all to refer to him as a "christian terrorist". He is already listed under Lone wolf (terrorism). Is there anyone still objecting to removing him from this page? DMSBel (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

His motivation seems very vague and convoluted, tbh. I'm sure if there is enough evidence he'll get shunted back at some point. If you are sure it doesn't fit and it's already covered I have no objections. :)

Ion Zone (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I need a bit more time to read about this. (And about the Lone wolf link, please remember WP:CIRCULAR.) If I think that sources support inclusion, I'm going to put him back in with better sourcing, but it doesn't really matter if he's deleted in the mean time. As a gesture of good faith to those of you who are dissatisfied with including him, I'm going to go ahead and delete him myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, I did not want to rush ahead and delete.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is some commentary which also mentions McVeigh, interestingly it mentions that co-conspirator Terry Nichols, "found God" in prison (after the bombing). [[10]]

Nichols found God in prison, but when you look at the record of how the Oklahoma City bombing came about, it's clear that religion was not a significant factor. Neither McVeigh nor Nichols ever showed the slightest interest in religion prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. Neither man was devout. Neither man proselytized, and neither was associated with any religious congregation or visibly a member of any religious sect.

It's true that the conspirators had allies in the Christian Identity movement. But every indication that can be gleaned from the record -- including the trial transcripts, interviews and other research -- strongly argues that McVeigh and Nichols acted primarily out of anti-government sentiment User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but I think that source is a blog, and as such, fails WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what source do you have that says his religion _did_ play a part in the bombing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you haven't been reading this talk, or seeing what I deleted from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. Thanks for the good faith gesture I missed above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're very welcome. Look folks (everyone, not pointing at Sarek for this), there is way too much anger and way too little calm discussion going on here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was a blog, but they are sometimes allowed if they are by an expert, the author JM Berger has reported, produced content and spoken on camera about terrorism for the National Geographic Channel, National Public Radio, Public Radio International, Al Jazeera and other U.S. and international television outlets. So I think he is an expert See here also [[11]] DMSBel (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist Issues

there are several inherent issues with the term christian terrorists. these issues stem from the issues with the definitions of both the word Christian and terrorism. Most terrorists, especially modern Christian ones, hold beliefs outside the mainstream, so that many that oppose them don't consider them Christians. Of course another issue is the difference between terrorists that are christian, and christian terrorists. Also, since religious terrorists these days rarely attack just because of religious reasons, it complicates things. as for issues with defining terrorism read terrorism anyway, I think these issues should be addressed by adding more information, like noting the mainstream reaction of Christians to the beliefs and their extremity. I think any terrorist group which identifies it self with as explicitly religious and Christian, should be considered a Christian terrorist group. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing should be clear: You cannot wait to prove a religious motivation to say "Christian terrorism" any more than you can for "Islamic..." or any other. Motivations can be fickle. We say we fight for democracy, freedom and other lofty ideals, when in fact we wage war to protect our material interests--oil is one. The perpetrators of 9/11 gave their acts a religious color, when in fact their motive was to avenge the destruction of Iraq and Palestine. Any violence emanating from a predominantly Christian nation, or Christian group, should be considered Christian terrorism.

Furthermore, who are you and I to decide who is a true Christian? All of Europe is White Christian, even though it has the secular Angela Merkel and the agnostic Nicolas Sarkozy.Kalm90046 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This Article is illegitimate and should be removed

Terrorist activities of any kind have absolutely no place in the new testament of the Bible. The problem with this article is the word "Christian" which denotes someone who follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles of the new testament. This makes any acts of terrorism an illegitimate expression of Christianity, if one were to engage in these acts they would be apostate. There is not one legitimate form of Christianity worldwide that would embrace or tolerate this practice.

The groups that perpetrate these actions are cults and while they might use the name of Jesus, they are not following his life and teachings. Individual people who, for instance, hear teaching on the abortion agenda and go out and threaten or kill abortionists also have strayed away from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is nothing "Christian" about these actions.

If someone in the US Army flew off the handle and started murdering innocent people, this would not be considered a legitimate action of the US Army. This person would have completely left their position in the Army to do such a thing, the Army would never have condoned it. Even if they had orders and just twisted the meaning to say it meant to kill innocent people, that is totally unacceptable. But if this happened should we write an article called US ARMY Terrorism? Absolutely not, the US Army did not institute this or have anything to do with it.

I would ask the MODERATOR to consider one of a few options to clear this up

1. Merge this article with any other article on Wikipedia that discusses terrorism perpetrated by cult groups, and rename it CULT TERRORISM. None of the groups listed are legitimate Christian groups or are recognized as legitimate by the Church at all.

2. Remove the article completely. It's poorly written and misleading. If any of the actual factual information needs a home it should find it with other cult terrorist articles on Wikipedia.

3. Rewrite the intro paragraph so it is clear that terrorism is completely incompatible with and has no basis in new testament Christianity. Also mention in short all of the groups mentioned are cult groups and are not considered legitimate or are embraced at all to the major expressions of Christianity worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Providenceavenue (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are terrorism articles for most religions. Whether Christian terrorists or extremists are actually christian is too controversial a question to answer on Wikipedia, the important thing is that they did what they did while professing to do it for christianity. The official requirements of being in a religion is down to whether you profess to be or not, not if you follow their morality. If we start sectioning off terrorists acting under the name of christianity as not truly Christian then we could also argue that, say, Catholics or Protestants aren't truly christian. Deftera (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but it creates a serious problem not just in this context but in the writing philosophy of Wikipedia as a whole. Please go look at pages for other religions and sects. Wikipedia is able to describe and distinguish characteristics, practices, and beliefs of religions. For example at the beginning of the "Jehovah's Witness" article on Wikipedia, in the first sentence it makes a statement of distinction in beliefs from mainstream Christianity. It goes on to describe the beliefs and practices of that religion.

To someone with no understanding of Christianity, to read this article would educate them that this is a legitimate expression of Christianity and it's not. That is not clear in this article. At this point the article fails to do what it's supposed to do and ends up being indoctrinating a false understanding of Christianity. I found this article because someone posted a link in a news article discussion about a Christian organization and tried to use this page as a reference point for mainstream Christianity. This article is already being used to misrepresent the church, if you agree this is not the intended purpose of the article then something must be done to clarify this point. The article is about cult groups and fanatics that are apostate.

In this article we have 2 major problems

1. The name of the article. Terrorism is not Christian practice as described by Wikipedia. Are these descriptions of actions that are legitimate Christian practice? The answer is NO. Could it then be entitled instead, "Terrorism by people/groups who are Christian" ? NO, because mainstream Christianity clearly rejects this practice.

Cult Terrorism is a much better title. Even while these groups could use the name of Jesus or call themselves Christian, their beliefs and practices are so radically different than mainstream Christianity and it's Denominations, that it clearly fits the description of cult activity.

2. The article needs a clear distinction cited that these groups and individuals actions are not legitimate expressions of Christianity and are not accepted by mainstream Christianity.

---

providenceavenue

There's a difference between different denominations of a religion and religious terrorism. Wikipedia tries to stay away from promoting any viewpoints, especially theological ones, and adhere to a neutral point of view. While morally it may not be true, these terrorists are Christians by the technical definition of the term (they believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, etc.) so Wikipedia has to report that. As I said before, if we start saying that certain groups aren't christian then where do we draw the line? We could say then that Fred Phelps isn't a christian, and then the American Family Association and other homophobic groups, then maybe even the Vatican; it just goes on and on. Also these groups may not meet the official definition of cult, so labelling them as one would be against Wikipedia policy. Deftera (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, and to sign your name at the end of a talk page post just type a space then four tildes (~))

Also, the way that Wikipedia works, we do not remove content because someone doesn't like it. We decide these things based on what secondary sources say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article doesnt have to be here because there are such article for other religions. The context for the page is as such that the NSCN-IM explicitly states what it wants to found. so do the South Moluccan (although that is poorly sourced on wikipedia). as does the militia in MI some months ago.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical

According to the definition given at the beginning of this article, it occurs to me that there is room to include the Crusades in this article. Any thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's hard to equate state military actions with terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Crusades began as the counteraction of a Turkish invasion. After about the third (or sooner even) you could probably class it as a bunch of lords, barons, kings, and others using the idea of a noble cause as an excuse to go off on what you might term a rather aggressive form of tourism. It was all a big mess, really, didn't have much to do with terrorism or religion beyond the actual (real legitimate) attempts to retake the Holy Lands (as opposed to all the attempts that 'missed', shall we say).

