Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 21 February 2011

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

September 2004 – October 2005 January 2006 – September 2006 October 2006 – February 2007 April 2007 – Dec 2007 January 2008 – August 2008 /Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: SPEEDY KEEP, withdrawn by nominator, part of a multi-page AfD, April 26, 2010, see discussion. KEEP, December 22, 2004, see discussion.

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).

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

Ethnic, political, and secular conflicts

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

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)

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

Notes

1. McLaughlin, Abraham (2004-12-31). "The End of Uganda's Mystic Rebel?". Christian Science Monitor. Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
2. Marc Lacey (2002-08-04). "Uganda's Terror Crackdown Multiplies the Suffering". New York Times.
3. Muth, Rachel (2008-05-08). "Child Soldiers in the Lord's Resistance Army: Factors in the Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process". George Mason University: 23. Retrieved 2009-03-04. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Johnson, J. Carter (January 2006). "Deliver Us from Kony". Christianity Today. 50 (1). Retrieved 2009-02-28. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. ^ Obita, James (ed.), "The Official presentation of the Lord's Resistance Movement/Army (LRA/M)", A Case for National Reconcilation, Peace, Democracy and Economic Prosperity for All Ugandans, Kacoke Madit, retrieved 2009-03-15 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)
6. ^ Clark, Michael (2004-10-27). "In the Spotlight: The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)". Center for Defense Information. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
7. "Interview with Vincent Otti, LRA second in command" and " A leadership based on claims of divine revelations" in IRIN In Depth, June 2007
8. ^ Tripura Police

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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). ]

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages as a whole. Please go look at pages for other religions and sects. Misplaced Pages is able to describe and distinguish characteristics, practices, and beliefs of religions. For example at the beginning of the "Jehovah's Witness" article on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

India a growing problem

Currently Christanic terrorism in India and Uganda has become an even worse problem and yet this Misplaced Pages article does not even mention what's historically taken place in India in regards to Christanic terrorism, nor does the article cover what's happening in contemporary times.

• http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm
• http://hinduworld.tripod.com/views/nscn.html
• http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1194586172

If you look at the historic British activities in India, extensive Christanic terrorism was committed against the people prior to and then under British rule. Christanic terrorism is re-emergent in India with combative Christianic factions committing terrorist acts against each other in addition to committing terrorist acts against the people of India.

Once again we find that this Misplaced Pages article is woefully incomplete, a state of affairs that results from Christians unwilling to accept and admit that their cult even commits terrorism. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian terrorism - India

Christian terrorism - Uganda.

If you think any of this information should be in the article then it is your job to add it. Josh Keen (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The content listed above does not come from any legitimate sources but a special interest group. Converting people at gunpoint, or any terrorist action is clearly rejected by Christianity. If there is a group converting people by gunpoint they have strayed from the faith and are considered by the church at large as apostate. If the articles are true, this is being perpetrated by a cult group that has no place in the Christian church. This is on par with people starting a war in the name of Ghandi. ----providenceavenue

Christians only make up a tiny three percent of India's population. They are often the subject of persecution there. In August, 2008, in Orissa, India, an uproar of anti-Christian violence swept three hundred villages. Over fifty Christians were beaten to death, cut to pieces, or burned alive. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 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. '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 Misplaced Pages.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". 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)

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 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)

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)

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 , 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)

Northern Ireland

I agree with the comment just before mine, that we should separate the discussion of the Northern Ireland material out of the section above. I figure it would be more useful to start a new thread here, so here it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But that didn't mean I agree to delete the material. I'm just saying it should be discussed further. Editors have objected, just above, to deleting it, so no one should take it on themselves to delete it without first allowing WP:CONSENSUS to be developed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kilkeel, there are several cited statements on the page that attest to the conflict in NI being a religious one. You even acknowledge this here. You are saying that even though there are cited statements that would support the NI section staying on this page, based on your own personal opinion the section should go. I'm afraid that's not the way WP works. If you can find a preponderance of opinion stating that the troubles are not based on religion, then NPOV would allow a substantial reduction in the section's size. At the moment, the balance seems to be roughly 50/50, so I don't see the problem here. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read my last comment at all, I addressed everything you've written above in the Alternative Views section, you should read it because it addresses your reiteration of the same points.