Ion Zone (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rudolph

Another editor and I have been disagreeing about whether Eric Rudolph should be included on the page. I very much appreciate the importance of WP:BLP. I also realize now, on looking more carefully at the sources, that I made an error in an edit summary, where I attributed the Christian terrorist connection to the FBI announcement, which in fact does not address that. However, a citation to CNN that was deleted along with the FBI citation does explicitly discuss this relationship. I would suggest restoring the material with that sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

the CNN source says his MOTHER was involved in these groups, and brought him along years before; it also says Rudolph denies any religious connection. No one has ever shown him active in these groups--although lots of people assumed it before he was captured and testified. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the CNN source begins by emphasizing his mother's connections, but then goes on to present Rudolph himself as buying into the beliefs of the sect, although they do not give examples from his adulthood. I don't see anywhere where that source says that he denied religious connections. I looked at the source cited on his bio page (from the Decatur Daily) to support the statement that he denied religious motivations, and the source itself actually gives a much more ambiguous picture. It says near the end that he said that he only associated with the sect in order to date a women who attended, and that he considers himself a Catholic. It also says at the beginning that he "issued a statement laced with Bible verses to justify bombs...", which hardly fits with a complete absence of religious motivations. Thus, the Decatur Daily does not really contradict CNN, and a plain reading of the CNN report is that CNN, a reliable secondary source, considers the Christianity link to be notable. I can understand the arguments that CNN may be making a sort of SYNTH, but our obligation is verifiability, not truth, and there is no SYNTH on our part to cite the source. What is verifiable is that reliable secondary sources consider part of his motivations to be religious. As for BLP, claiming that he had religious interests is hardly defamatory, given his own conflicting self-descriptions, and compared to all the other things that are not under dispute. I've already indicated that I'm open to including mention of his partial denial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN is a daily news source with a deadline every hour -- it does not pretend to be an in-depth resource. That makes it of marginal value compared to a serious RS like a scholarly book. Here's the major book on the subject--the one cited in the article--it does not mention religion: "Like McVeigh, Rudolph was not himself a white supremacist, but he shared the beliefs and positions of that movement in this instance on issues such as legalized abortion and hatred of global institutions like the Olympic Games that, to Rudolph's mind, promoted the "despicable ideals of global socialism." Hoffman, Inside Terrorism p 138. The CNN headline makes the point he was not connected to any group: "Eric Robert Rudolph: Loner and survivalist Bombing suspect had few ties to society". In his official statement to prosecutors: "Rudolph conceded that for six months in 1984 he attended a church that preached racial separation, but he said he only went because he was dating a woman who went there.... He insisted that he did not buy into the racist ideas preached by the separatist church that he briefly attended. [he said] 'Racial determinism is a day before yesterday idea.'" --that is an explicit denial of a religious motivation(AP report) He also said he had always been a Catholic (the religious sects involved are all Protestant). Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't have the Hoffman book, what you quote simply says that he was not a supremacist, without speaking to religious motivations. Someone can be a loner, and even dislike the groups, while still sharing their ideology. What you say after that is just restating what I said, with different emphases, and racial determinism certainly does not equal Christianity. I don't think that you really refuted what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

before he was captured and gave out his statement there was a lot of speculation about his religion because his mother indeed did have the connections. He insists that he never did --and was always a Catholic --and given the very strict BLP rules, the speculation without solid evidence is not allowed in Wikipedia.Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read BLP, believe me. But there is clear sourcing that he issued a statement filled with Biblical quotations, and he stated that he was Catholic. Just because he wasn't a card-carrying member of those groups doesn't mean he doesn't fit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

quoting the Old Testament perhaps makes him a Jewish terrorist. The link is to a Protestant extremist group his mother was connected to, and people assumed he was a member too, but there is no proof and he denied it. His motivation according to his statements was political--he attacked the Olympics because it was international/unamerican. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A Jewish terrorist who self-describes as Catholic? I think not. His statements included much Biblical content, not just secular political content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Christian terrorism. Unless there is some proof of Christian motives, then Rudolph should be omitted. Likewise, some of the others in the article should be dropped, because they have very little to do with Christianity. Roger (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You need a source that calls him a "Christian terrorist". However I think most sources call him a "right-wing terrorist".[12] TFD (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into sources, which of course is the useful way to go. I'm still reading about this, but Jessica Stern, on page 161 of Terror in the Name of God (a book that ought to be useful generally for helping to evaluate what does or does not belong on this page), talks about Rudolph as being "one of the movement's major heroes", referring to a meeting of Christian extremists, so a more nuanced understanding of the sources may well turn out to be that he is an inspiration amongst Christian terrorist groups that he, himself, does not want to be associated with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Old Testament is the Jewish holy book - The Torah - this is where his Biblical knowledge is coming from.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I had almost forgotten about this thread! Point taken, although Christians generally adopt both Testaments, not just the New one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

About AfDs

I wonder whether there is sufficient literature about this topic to warrant an article. The source used for the lead for example never mentions "Christian terrorism" and I can only find passing references to the term. "Religious extremist terrorism" is of course a valid category supported by writers on terrorism[13] but I do not see that any of these writers break these groups down by religion. Can anyone point to a source that defines and discusses this topic? TFD (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Four Deuces. The History section is also poorly handled--the wars and massacres between Christian groups are very well covered in Wiki. The Huguenot example involved Catholic vs Protestant as did many wars in Europe in the 1550-1650 era. Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the AfD discussion of just a few months ago, linked above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was confused by the AfD combining Islamic terrorism. The combination of articles may have influenced the result because there are numerous terrorist groups that claim to be motivated by Islam and are classified as religious terrorists, while most Christian terrorist groups would probably be classified as right-wing terrorists. In any case, a "keep" at AfD does not mean an article is perfect and we need sources to support the article. What is a Christian terrorist? Who is a Christian terrorist? If the article cannot answer these questions them it is unacceptable. It may be that these sources exist, and have not been supplied. TFD (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The NSCN-IM explicitly states what it wants to found. one can read the RS sourced textLihaas (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Alternative Views" section should be deleted

The 'alternative view' of Daniel Keeran doesn't actually sound like it describes terrorism. The writer describes "radical Christian pacifism" but goes on to describe this model as "a terrorism that calls for the believer to die to save his enemy rather than die to kill his enemy (see Christian martyrs)." It seems that a pacifist by definition can't also be a terrorist, and a follower of this model wouldn't be seeking to create an environment of fear, so this isn't relevant to the article's subject of Christian terrorism. I am not familiar with the source for this section, however, so I don't want to delete this yet if there's any possibility that this is just a poorly written mischaracterization of an otherwise relevant perspective. I looked at the description for this book and it doesn't mention terrorism and supports a pacifist view of Christianity, so even if it is worth discussing, it probably doesn't belong here. If anyone has any further insight on this source it would be useful in deciding whether this section should be deleted: For the time being I'm at least going to get rid of the contradiction that seems to clumsily label this a form of terrorism. Kilkeel (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

You just deleted the entire Northern Ireland section from the article. Since that doesn't appear to be what you intended, I've restored it.