You've eliminated my alterations to the section without explaining why they belong there in the first place in response to my explanation. As I said above, I eliminated the Easter Rising and Padraig Pearse passages because the Rising was not an instance of terrorism, nor do the cited sources claim they are. The hunger strikes are not based on Catholic tradition, they are based on Celtic traditions in brehon law (Beresford, Ten Men Dead). The source also does not claim hunger striking to be a form of terrorism. I eliminated these passages on the basis that their sources do not assert a connection to terrorism in either case, or Catholic motivation in one. These are not matters of disputable opinion because there isn't even a source cited here which claims they belong. If you introduce a source which says otherwise then they may open up for discussion but otherwise I will delete them because their sources do not claim they are instances of Christian terrorism. To continue to include these specific passages would imply they are instances of Christian terrorism without sources which affirm this position. I'll leave them until you respond.

I will also add that including groups, in this case the IRA, whose status is in dispute in an article which takes for granted that they are terrorists is also a serious WP:WEIGHT problem. This has been agreed on in the Provisional IRA section where their categorization by various groups is discussed at length but throughout the article the neutral term 'paramilitary' is used. Kilkeel (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

---

Agreed, the conflict in Ireland is often seen as a religious conflict by outsiders. As someone who is Irish I find the idea that the conflict has anything to do with religion deeply amusing. The whole Irish conflict is down to England invading and subjugating the Irish people. It has far more to do with racism, exploitation, and expansionism ('Irish' and 'idiot' used to be synonymous - the first discovered scull of a Neanderthal was immediately dismissed as being a particularly thick-browed 'Irishman'). The Protestants over their identify their faction within the conflict with the colours of William of Orange and the union Jack, not their religious beliefs. I'm deleting that section.

Ion Zone (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ion Zone, you and other editors who feel that way may or may not be correct, but we cannot base that decision on editors' personal experiences, per WP:NOR. You need to have reliable sources that say that the motivations were purely secular. And that remains under discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the conflict in Ireland is religious is basically hear-say. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever. The purpose of the Irish Republican Army has always been to take back Ireland for the Irish, just as the Ulster Defence Association's purpose was to stop them. They have never had a stated religious agenda. I'm going to nominate the article for deletion in the hope that we can at least get one or two facts sorted out!

Ion Zone (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, sources, please. Also, you were reverted by someone else (not me) for putting a WP:PROD tag on the page, because it is against policy to "PROD" a page that has already gone through a deletion discussion. If you really want to bring up the page at an articles for deletion discussion, you'll have to do it the correct way. But honestly my advice would be not to bother. Doing so for the reason you state above gets in WP:POINT territory, and you would be better advised to make your case in this talk, based on source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lets have a go. First up, the quotes cited on the page are interpreted wrongly. What the people cited say is that they were inspired by their faith to rebel against the occupying forces. What they do not say is that this is the reason they are rebelling, which would be the long-standing occupation and subjugation of the Ireland by England and Scotland. This is already the stated reason on every other Wiki article I can find related to the subject. The IRA is officially recognised as paramilitary organisation, not a terrorist one. See: Invasion of Ireland, Irish Republican Army, Ulster Defence Association. The original IRA fought a revolutionary guerilla war known as the Irish War of Independence, the entire purpose of which was to establish home rule (see article).

For the later period, I quote the wiki article on The Troubles

The Troubles was a period of ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland which spilled over at various times into England, the Republic of Ireland, and mainland Europe.

Nothing to do with religion or even terrorism!

Ion Zone (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the cited sources on this article? Whether or not the Troubles were primarily caused by republicanism/nationalism, the fact is that many people used religion as an excuse, often their primary one, for violence and terrorism. As I've said elsewhere on this page, the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors are not relevant here because there are enough sources to warrant inclusion. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Rpeh said. The fact that something was an ethno-political conflict does not mean that there wasn't a religiously motivated component to those ethnic conflicts or political disputes. And other Misplaced Pages articles are not sources for Misplaced Pages articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Whether or not the Troubles were primarily caused by republicanism/nationalism, the fact is that many people used religion as an excuse, often their primary one, for violence and terrorism." You are kidding, right?

So you're saying that wanting Ireland back, and being oppressed and starved by an occupying foreign power (see: The Irish Potato Famine) isn't a valid enough reason? I'm sorry but the evidence, as shown in the articles I link to, states very, very, very, firmly that this has nothing to do with religion.

Ion Zone (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is kidding about the need for you to provide sources, nor about the need for those sources to be something other than other Misplaced Pages articles or your own opinions. See also WP:IDHT. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the opinion here is all yours, I cited numerous reputable sources by linking to those articles, you have offered nothing but your personal feelings.

Ion Zone (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You're linking to other WP articles, which, as Tryptofish has pointed out, aren't valid sources under WP:CIRCULAR. I was paraphrasing the Reliable Sources cited on the article. Whether or not I agree with those sources doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter what YOU think either! WP is based on reliable, secondary sources. That's what we have here. Unless you can find a large preponderance of material that denies the position, which would cause the existing material to be removed or toned down under WP:UNDUE, that, to be honest, is the end of the matter. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No it is not the end of the matter, you cannot create a bubble where two or three opinions overrule massive amounts of actual evidence. I will prove it without linking to those articles though. Firstly, I cite the invasion, subjugation, and control of Ireland by England and Scotland as a defining reason for actions by the IRA and others attempting to free Ireland from British rule. As you can see from those references, the Norman invasion of Ireland came before England became Protestant. Three hundred and sixty years before. Next, the Coercion Acts as evidence of the long-term subjugation of Ireland by England for secular reasons. I also cite the extreme actions of England and its domination of Ireland by occupation and martial law, as well as the actions of of its troops on the ground, as being primary motivators for IRA paramilitary action. Which was the defining reason behind upsurges in IRA activity. It's also well worth noting that John Lennen (Who played for The Beatles) supported the IRA. John Lennen was an atheist.

Again, I ask you to provide evidence beyond the couple of subjective quotes in this article.

86.26.75.132 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to this article so please stop trying to whitewash it.

John "Lennon"'s support for the IRA was only ever an allegation, not fact - and that's what your sources say, and even if it's true, the fact that an atheist supported a terrorist organisation doesn't mean that Christians didn't. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, I ask you, what WOULD be relevant? I am not attempting to whitewash anything. In fact, I rather think that's what you are trying to do. I'd like to point out that I only need to show that the main reason for violence in Ireland is not a religious one. Which I have done. The quotes mentioned in the article only imply a casual connection at the very best. The fact that Christians support a paramilitary organisation that does not have any kind of Christian agenda makes the connection irrelevant. Ion Zone (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See, that's where you're going wrong. You need to show that religion is never a reason for violence in Ireland, and you have singularly failed to do so. As long as there is evidence that religion is a cause - and I grow tired of pointing out that we have several sources showing that it is - then it stays on the page. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. I simply need to show that the reasons behind the violence as a whole are not based on religious differences. And I'd like to point out that the text of the article missuses those quotes, most from by people on the sideline, in that it draws false conclusions from them and uses them to state as fact many things which are merely arguments and opinion. I see no arguments from history, nor anything that suggests the IRA or UDF have ever had a stated religious agenda. The quotes are highly speculative and don't, actually, provide any evidence that the violence is religious. In fact, overall, they simply show that the IRA and UDF was composed of people who were just as religious as anyone else in Ireland. Ion Zone (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. It's quite simple. There are sources showing that acts of terrorism occurred in the name of Christianity. That's Christian Terrorism, and that's the subject of this article. And please stop with this ceaseless POV-pushing. I've already told you that your opinion about the sources doesn't matter. They are reliable sources under WP:RS and that is all that counts. Those sources make statements that merit their inclusion here, and that's how Misplaced Pages works. If you wish to take this further, I suggest you use a Dispute Resolution mechanism of some kind, because I'm getting tired of having to explain basic editing rules to you. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"There are sources showing that acts of terrorism occurred in the name of Christianity."