I think you're probably right about the Alternative View section though. It doesn't add anything to the article, and doesn't explain why this one person's view is notable. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was intentional. See the 'Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts' section above. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to delete either. As for the Northern Ireland section, the #Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts thread had, in fact, simply gone stale without any action a long time ago, and that should not be confused with a lack of refutation. There is certainly a case to be made that sources indicate that it was Protestant-vs.-Catholic violence, whether or not there were also secular motivations in play at the same time. As for the Alternative Views section, I think there is something to be said, for the sake of balance, for including Christian thought about anti-violent alternatives. A major advantage in doing so is that, for exactly the same kinds of reasons that we are also discussing Northern Ireland, editors will perennially express concern that this page, like all religion and violence pages, be deleted, in part or in full. Presenting both "sides" of the issue can be helpful in counteracting arguments that the page is an attack page. The problem, instead, seems to me to be a WP:UNDUE focus on a single author. That section should be rewritten to reflect a more balanced selection of Christian thinking about the concept of terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's important to include Christian views on Christian terrorism at all. It's only going to be a mass of excuses. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Sean Hoyland is correct, I did intend to delete the Northern Ireland section of this page for the reasons I discussed under the Ethnic, Political, and Secular Conflicts section. As I said above, the differences in religion between the Unionist and Nationalist communities is based on where each was located during the Reformation, and although religion is essentially used as a shorthand to identify each, the actual roots of the Troubles are not based on theological differences. The theological motivation for terrorism is the basic criteria for inclusion in this article. The discussion had stopped without anyone raising a contrary view so I went ahead and deleted it. The entire content of the section is a list of anecdotal opinions stating that the Troubles are a religious conflict but not why, and then proceeds to draw parallels between Catholicism and Republicanism with out actually making a case for religion being the primary motivation for violence. Loyalist violence is only covered with a single sentence at the end, even though the case for a religious motivation here is somewhat stronger based on Ian Paisley's rhetoric. The discriminatory policies and violence of the RUC and B-Specials is given no coverage whatsoever. In this way the section is one-sided in addition to being a statement of disputable opinion rather than established fact. Almost the entire section is a "some say" presentation of opinion which doesn't have a place here. Correlation is not causation ('Almost all republicans are Catholic, therefore they are republican because they are Catholic,' which is essentially the line of thinking of this section, is not valid reasoning). If you explain why Catholic theology motivates Republican violence you should publish that but the current section is unacceptable as it stands. I'll leave it up for a while until I hear back from you.

As for the inclusion of the Alternative Views section, I'd imagine it would get messy and off-track. Who's to say which alternative opinions are relevant? We could quote some denominations but many would likely be left out, not to mention the opinion of other religions and philosophies. Its best to restrict ourselves to the facts, and if readers want to know the opinions of various groups other than Christian terrorists they should look at the pages of those groups. There is a Christian Pacifism article which voices this alternative view so I think a section within this article about Christian pacifism would be redundant. Also, the Christian pacifism article's 'Alternative Views' section does not represent the views of any violent strain of Christianity, which sets a precedent against representing the views of non-violent Christians in this article. 155.41.24.50 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

Well I wholeheartedly disagree that the NI section should go. It's one of the clearest cases where violence and terrorism have occurred in the name of Christianity. It's not up to the article to explain anything, merely to catalogue what other sources say, which is that the violence in NI is often couched in religious terms by its participants. Could the section be better? Certainly. But that's true of many articles. --rpeh •T•C•E• 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by Christian sects or individuals, the motivation for which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other tenets of faith. They often draw upon Old Testament scripture to justify violent political activities." This is the introduction to this article, which defines Christian terrorism. Regardless of the fact that the nationalists and unionists belong to different religions, varying interpretations of the Bible and theology are clearly not the motivation for violence in the Troubles. The aim of the IRA is not to bring about the supremacy of Catholicism, so it should not be included because its motivations don't have to do with Christian theology. The PIRA's wikipedia article describes its aim as being "to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a United Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion." "It's not up to the article to explain anything"-- I think that is in fact wikipedia's purpose. A number of experts in the article are quoted as saying the conflict is religious but no further EVIDENCE is given. The bottom line is that there has to be evidence for these claims, if the substance of the article doesn't give supporting evidence then we are obliged to give the actual mission statements and demands of each organization the benefit of the doubt. Kilkeel (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

You're doing WP:OR, or possibly WP:SYNTH. It's not WP's job to disagree with experts - it's WP's job to report expert views in a neutral POV. By all means include opinions from other experts who state that the conflict isn't anything to do with religion, but deleting a section because you disagree with the first set of experts is totally wrong. --rpeh •T•C•E• 20:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly haven't forwarded any original research and I have included citations on a number of my comments unlike yourself. The explanations I have made of the conflict as being political rather than religious are also supported in "A Secret History of The IRA," by Ed Moloney, "Rebel Hearts," by Kevin Toolis, and "Ten Men Dead," by David Beresford. Because this is stated in these sources your WP:SYNTH accusation doesn't fit either. As far as consistency between articles this position is supported by the fact that the stated aims of the IRAs described on their main pages, Provisional IRA and Irish Republican Army, don't match the description of Christian Terrorism in the introduction of this article, which is what is at issue for their inclusion. Based on the weight given to a single viewpoint, this article was obviously written to advance the position of its author(s) that the conflict is religious without the counterbalance of the widely held opposing view. It also barely describes the actions of Loyalist paramilitaries or Policing Institutions within its argument. These are both a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It should also take a more dispassionate tone than it does in several instances, and elaborate further on why the conflict is religious. Since there isn't consensus on this issue it is necessary to compromise by including a Northern Ireland section which gives voice to both the religious and secular-political positions, which will require most of it to be rewritten. I'm in college and my books are at home so it will be a while before I can include passages on the views of opposing experts.

There are several passages which are irrelevant to this passage. The hunger strikes originate in Brehon Law and were used in parallel with this Celtic tradition rather than Catholicism (Beresford, Ten Men Dead). The passage noting distinct religious community support leads the reader towards a religious motivation conclusion using correlation-causation logic, and would therefore only be made relevant to the article through WP:SYNTH, otherwise it is an idle fact. The Easter Rising is not an instance of terrorism, so debatable questions of motivation don't even enter into the reasons why the Rising and Pearse section need to be removed.

If you want to respond we should move this discussion back to the Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts section. This section is supposed to discuss the Alternative Views section. Kilkeel (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

"A number of experts in the article are quoted as saying the conflict is religious but no further EVIDENCE is given. The bottom line is that there has to be evidence for these claims, if the substance of the article doesn't give supporting evidence then we are obliged to give the actual mission statements and demands of each organization the benefit of the doubt."

I agree with this, particularly for the Ireland section, there's [| far too much opinion stated as fact], no contrary opinion, no quantification of opinion, and a near-total lack of actual listed examples. The content of the Ireland section (I haven't even really looked at any of the others yet!) appears to be nothing more than a concerted effort to apply a religious motivation to a conflict that doesn't have one. In the face of eight hundred years of history, I might add.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see why it's important to include Christian views on Christian terrorism at all. It's only going to be a mass of excuses"

I will bear this in mind when editing the upcoming 'Atheist Terrorism' page. No atheist views allowed. They're only going to be a mass of excuses, after all.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, threatening edits like that only makes things worse. Let's stick to content, and sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was really just making a point about bigotry and hypocrisy. Sorry

Ion Zone (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that in the edit flurry du jour, Rich Farmbrough has deleted this section. I don't much care about the specifics, but I do want to point out, especially to those who are in high dudgeon about how the page is a "mess", that it may be of value to include some content about Christian opposition to terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It might indeed, but in this article only views on Christian terrorism, and only significant ones at that, should be included, and they could be included regardless of the source (FEMA views on... Islamic views on... Atheist views on...). They might well do better in a separate article entitled Christian views on terrorism, Religious views on terrorism or Religious response to terrorism, since they are likely to blanket views and not specific to Christian terrorism. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Romania

This section could very well be old communist anti-religious propaganda as the communist authorities of the time used the Orthodox Church as scapegoats on a regular basis.

Ion Zone (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree, also nothing in that section actually refer`s to terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, we could shift it to one of the linked articles, maybe, see if anyone wants to do some more research on it? I think we need to have a really good look at all the sections to do with the Orthodox Church in communist countries.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the communist persecution of the church has been described as an act of terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, they certainly had a right go at the poor people. Is terrorism still terrorism if it is state-sanctioned? I suppose it must be if you can have things like state-sanctioned piracy (privateering).

Ion Zone (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is called state sponsored terrorism, I believe there is a wiki article about it. Currently looking through the sources, there is a lot of coatrack and synth here. Tentontunic (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, this is similar to the article Communist terrorism where some editors define it as communism + terrorism and then add anything that intersects. The typology of terrorism has clear definitions and the actions described in this section would not be described as Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There was previous, pretty recent, talk about this at #sources, above (although it might not be obvious at first glance that it's the same topic). Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, we should look at what the sources call it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reading The Terror for the source of the term "terrorism". Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Article Title a Disputed Term

Isn't "Christian Terrorism" a disputed term. Would it not be better to incorporate the content here into Sectarianism? (late sig. apologies) DMSBel (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not doubt that Christian groups have committed acts of terrorism [14] and it certainly meets WP:NOTE as a subject. The article itself as written is however terrible and I shall spend the next few days looking over the sourcing. Some already fails, the article as is, well awful would be the polite way to put it. Tentontunic (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather you than me! One section was bad enough and we haven't seen the end of that yet.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But the term itself is not universally accepted, in much the same way as the term "Islamic Terrorism" is disputed, even though it is indisputable that Islamic groups have also committed attacks of terrorism. So it should be noted that the term is disputed. I agree the article is a near total mess. If ever an article had the potential to be used as a coat-rack this is it. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (late sig. DMSBel (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

The problem with the Islamic Terrorism reference is that hardly anyone distinguishes between real Islamic Terrorism and the political kind, the media especially.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The second book titled "christian terrorism" that comes up in your search above is summarised in the following way: The purpose of the title is to draw attention to the fact that the terrifying things about Jesus are his extreme and radical demands. It is not a terrorism commonly associated with the Islamic form but a spiritual terrorism that causes people to run away psychologically and rationalize as fast as they can in order to avoid the explosive disruption to their way of living and thinking. It is a terrorism that calls for the believer to die to save his enemy rather than die to kill his enemy. It is a terrorism that calls for one to sacrifice himself as Jesus did, for his enemies, for the poor, and for the lost. This is a terrorism of taking up the cross, and so the symbol of this shown on the cover is the figure of Christ on the cross in darkness.... few are willing to see the implications. It will require considerable courage to read this book.

This shows that the term does not always have the connotation of inflicting harm. That author uses the term in a way antithetical to its use in the article title here. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (late sig. DMSBel (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Well that was weird. Is that an advertisement for one of those psudo-theological\philosophical books you see on Amazon or something?

Can't come up with any actual terrorism so they try for abstract and hope nobody will notice.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is standard in the literature. It is a type of religious terrorism, although much less common than other types of religious terrorism. It is sometimes called Christian religious terrorism. It could also be called "Christianity and terrorism". However, whatever the title, we should be consistent along articles about religious terrorism. Also, we should only include groups where we have sources that specifically mention Christian terrorism. The source for the Canada section for example makes no such claim. TFD (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm just confused, are we talking about actual Christian Terrorism or the pretend kind mentioned above?

Ion Zone (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article might be better be re-titled to "Christianity and terrorism", which would allow for a more balanced article, rather than a list of groups some at most so very loosely connected to christianity as to be a splinter group from an fringe group that had disassociated itself from a mainline denomination - as with the Sons of Freedom (Freedomites). 62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)(late sig. DMSBel (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Unless you're going to propose that Islamic terrorism should be moved to "Islam and terrorism", there's no point in continuing this topic. What's appropriate for one set of beliefs is appropriate for another. I see that "Jewish terrorism" redirects to Jewish religious terrorism, which might suggest alternative names, but it's important to treat all religions equally. The whitewash being poured over this article is disgraceful. --rpeh •T•C•E• 04:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember AGF, I was agreeing with TFD's suggestion, I have no objections to the re-titling or re-directing of other articles along the same lines, if there is consensus for that. It just seems like a better way to approach the topic. I personally think that manner of titling is better across all the articles about terrorism, not just this one. Peace DMSBel (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record those are my comments as IP. 62.254.133.139 DMSBel (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me, in the interests of balance and fairness, we need an 'atheist terrorism' page, we can start off with the initial examples of the state-sponsored kind, as discussed earlier. Does the 'Natural Selector' attack count or should it stay under school shootings?

Ion Zone (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ion can you put your sig. just after posts please, ie. on the same line that your comment ends, keeps the talk page tidy and easier to follow. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have dyslexia and I'm trying to use my signature to distinguish between my posts and responses. I'll retract it by a line, but I really need every distinguishing feature I can get here as the Wiki talk system is an outright mess.

Ion Zone (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) DMSBel (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Ion Zone (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a Google Scholar [15] and a Google Books [16] search for the term. Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that every result that came back is a good source for this page. I'm not saying that. But I am pointing out that the term comes up repeatedly in secondary sources (look at all those books where it's part or all of the title!), and perhaps some of these sources will be useful in improving this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking, but bearing in mind how polarising this sort of thing is, particularly with some of the quotes in the NI section, I'm very, very, wary of books like that being used as sources. There needs to be far, far, more emphasis on what the actual groups declare as their reasons, not to mention the history - not some sociologist or psychologist or other who most likely has an agenda, a bias, or a pet theory or some such - not to mention how often these people seem to presuppose a conclusion and work backwards to justify it. The content of the Northern Ireland section is a prime example of this in motion.

Ion Zone (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I, in turn, don't want to sound like I'm objecting to what you said. But a big part of the reason I said this in this talk section, about the questioned validity of the page as a whole (as opposed to of a particular section of the page), is that Wikipedia determines notability in part by whether sources use the term. Look at all the talk throughout this talk page about the need for sources that say, without any whisper of synth, that "Christian terrorism" is an actual subject, not just the creation of an editor's imagination. As for primary versus secondary sources, each has its place, but in fact secondary sources are very important. I take your point that some books can, themselves, be POV, though, and I repeat that I'm not saying that every result in those searches is going to be useful here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I get what you mean, and I don't mean they are all invalid, however we need to be extremely careful about this as it can be extremely easy to satisfy the set criteria while still sourcing books of the type I describe above that push a certain POV and seek to 'prove' it rhetorically and without reference to history or the actual situation. Or are, at least, easy to quote in a way that pushes a POV.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are basically in agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon section: removed

In 1982, Lebanese Christian fighter groups massacred hundreds of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, during the administration of the Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon.