Where? I see no primary historical sources stating, outright, that these acts where perpetuated in the name of Christianity. The first quote is an outright opinion. The second is a review of the first which claims that the fight to get England out of Ireland is actually religious. The third is simply a quote from a religious man who likens the struggle for Irish independence to the struggles of Christ, but offers no indication of the actual struggle having religious reasons. The fourth simply shows that the men involved were deeply religious, not that their religion caused them to fight for freedom, and goes on to note that the cause they were rallying around was republican. The last three are the only ones which suggest that the conflict has anything to do with religion, and only one of those could fairly be said to implicate the IRA. However the idea that the IRA were fighting a 'religious war' is ludicrous. And I still see no compelling evidence for the idea that the actual conflict is based on religion. At the very most you could say that certain factions on either side of the conflict have begun to see it in terms of religion. However the actual reason that the IRA fought for Irish independence has far more to do with eight centuries of invasion, conquest, occupation, and suppression. The section should be rewritten to account for the fact that most of these statements are arguments for the idea that the conflict is religious, or becoming so, not actual proof that it is.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"I see no primary historical sources" - That's because, as WP:RS says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Will you please go and read that policy? I've previously assumed good faith, but I'm afraid it's clear you haven't read it properly. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then show me some secondary ones and stop trying to wheedle out of the need for evidence.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As currently numbered, cites 21-30 are all secondary sources that support religion being a factor in terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And almost all of them are either Statements of opinion or used to justify one. Badly. Are you saying history, context, and the actual meaning of those quotes is irrelevant to the conclusions drawn?

Ion Zone (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They're quotes from scholarly works, which is exactly the sort of source we're after. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a yes then? The actual meaning, validity, and historical accuracy is irrelevant so long as they are "quotes from scholarly works"? So if I altered the phrasing of the article to suggest that conclusions drawn from these quotes were subjective opinions that don't actually say that they are fighting over religious diferences, you'd change it back?

Ion Zone (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with policy, I've looked at the material in the article and the sources and I'm also unconvinced that the material belongs in an article about Christian terrorism. There's no requirement to show that religion is never a reason for violence in Northern Ireland. Editors who want to include the material have to demonstrate that secondary sources describe it as Christian terrorism. If the sources don't describe it that way then it doesn't belong here. It has to be as simple as that or else the content inclusion criteria for the article become ambiguous. We can't interpret a source and decide that the information suggests that something is X terrorism. The source has to explicitly say that it is X terrorism. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They are valid, secondary sources, and no amount of quibbling is going to change that. If you delete valid, cited content, I will revert up to three times and then take the matter to the appropriate forum. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They may be valid as sources - in that they may be used as sources on Misplaced Pages - but could you please look at what they actually say? As Sean says, the sources and quotes are only valid if those sources label it as "Christian terrorism" - that is to say, terrorist acts committed expressly in the name of Christianity.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd missed Sean's comment - I assumed my edit conflict was caused by your habit of taking four saves to make one point (and will you please use the Show preview button because I'm getting fed up with it). I've read the online sources, and the way in which religion is implicated is there for all to see. "Northern Ireland is the last bastion of Protestantism. I don't care what anyone says. The papacy is up to its neck in this."', says The Guardian. The Connolly and Pearse paper has "ways of using religion as a method to awaken the national awareness of the Irish people", implicating religion above nationalism as the root cause. The quotes from the other sources make it clear that religion is at the heart of the troubles. You can't simply ignore what they say, no matter how much you might want to. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about my use of the 'save page' button instead of the 'preview' button, It's kind-of habitual. However, I notice that you have only tried to justify one of the segments I'm not arguing about - and none of the ones I am. The notation that The Guardian has attributed the murder to the revival of fundamentalism is besides the point, I'm not arguing that they didn't say that. I'm arguing that the things I have previously listed are irrelevant, subjective opinion, and out of context. They do nothing to even suggest a religious motivation. Though I would point out that the Guardian is hardly unbiased in its record on reporting the situation in Ireland