The above was deleted by another editor. Given the amount of disagreement about this section, I'm moving it to talk pending further discussion. Please see also the talk thread #Some recent edits above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion: Given that there is sourcing that it took place, the question is whether it falls within the subject matter of this page. If it was killing of Muslims by Christians in a manner that involved religious identity, I'd support restoring it to the page, but with some re-writing and better sourcing. Also, the relationship to the Israeli government appears to me to be irrelevant to this page. The sourcing already given just mentions it in passing as "Lebanese militiamen". Recent edit summaries by editors other than me have run the gamut from characterizing these as "terrorist militias" to "collateral damage". I hope we can put aside any POVs and find sourcing that can place this, perhaps, somewhere in between. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with this. The BBC is one of the most respected news organisations in the world, and their article clearly states "During the invasion, Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians in two refugee camps under Israeli control." --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at Kataeb Party. I too think increasingly that the material, in some form, should be returned to the page. I'd be happier with sourcing that focuses on the massacre, rather than on Ariel Sharon's illness—the sentence you quote is one made in passing near the end. More broadly, I don't think the controversy over whether or not there was Israeli responsibility should be part of what we write here. Since the page is about Christian terrorism, we should focus on the actions of the Christian individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A better source: [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the recent edit warring was about whether or not to describe the militias as "terrorists". Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why the section was attempted to be removed that too without any kind of information or agreement. I have restored that as there was no consensus. This article is all about terrorism whether of any religion we have to mention. It was clearly done on religious identity and it's apparent that Christian militias sided with Israel with gain strength in Lebanese Civil war and the massacre done at these 2 refugee camps is in no way hidden by anyone. That brutality should be included here. Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, the massacre that occurred is in fact a massacre, no one can deny that. Yet a shadow still remains on whether it was the then Israeli Minister of Defence Ariel Sharon who masterminded it or if it was backed by Syrian intelligence (syrian troops inexplicably cleared the area days earlier). On the other hand one shadowy figure stands tall : Elie Hobeika who according to recent revelations by Robert Hatem _ a militiaman who witnessed the massacre_ , the Lebanese militias were duped by Hobeika who was implementing Syrian orders at the time and that Sharon gave explicit orders to avoid civilian casualties but his orders were disregarded by the militias' field commanders (yessss, i find it hard to believe myself). Whether it was Israel, Syria, Hobeika or the green martians monkeys who masterminded this massacre is not relevant, what i want to say is the carnage was not driven by religious animosity rather by political intrigue that tied the gruesome warring factions together. If one can still be objective on Wikipedia, this massacre should not be included in this article. Eli+ 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On a second note, the massacre was not motivated neither by Christian scriptures, nor by Christain beliefs, this is a point that i failed to make clear earlier, thus this section must be removed i believe. I should stress again that the massacre was politically driven not to mention that the Palestinians and the Lebanese nationalists were in a state of war.Eli+ 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Question - Are there reliable sources that call them Christian terrorists or their actions Christian terrorism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that same question. According to the BBC here [18], the violence was carried out by "Christian militiamen", and is described as "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I think that, without WP:SYNTH, it is reasonable to consider this to be violence equivalent to terrorism (and, thus, potentially within the scope of this page), carried out by Christians. But, per WP:LABEL, I'd rather use a direct quote from a source such as this, instead of calling them something like "terrorist militias" or "terrorist fighters", as has happened in some earlier revisions by me and others. Then, the question becomes whether the motivation was in some way Christianity-related. Looking at Sabra and Shatila massacre and Kataeb Party, it seems to me that the perpetrators had a very clear identity as Maronite Christians, while the immediate motivations for their violence against Muslim Palestinians, in reaction to the assassination of Bachir Gemayel, are ambiguous with respect to religion (see also: Sabra and Shatila massacre#Opinions on Hobeika's responsibility). On balance, I think it's reasonable to have a carefully worded treatment of it here, which we probably don't have with the version on the page now. And, as I said earlier, I think that it is way off-topic to include direct mention of the (Jewish) Israeli government, although we should probably include a "main article" link to Sabra and Shatila massacre, where that aspect is examined in detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that without sensible sources that label the militiamen as terrorists or the acts as terrorism or report someone else applying those labels that we could attribute the statements to, it's not possible to even consider including it. These 'X terrorism' articles with their label/point-of-view-based titles are inherently problematic but if we are going to have them I think we are obliged to employ strict inclusion criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Notice. It just occurred to me that all editors involved with this section of the page need to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction, which, I think, clearly applies here (but not to the rest of this page). Ignore it at your own risk! Going forward, I may report any edit warring to WP:AE. Thanks in advance for cooperating. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - (I was invited to comment here by Elie plus, whom I have worked with in the past on articles in the Lebanon topic area.) Does this article include terrorist activities performed by Christians, or terrorist activities performed because the perpetrator was Christian? That seems to be an issue for almost every event described in this article, and something which should be addressed on a broader scale (including articles on Muslim and Jewish terrorism as well). My personal belief is that all three articles should only include terrorist attacks performed because of the perpetrators religion, which needs to be established for this event. Second, I somewhat agree with Tryptofish - if reliable sources describe the attack as a "terrorist" attack, then it can be included. Not all massacres are terrorist attacks, and to include it here without a reliable source describing it as a terrorist attack would violate WP:SYNTH. ← George ^talk 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at sources. I've been looking at sources, with a view to trying to address the issues discussed above. Let's start by looking at the sources cited now on the page, which appear to me to have been copied here from another page. There are four:

1. The first is a BBC report on Ariel Sharon going home from a hospital: [19]. As I have said above, I do not consider it a useful source, because it only mentions the massacre in passing, at the end. In contrast, I suggest above that we instead use this BBC report: [20]. It identifies the persons committing the massacre as "Christian militiamen", and it describes the event as "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
2. The second is a transcript of a longer BBC report: [21]. It's a very detailed (and unpleasant) read. It includes descriptions of things like all the perpetrators wearing crucifixes and such, and the BBC reporter refers to "the Phalangist terror".
3. The third simply says "Harbo, 1982", and should be deleted unless we can identify what it is.
4. The fourth is a United Nations resolution, but is a dead link. I found the correct link to that resolution here: [22]. It says that the General Assembly "Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide."

I think that, if we source it with these improvements, we are justified in saying that there was, at least, an ethnically Christian character of this incident, but not a theological or doctrinal one. Are we justified in considering it terrorism? It's worth looking at Definitions of terrorism, which in my reading only tells us that the term is a difficult one to define. I've Googled "difference between terrorism and genocide", which mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors, but does give a conference outline from Yale: [23], which seems to indicate that scholars consider genocide and terrorism to be overlapping concepts, with a poorly-defined border between them. (I'm just pointing that out to help us evaluate how to cite the U.N. resolution, not that we need to cite the Yale document on the page.)

In my opinion, this is enough to justify including the material on this page, but it needs to be rewritten. It should focus only on what the Christian Phalangists did, and omit what the Jewish Israelis did (but link to Sabra and Shatila massacre using Template:Main at the top of the section). It should refrain from using the word terrorist, per WP:LABEL, but instead quote directly from the U.N. and some of the BBC; we need to discuss what to quote. It seems to me that to claim that it is genocide and a massacre, but not terrorism, fails common sense, and it is not a problem with respect to WP:SYNTH to include the massacre on this page. At least that's a general outline of what I think we should do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Another source: here is an article by Noam Chomsky, in which he explicitly refers to the massacre as "terrorism": [24], so we could perhaps attribute it to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(About my reasoning for the POV tag, aside from the general issues discussed here, I think the current wording is POV with respect to including Sharon (not Christian and not relevant), and in using excess adjectives like "brutal" in the sentence about genocide. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

Comment. I believe this section should be restored into the article. There are enough reliable source for it and there isn't any disagreement about the incident itself, just there might be disagreement about details.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tryptofish - I appreciate your efforts put in to make the section in particular and entire article in general better. Nevertheless please note that your reasoning for reinstating the POV tags do not apply here. Neutrality is targeted when the section reflects viewpoint of an unreliable sources. We have multiple references cited there, perhaps you may not categorize BBC as neutral one however UN references and other has been included as well. Secondly you raised concerns over involvement of Sharon and his religion. It does not matter whether Sharon is Christian or Jewish. Its argued that the separatists of Punjab Khalistan movement were funded by Pakistan though adhering to different religion. At the time of massacre Christians killed Palestinians because they were Muslims and Sharon backed it because they were Palestinians so that reflects the common enemy perspective for both. I hope you understood. Thanks. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you who does not understand. I'll let things sit for a few days, and give other editors a chance to comment, but I think you misunderstand both what I said directly above about POV and about sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand from which angle you accuse me of not understanding however you advocate POV for two reasons first the wording of Sharon [Not Christian Not Relevant] and then use of word 'brutal'. The usage of those wording is factual and denotes Sharon as the supporter of Christian perpetrators of that genocide, off-course if you want to rephrase the sentence by removing the word brutal I have o problem. But since we have an option to remove the word without hampering the meaning of the sentence its better to do so rather than tagging POV. Thanks.Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit to source the material as above. I think it takes into account the comments made in this talk, and I hope it's an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does "ethnically maronite Christians" mean???? + South Lebanon Army was not comprised solely of Christians, it was dominated by Shia especially in it's later years. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't. I am removing the reference to ethnicity cos it makes no sense. Eli+ 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note the subsequent edits I made, and please read WP:CIVIL while you are at it. This page is called Christian terrorism, so we need to make clear the connection to Christianity. We can remove the mention of the South Lebanon Army that you added. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

About your further revert, please note that there is (was) sourcing that the militias were Maronites. This is a page about Christian terrorism. And adding the (Jewish) Israeli forces is inappropriate, not because it isn't verifiable, but because it isn't relevant to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And I also want to note this earlier edit summary: [25], which suggests editing from a position other than NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all there is no where found that the massacre was carried out by those Christians who were associated with South Lebanon Army rather it was done by Phalangists, also nowhere its found that SLA had Shia members in it. I shall be removing SLA as there is no citation to support its inclusion. Stop distorting article. Tryptofish's efforts to improve the section is appreciated - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

South Lebanon Army was under the command of Saad Haddad, Saad Haddad and his army is clearly mentioned in the 'Palestine studies' report. Oh and ALi you are in no position to be distributing warnings in view of your glorious editing history so i will be reporting you for harassment :) Eli+ 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing which does matter here is your disruptive editing and not my editing history. So please refrain and be polite and abstain from using bad words. If you think I am harassing you you may report that let others decide justly. Thanks. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The SLA (formerly known as the Free Lebanon Army)1 was involved in the massacre and should be included in this section, proof is provided and will be reinforced with as much references as neededEli+ 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the adjective "Christian-dominated" to the SLA in line with the main article on this topic. I don't see why it shouldn't be on there, since this is about Christian terrorism. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reph, could you explain what you mean?