Ion Zone (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Sean Hoyland and in addition, to fit the subject of this article an organization and its actions must be both Christian and terrorist. In the case of the Easter Rising, which takes up much of the Northern Ireland section, there aren't any reliable sources cited claiming this was a terrorist action. Additionally, the hunger strikes aren't a terrorist action. One may argue that they are still relevant as an action of an organization which some argue is terrorist, but that requires putting A and B together in a way that qualifies as WP:SYNTH and requires too many assumptions to be unbiased. It is harder to address a blanket statement as made by Martin Dillon and the other expert in the beginning, but we should at least give it proper weighting in the meantime (WP:WEIGHT) by adding sources which say the contrary. I am skeptical as to whether Dillon's statement belongs at all, however, because it isn't followed with supporting evidence. I'm busy so it may take a long while to get around to adding the expert opinions describing the conflict as secular, but I can do this eventually if no one else does. rpeh wants us to address each citation piecemeal which is appropriate if it is this disputed between authors, but I think we'll find most of the section, albeit not all, can be deleted. Kilkeel (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

I understand why Christians want to whitewash this section, but the fact is that you can't do it. I'm now officially sick and tired of pointing out the citations that support the notion of the various forms of Christianity being involved in the Terror. I'll grant you that there's no source that says "This is Christian Terrorism", but then nobody ever admits to being a terrorist. The sources we have clearly draw a line between somebody's religious affiliation and their motivation and their action. That's not me doing WP:SYNTH - it's stated in the sources.

The simple fact is that there is enough cited material linking Christianity to Terrorism for it to appear on this page. It doesn't matter how much you might with it weren't so, that's just the way it is. --rpeh •T•C•E• 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Christians want to whitewash this section"..huh ? I'm an atheist and like many other editors I simply try to implement the policies of the project whether I like the resulting content decisions or not. It's obvious that, from a policy perspective, the material in its present form doesn't comply with the mandatory policies of this project. Readers must be able to verify from the sources cited that someone reliable has described it as "Christian terrorism". That isn't a negotiable point. We can't categorize things ourselves just because it seems to make sense. Many species of the Melipona bee genus make honey but that doesn't mean we can put information about them in the honeybee article. They aren't classified as honeybees by reliable sources despite being bees that make honey. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No sources don't have to say that. If there was a rule that a source must use the exact title of the article, then WP would have precious few sources. The source merely has to describe terrorism committed in the name of, or because of Christianity. That's what they do: (in the main) they describe the motivating factors for people committing acts of terrorism as religion. You're never going to find an article that says "And this is an act of Christian terrorism", and refusing to include sources because of that lack is frankly ridiculous. --rpeh •T•C•E• 07:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a Christian, however I am not trying to whitewash anything. You, on the other hand, have failed to validate ANY of the disputed references or sections you consider valid evidence. The point is NOT that they specificity label the acts with the exact phrase; "Christian Terrorism" the point is that they must provide examples of terrorist acts with evidence that clearly shows that they were committed for reasons that are specifically Christian. Which they don't, as we have explained. Simply showing that they were devout Christians does not count. BOTH SIDES are comprised of devout Christians. You may not, also, include things which are considered to be guerilla warfare. Resisting a foreign power that has invaded and occupied your country is not terrorism. Therefore, if it's disputed, it probably shouldn't be there unless you can show it IS terrorism somehow.