Ion Zone (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Lebenon

I have removed this section as it fails on just about everything. [26] Chomsky (not a reliable source for facts) says the people felt terrorized. This is not an act of terrorism. [27] BBC reference does not mention terrorism. [28] The UN statement does not mention Genocide nor Terrorism, please note Genocide is not Terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is my reply, sorry for taking a while to getting around to it, but I wanted to check carefully what I am about to say. First of all, please carefully read #Lebanon section:removed, just a short way above. These same issues were discussed there quite recently, and the consensus then was for the page to include this section, with the revisions that occurred at that time.

You object to the source by Noam Chomsky on two grounds: that you do not consider him to be a reliable source for the facts of what happened during the incident, and that he describes the persons as "terrorizing" rather than as "terrorists". However, he is not used as a source for the sentences that describe the specific events that happened over those days. Other sources are used for that. He is used as a source for the "terror" characterization. He is a secondary source, as a commentator, rather than as one of the parties to the massacre. He is a notable person, described by his biographical page here as one of the most cited people in the world, and as notable for his criticisms of various policies. Sure, he is a controversial figure, and some editors may, perhaps, not like what he says, but he is a reliable source for the purposes of reporting what he said. It would be wrong to say something like "numerous experts have described the massacre as terrorism" and cite it just to Chomsky, obviously, but that is not what we do. We attribute the attribution to him, by name. He, not Wikipedia, ends up being responsible for the characterization. As for your other objection, I think it's very clear from reading the source that Chomsky is using the verb to terrorize in the sense of terrorism (as opposed to, for example, a horror movie). A terrorist is someone who terrorizes people; and someone who terrorizes people, in these ways, is a terrorist.

You also object to one of the BBC sources, and to the U.N. resolution, for using words other than terrorism. The BBC source is not used on the page to source the word terrorism, but to source descriptions of the events that occurred during the days in question (along with a large number of other sources). It's true that the U.N. resolution was a declaration of genocide, which is, itself, a noteworthy fact about the conclusions reached by a respected world organization, but the fact that one source calls it genocide, another (the BBC) calls it "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict", and another (Chomsky) calls it terrorism, means that numerous sources have called it these things. It does not mean that sources have said that it was not terrorism.

And there are numerous other sources used for that section. It's actually very heavily sourced. Does that answer your concerns? If not, I'm happy to try to explain my take on it further. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon POV tag

Elie, you can't just slap a POV tag on a section with absolutely no explanation. The only indication so far of what you think might be wrong was this edit summary: "the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict ?????", which doesn't come close to explaining what POV problem you think exists. As the NPOV dispute page states, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Unless you can provide a proper reason for the tag, I'm going to remove it again. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice the quotes are very selective in this section (haven't had time to look through the whole article)

For instance the following is left out, and comes just before the quote about people calling themselves christians

"On all sides Lebanon's civil war embraced a culture of murder" - Fergal Keane (from panorama episode quoted) DMSBel (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What's your point there? The fact that the source says other things doesn't mean its comments on Christian terrorism aren't relevant to an article on Christian terrorism. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a civil war - thought the point was obvious.

Take another link from the same section - full quote is:

While the party's membership was almost exclusively Christian (and predominantly Maronite Christian), its ideology embraced the multi-confessional demography of the newly-independent Lebanese state and promoted the notion of a distinctly Lebanese people descended from the ancient Phoenicians. As Arab nationalism spread throughout the region in the 1950s and 1960s, Gemayel and other leaders of the party adamantly maintained that Lebanon had a unique national identity.

But it is quote-mined to just mention Marionite christians. I am going to look at whether this needs more than a NPOV tag. DMSBel (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Acts of terror were committed by both sides in the conflict: this article is about one of them. Where's the problem with the quote? As for the quote, it's used in the context of describing the militias, which come from the party and are "almost exclusively Christian". Nothing is mined there. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that describe their actions as "Christian terrorism", and it is therefore synthesis to include them. TFD (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the massacre was not motivated by Christian ideology, it was a retaliation for the murder of then President Bachir Gemayel. Just because it was committed by people who happen to be chrisitan (or wear crucifixes) and may or not be religious does not justify inclusion in this article. I motion Again for the complete removal of this section. On a second note, why should a journalist POV describing this massacre as "the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict" be included and how is Noam Chomsky POV relevant here? All the above arguments fail to justify the inclusion of this section in this article Eli+ 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, it fails because it is synthesis DMSBel (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx4)TFD is correct, the entire section is Synth, and ought to be removed. Tentontunic (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Raph, the point of this article is not warcrimes, it is not 'Christians who commit terrorist attacks'. It is, and this has been stated quite clearly by numerous people; Terrorist attacks committed to further the perpetrator's warped version of Christianity. For the purposes of this specific page the number of Christians actually present is irrelevant if they are not out to further an agenda describable as Christian. If their agenda were Christian I would have to question why they aren't exclusively so themselves. It seems very much like you are POV pushing. You don't like including opposing versions of events or multiple points of view and, from the phrasing of you comments, it is clear that you are approaching this with a view to linking Christianity itself with terrorism. The following if from the debate on Northern Ireland:

"I find it hard to believe you've read any of the sources or the link between religion and acts of terrorism would be obvious" -Rpth (Emphasis mine) Note that he does not say the NI conflict - he says religion itself.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks committed to further the perpetrator's warped version of Christianity Is not the name of this article, I am removing the Lebanon section as pure synth. Tentontunic (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It may not be the title, but it is what is meant by the phrase "Christian Terrorism". There would be no real point in an article about attacks committed by Christians - that would come under general terrorism. This article is about attacks where the reason used is some personal form of Christianity (I.e. one where murder is 0k).

Ion Zone (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx3)That is a ridiculous argument to make, there is Christian terrorism, you may not use this article as a WP:COATRACK to hang the entire Christian faith. There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss this topic, and those are what we shall use. Tentontunic (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with TFD, not only WP:SYN, also WP:TE; source passages are skewed out of context e.g. "in the presence of the Israel Defense Forces"; the editor who wrote this section is biased and deliberately quoted the sources erroneously, according to sources the IDF transported, armed the perpetrators and supervised the massacre, the massacre served the Israelis after all. If this section is to be included anywhere, it should be on "Israeli terrorism" but i would not want to pour oil on fire Eli+ 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"That is a ridiculous argument to make"

Tentontunic, do you mean me? I'm not sure how it would be coatrack, but I never denyed the existence of Christian Terrorists, I just made the claim that their views were plainly warped. I'm really unsure how you would go about perpetrating terrorism in the name of Christianity without some kind of highly 'specialised' interpretation of the faith. I certainly didn't say we shouldn't put them on here - I simply meant that having an explicit list of attacks committed by Christians for non specific reasons would misleadingly imply some form of causation and correlation. Far better to list attacks by given reason (which is what I thought we were supposed to be doing here).

Ion Zone (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the back-and-forth sounds like personal comments, and I don't entirely understand those, but I want to reply based on content and sourcing, as well as policy. First, I'm not that bothered by anyone tagging the section, so long as they also bring the discussion to talk here. But deleting it without giving other editors a chance to come here and reply was really inappropriate.