Demanding that you show that these actions are both terrorist and Christian is not asking more of you than anyone else on this article, nor is it more than asking you provide evidence that, say, one of the sides in the Spanish Revolution was anarchist. Asking you back up your claims with evidence is not a whitewash. We have tackled the questioned sections head-on. You have completely failed to validate their existence, or even address any of the points raised. I don't know about Sean, but I consider what you are doing - relying on misdirection and attempts to shift the burden of proof by claiming that I\we have to prove that no acts of Christian terrorism have ever occurred in Ireland - to be a whitewash, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Hell, if you look back over your posts you'll note that you have NEVER shown how ANY of the disputed sources provide ANY proof - or even grounds for thinking - that the terrorist acts, if they were terrorist, were committed for Christian reasons. Nor have you provided any actual examples of terrorism, let alone Christian Terrorism, either here or on the page itself. Even the Guardian article, which isn't disputed, merely implies the link through juxtaposition.

If you make a claim on Misplaced Pages, it MUST be validated with some kind of proof in the article. It does not matter what the subject is, you have to show a direct link that is NOT simply an opinion stated as fact! No matter how strongly you feel about it, or how 'scholarly' the source. Wiki does not operate on what YOU feel to be right. Only what can be proved. Otherwise it is simply supposition and must be treated as a view on the issue. If this is the case you must provide a contrary view for balance!

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go ahead and re-write the section to remove the bits that don't belong there. If you want to dispute my edit, please, at least, try to fix the article first.

Ion Zone (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't do that again. I've said this several times but I'll say it once more: there are sources making the precise link between acts of terrorism and Christianity that the article requires. Your attempts at whitewashing - and I see you're moving on to Romania now - are not appreciated. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No they don't! It's pretty obvious that they don't and you haven't even tried to show how they do. The article included sources that state this idea as an opinion, and sources that show that the participants were religious, but there were absolutely no examples of terrorism inspired by Christianity, beyond the examples I left intact.

And all I've done to the section on Romania is add a note stating that the sources may not be trustworthy as they concern the Russian Orthodox Church, and it is very well known that the church over there has been attacked and scape-goated for over half a century.

Once again, do some proper research, please? If you want to add to those sections please make sure it is relevant and true, that is all I ask.

Ion Zone (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have told you again and again that those are perfectly valid sources. They are exactly the type of source that Misplaced Pages uses on thousands of other articles. You are deleting them, and the content they support, because you don't like what they have to say. Doing so is not acceptable. I have explained several times why they are valid and should be kept and you're simply not listening. The sources clearly draw a line between religious belief and acts of terrorism. The fact they don't use the phrase "Christian Terrorism" is irrelevant. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"And I have told you again and again that those are perfectly valid sources. They are exactly the type of source that Misplaced Pages uses on thousands of other articles"

I note that you don't describe them as 'relevant'. I've told you before, the exact phrase does not matter, what matters is examples and facts, not opinion. None of the things I have deleted are in any way indicative of a link.

Ion Zone (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

They're perfectly relevant, as I've said before. I've asked for advice on how to deal with your unwarranted removal of valid material. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you'll be able to explain how they are relevant, wont you? In detail. I'm not holding my breath though.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done. Several times. The fact is that you're not listening. You're also refusing to wait for other editors, like Tryptofish. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't actually. All you've done is parrot the phrase "those are perfectly valid sources." By which you mean that Misplaced Pages allows those sources to be used generally. You haven't explained why they belong in this article or how they show that these acts have Christian reasons behind them. You have also failed to add any actual examples of terrorist-like acts with apparent, let alone explicit, Christian reasons.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your refusal to get the point is appalling. Since you're not even bothering to read what I write, I'm going to stop arguing with you until an uninvolved editor can comment. This is what I find annoying about Misplaced Pages sometimes: that an editor with a POV can trash an article according to their own whims. You are deleting content purely because of your own Christianity. 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. If you're going to ignore the evidence, there's no point in talking to you. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"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"

You really should stop giving me phrases like this.