About the part about "in the presence of the Israeli Defense Forces", it was other editors who had insisted on leaving it in, and there is sourcing about having been in their presence, but I've felt all along that those words were POV and off-topic, so I'd have no objection to deleting that.

About whether it was Christian in motivation, there is sourcing for that, including the BBC Panorama transcript mentioned above, where a witness from the news media describes the perpetrators identifying themselves as being Christian and having motivations from their Christian identities. And I get the feeling that editors need to calm down and read more of the talk here. I just got through explaining a day or two ago the sourcing about "terrorism". You need to engage with that in an intellectually considerate way, and not just complain about how you personally don't like Noam Chomsky.

More broadly, you should not argue for deleting material because, although it is reliably sourced, you personally consider the source to have a POV. If there is reliable sourcing for an opposing POV, then let's cite both. Try too hard to argue that this section, or the Northern Ireland one, just has to be totally blanked, and you may find yourself being accused of POV-pushing. And about those SYNTH arguments, you have to be careful not to be glib about making them. Can anyone explain exactly where the alleged synthesis took place, as opposed to hyperventilating that quotes were mined? Let's carefully discuss any opposing quotes, and see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The entire section is Synth, you use Chomskys opinion of an action to coatrack other content into the section, this is a clear violation of policy. Apart from Chomsky (a highly partisan source) giving his opinion none of the other sources mention terrorism. It has to go. Tentontunic (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"The entire section..." "It has to go." I understand that you feel strongly. But hyperbole does not help us get to a thoughtful resolution here. You are dismissing Chomsky as "highly partisan" without engaging with my rather extensive attempt to reply to you in the thread that is now just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem in finding sources that the Christian Phalange practiced terrorism (or that they were Christian), Here for example they are included under "Profiles of international terrorist organizations". Use the Google book search and find thousands of more sources.[29] TFD (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, thank you! I'm in the early stages of looking into sources like that, and this issue may well be better addressed by, instead of arguing over deleting or not deleting the existing section, rewriting the section to be more solid in light of editors' concerns (whether or not I agree with those concerns) about synth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The synthesis is combining sources that support the descriptions of "terrorism" and "Christianity" and synthesizing them into "Christian terrorism". Note that the other side Christian elements and used terrorism, but we do not call them "Christian terrorists". TFD (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that explanation. (I'm not sure who you mean by that other side, though.) I'm concerned that you are arguing terminology in a way that obscures the facts. If you look carefully at the discussion from a couple of weeks ago, you can see that there is multiple sourcing from multiple different types of sources that associate the events with both Christianity and some sort of violence. Not just some sources saying Christianity and some other sources saying some sort of violence, but sources that place those two together. I suppose, then, the question becomes whether it is SYNTH to rely only on Chomsky to conclude that the "massacre", the "genocide", and all the other choices of words also include terrorism. Chomsky treats it as terrorism, and the page attributes the description to him by name. Are you arguing that the sources other than Chomsky are defining what happened as something other than terrorism? I understand, of course, that massacres and genocides are things that can be differentiated from terrorism, and that all of these things are a bit difficult to define, but they do overlap in some ways. What I am arguing is glib is to claim that the sources describe it as a massacre and as a genocide, so we should put this in a page on Christian massacres or Christian genocide (the latter is a dab), but not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The other side were Palestinians. Some acts of terros originated from Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians. You need a source that refers to an action as Christian terrorism before including it in the article. TFD (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question about the other side. That sounds like something that might, perhaps, be added, but not a reason for deleting the existing content. In your last sentence, I think you are just repeating what you said before, without really engaging with what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not consider this synthesis? Can you even provide a reliable source for a definition of "Christian terrorism" that would include them? TFD (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I've already, repeatedly, answered that question. I realize that you feel that what you are saying is obvious, self-evident, but it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from saying things like "hyper-ventilating...". But I am not sure what you mean about explain "where the synthesis" took place? Synthesis is a form of original research which as you know is not allowed. It saying in effect because source one says A, source two say B, therefore we can conclude C even though neither A nor B draw that conclusion. Could you state were in the panorama transcript it says "having motivations from their Christian identities". DMSBel (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish you can engage in rhetoric forever and bore the rest of us out without getting to the bottom of things, lets keep it simple, the section does not belong here. the lead identifies Christian terrorism as "religious terrorism by Christian sects or individuals, the motivation for which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other tenets of faith"; this is not the case in the Sabra massacre which was politically driven. I support removal of the section Eli+ 21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, for an example of hyperventilating, please see what Elie just said. When I'm asking "where the synthesis" took place, I'm asking editors to name specifically what you call A, B, and C. You did that a bit in what you asked about the Panorama transcript, and I can answer that by explaining that I'm referring to the passage that is quoted on the page. Yes, there is sourcing to indicate political motivations, but there is also sourcing for other motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A=Christian, B=terrorist, C=Christian terrorist. C is synthesis and needs to be sourced. TFD (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The claim of synthesis doesn't hold up. The essence of WP:SYNTH is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my bolding). The Panorama transcript is one source so synthesis doesn't apply. The fact that the transcript doesn't explicitly use the term "Christian terrorism" doesn't matter either. Most WP sources don't explicitly use terms used on articles. To test this, I simply hit the Random Page link and reached List of Memphis blues musicians that claims to be "a list of Memphis blues musicians." The first item in the list is Jackie Brenston, a page that doesn't include the term "Memphis blues musician" anywhere on it, and that links to one source that doesn't use the term either, or anything like it.

The sources for this section make a perfectly clear link between acts of terror and the people carrying them out being Christian. That's all that is necessary to use them as part of an article on Christian terrorism. --rpeh •T•C•E• 04:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For the section to be included here the motivation for the killing must be religious and motivated by christian ideology and scripture which is not the case since it was a retaliation to the assassination of President Bachir Gemayel amid the chaos of civil war. Eli+ 04:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Lebanon)

I believe there is a consensus here that the section is synth and ought to be removed. Tentontunic (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't. I gave you a very thoughtful reply the other day, and you never bothered to reply to it before deleting the section once already today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I count five for removal, you had my response already, the section is synth. You can either expalin why you think it is not synth, or we can remove it. Tentontunic (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it's removal, I'd like to hear what other editors (TFD, Ion Zone) think. DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I don't see any sign of hyper-ventilating in Eli's comment. It's risks inflaming things to keep saying that.DMSBel (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:VOTE. What I'd like to hear is a calm, thoughtful reply to what I have already said, where I already explained why I think it isn't synth, instead of this, frankly, childish clamor to push a deletion through. Please understand that, the way WP:CONSENSUS really works, the rush approach is not going to succeed in the long run. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

what other sources stating other motivations? name one Eli+ 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take a deep breath, and read above. I already did. More than one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No you have not explained why you feel it is not synth, you have said it is well sourced. Well sourced it may be. but it is still synth. I shall give you one more opportunity to explain why you feel it is not synth before I remove it again. Tentontunic (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just stop it Tryptofish, anyone can see you are inflaming things, and adopting a superior tone.DMSBel (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Look folks, I'm not exactly a newcomer to disputes about content where people are getting upset. I know how this discussion will look to an impartial third party. I suggest that you all calm down, but whether or not you follow that advice, that's up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be hyperventilating but you are really slow (Im being polite here), So here it is ill spell it out for you, A= perpetrators wore crucifixes and identified themselves as christians, B=they killed palestinians in Sabra most of which are muslim thereby C>> this is a case of christian terrorism (regardless of MOTIvATIOn) i was hyperventilating, now im spelling and screeming, i hope you get it. BUT AGAIN THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE WHETHER SYNTH OR NOT, the motivation is not the CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGY .Eli+ 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

oh, and mind your haughty attitude fishy Eli+ 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that will come across very well to an impartial third party. No one claims either that it is mainstream Christian ideology, or that it is a logical application of Christian ideology. I think we all understand that Christianity does not endorse terrorism, so anything that might possibly go on this page is going to be idiosyncratic in its Christianity, to put it mildly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's simple to my mind: identification of individuals as christians is insufficient to conclude motivations in such a complex case, with multiple parties with different goals, and in the wake of an assasination.DMSBel (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And if that were an accurate description of what the source said, I'd agree with you. But it said that they were identifying themselves as Christians during the massacre. If someone is saying, in effect, I'm a Christian and now I'm killing you, that self-identification, reliably sourced, is evidence of part of the motivation. Not the entire motivation, to be sure, but part of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't say that, you are misquoting the source material Eli+ 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Direct quote from the source: "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians." If it just said that they were wearing crucifixes, that would be different, but it says that they were calling themselves that, saying that out loud while it was going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

quote: I'm a Christian and now I'm killing you is different that identifying oneself as a Christian. Let's assume i was there, committing the killing, a reporter is on the scene, asked me to identify myslef, i'd say i'm elias from let's say Jounieh that's enough to identify me as a Christian. So where is the relevance again? Eli+ 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note the difference between quotation marks and "in effect", then italics. The source does not describe them as responding to a reporter's questions. It is a quote from a photographer who was observing what was going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't reconstruct this (as if you had been there) like you are doing from a sentence. You are working backwards it seems from an assumption that it is christian terrorism so that you read more into the source than it in fact says. The source does not say when they identified as christians, other than "that day"DMSBel (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that it was what they were saying while it was going on, not what they said in response to a reporter's question. I think that's a plain reading of "that day", not synth. Obviously, "that day" doesn't mean what they said over breakfast before the massacre began (to use a light-hearted example). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You think they were saying this as they killed people?DMSBel (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the source says "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians." And I think that the source says that it was happening "that day". Are you arguing that the source says that they were calling themselves Christians at some other time during the day than when they were committing the acts of murder that the source saw? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

so what if they identified themselves as chrisitans, what are the implications, this doesn't prove that they perpetrated the massacre for religious reasons, this is a prime example of WP:Synth Eli+ 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It proves that the source said that they identified themselves in that way. It's not synth to say that if they identified themselves in this way, it was part of what they were thinking. No one is claiming that such religious reasons would follow logically from the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I cannot prove it i am inclined to think they identified when questioned at some point.DMSBel (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, can you see how someone disagreeing with you might jump on your saying that as being synth? I don't mean that sarcastically, and I want to make that clear. I'm just asking you to see what I mean. And with that I have to say that I will log off soon, so I might not respond here any more until tomorrow. And please remember that I deleted the section as a good will gesture to those of you who disagree with me, even if that good will was not reciprocated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, removing that whole section after only a couple of hours is tantamount to vandalism, so don't do it. Further, whoever keeps moving stuff around on this page, stop it because it makes things incredibly difficult to find.

It's late here so I'm not going to try to slog my way through what I'm sure will be a fascinating set of posts on this subject, but please do NOT remove the Lebanon section again. BRD = Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, I've reverted, we're now on Discuss and removing it again will be edit warring. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Compare this article with Islamic terrorism. Much of the terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s was conducted by Muslims, including the terror attack at Munich, the hijacked plane in Entebbe, the Achille Lauro, etc., and organizations involved included the PLO and Abu Nidal. Some of this was supported by Gaddafi and other Muslim leaders. But none of this is in the article because these attacks were motivated by Arab nationalism and are not considered Islamic terrorism. TFD (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"And if that were an accurate description of what the source said, I'd agree with you. But it said that they were identifying themselves as Christians during the massacre."

Put it like this - if a group of, for a random example, Goths, went on a killing spree, and they identified themselves as Goths, would you automaticlly conclude that they went on the killing spree because they were Goths? The media would, or at least imply it, but we shouldn't sink to such superficial and reactionary positions. We should try to find reliable evidence of their motive\s, not speculate.

Ion Zone (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think TFD and Ion Zone's last replies sum the whole matter up. Further attempts to twist the sources or come up with reasons to keep the section are futile Eli+ 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just about all the sources agree that the motivation was revenge. As the article's introduction says, "They often draw upon Old Testament scripture to justify violent political activities." I assume the Christians trying to delete this section are familiar with Leviticus 24:19-21 and Deuteronomy 19:16-19:21, both of which explicitly allow revenge as a motive? Sounds like this massacre fits in perfectly with Old Testament scripture to me, which makes it perfect for this article. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious, this is pure synthesis!!!! Eli+ 15:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You've called it revenge yourself. Are you denying your own words now? Or are you denying the bible? --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

stop with your mind games, you are not fooling anyone here, go read WP:Synth and better luck with your next failed argument, i'm not going to engage in a futile debate that leads nowhere. and stop with the POV pushing. Eli+ 15:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing is coming from you and one or two others in your ceaseless attempt to remove sourced, relevant content from this article. I'm sure you don't like that your fellow religionists are committing heinous acts of terror, but stop trying to censor their activities here. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't know me, my affiliation, my beliefs, you know nothing about me nor about the other editors around here how dare you make those assumption based on our editing patterns! I am facing you with facts while you play mind games and try to provoke me. So how did you come that acting from vengeance is related to Christianity again and how is it related to the section? that was so hilarious Eli+ 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Several of the editors on this page have acknowledged their religion. If I'm wrong about you in particular, then I apologise, but there seems to be no other obvious reason for your desire to censor this article. Christianity embraced the concept of an eye for an eye, which is vengeance described perfectly. The New Testament may have introduced the concept of turning the other cheek, but since the article's lede specifically mentions the Old Testament, it's not relevant. Other examples of violence being a fundamental part of Christianity can be found in the millions of people killed personally by God and documented in the Bible. Please don't try to claim that Christianity is a peaceful religion, because it isn't.

I have responded again and again on this page with facts, pointing out sections from the sources and encouraging others to read them. Again and again, the response is tantamount to "La la la didn't hear you". The Lebanon section describes a massacre committed by Christians. The sources all testify to this simple fact. Why are you trying to censor this information? --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(od)It is a massacre, not terrorism. You have one persons opinion that this was an act of terrorism, and you are giving it WP:UNDUE weight. The fact of the matter is the section is synth. We have two editors saying it is not, but are failing to actually discuss the synth issue, just responding that the section is "well sourced" The reason it is well sourced is because all those references are needed to create the synth, I am removing it again, further edit warring on this is pointless, read WP:BRD It is up to those who wish to include the content to make a case. Tentontunic (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is still continuing, and deleting the section again at this point will be edit warring and unacceptable. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is over as once again you refuse to discuss the synth issue. Make your case or it goes, your choice. Tentontunic (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say from what I have read that the killings were a reprisal (during a civil war), which is quite different from terrorism. I realise there is more to the incident than that, in terms of parties involved, but that is somewhat beside the point here. We do have sources (the panorama transcript for one) which clearly and unambiguously refer to the conflict as a civil war. There is only one mention of terrorism in the entire transcript and it was not with reference to this massacreDMSBel (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am striking part of my own comment as I realise that I would need to find a source which uses the term "reprisal" without which my comment is only opinion, or original research, and that is one of the things we are trying to avoid here. DMSBel (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I've addressed the SYNTH issue elsewhere on this page, and I'm not copying my point here because that's just going to clog up the page even more than it already is. 2) Other editors have not had a chance to respond. You need to stop being so hasty with the deletions and leave proper time for discussion. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well provide a diff please that I might see it, so far the only arguments I have seen put forth are "it`s well sourced" This does not actually prevent it being synth. And as only two editors here seem to think it is not, whilst the rest so then it ought to be removed until such a time as you can prove it is not synth, per policy. Tentontunic (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the !vote section at the end. Your claims of synth have no basis in fact. Additionally, I wish you and your chums would stop using loaded language on the number of people taking part in this debate. Saying that "only two" have one view and "the rest" have another is misleading given the actual figures are - maybe - 4-2. That's not a consensus. If one person changes his or her view, it's a tie, and by your definition, if two change their view, it's a landslide. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a load of really dodgy sourcing going on here. It seems to me that the basic inclusion standard thus far has been 'people and groups who may or may not be Christians who kill for any given reason' = 'Terrorists who cite Christianity as their reason for killing'. I don't know if this is 'synth', exactly, but it is something in the same general area as synth.

Ion Zone (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)