Please stop approaching this ideologically, your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. You have cited no examples of Christianity inspiring terrorism, only quotes saying such a link exists without any kind of supporting evidence and a couple of quotes suggesting that the people involved were themselves religious. Religious people committing acts of terrorism does not equal acts of terrorism committed in the name of religion. Ion Zone (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just read the Guardian article, and it does not say that the murder was committed for Christian reasons. It lists several other reasons instead. I say that Ion Zone did not delete enough of these false allegations. Roger (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to just let him have that one, but 0k, I'll delete it too and let the mods decide.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - Continued

This section ought not be in this article. The troubles in northern Ireland are Nationalist in nature, although divided along sectarian lines. The current definition in the lede refers to acts of terrorism in pursuit of a religious objective. The groups in this section belong in an article titled Acts of terrorism by Christian groups. Perhaps a list article would be better employed here? Tentontunic (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The NI section would still be rubbish even if it's conclusions were correct. The whole section seems to be constructed as a series of one-sided statements that are not backed up by any kind of evidence! I am happy to leave the line on church bombings by the Orange Order if someone can confirm that there is proper cited evidence for this. However the rest of the section really must go, it is not backed up by history, nor by current events and seems to be utterly vacuous in nature. The whole 'Terrorism in NI is inspired by Christianity' thing would make a very good entry on the List of Common Misconceptions, I think. That the two sides are both Christian doesn't really have a bearing in matters over there, if anything the pubs played a bigger part.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There has been way too much shouting in the discussion above, with too little reasoned examination of the sources. It is almost certainly the case that the section needs to be seriously revised, but complete removal has not been adequately justified. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say complete removal. I said we should remove the dross, which happens to be most of it. My inclusion of the word 'resolution' was by way of prompting people to actually come to some sort of decision. I am quite happy to discuss the sources and meaning of the article with anyone who will actually debate them with me. As of yet I have heard absolutely no proper arguments for the section and consider only the sentence about the Orange order to have any actual relevance, as do many others on here. If you wish to make the case for the inclusion of the others, by all means do.

However, please bear in mind that anyone who simply parrots the vacuous statement that "the sources are valid" without any quantification, as Rapth has been doing, is wasting their time - not to mention insulting the intelligence of everyone here.

Ion Zone (talk) 20:24, 21 February 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. However it seems to be an obscure topic and most of the naterial in the article is original research. TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I think that Lihaas was referring, specifically, to this: , 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)

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 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 and a Google Books 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)

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)

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: . --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 Misplaced Pages, 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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: . 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: . 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: . 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages mirrors, but does give a conference outline from Yale: , 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": , 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 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: , 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)

The Lebenon

I have removed this section as it fails on just about everything. Chomsky (not a reliable source for facts) says the people felt terrorized. This is not an act of terrorism. BBC reference does not mention terrorism. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. TFD (talk) 21:08, 21 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)

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)

Free for all

I am appalled by the free-for-all outbreak of edits and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments over the last 24 hours. Editors, in at least some cases, are shouting their personal POVs, and not giving anyone else the time to respond and to work thoughtfully to the point of reaching WP:CONSENSUS. Looking at some of the short talk threads directly above this one, I can see that they are raising issues that were discussed just a little bit higher up on this talk page, with outcomes opposite to what the more recent posts are advocating. Please take the time to read past talk before imposing your own opinions on the page, and please wait for consensus before taking it upon yourself to dictate what the page says. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are my actions with regards to the Lebanon section incorrect? I would ask you to self revert given what you put back is so terribly wrong. 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

They probably are incorrect, but let's take the time to look at them and decide in a neighborly way. In the mean time, I'm going to read and think about the comments you have made, and I invite you, in turn, to take a deep breath, and read the discussion that occurred about that section already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You must have looked at the sourcing here? None of it supports the content, none mentions terrorism whatsoever. There is a huge bridge between terrorism and what is currently in this article. Tentontunic (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what I did with respect to that sourcing, all you have to do is to look back at past talk here, and at the page edit history. And if you are correct, you will still be correct tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask you to look to the section above were I clearly lay out why that section was removed. Tentontunic (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I will, but maybe not in the next few minutes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No hurry, we are not on a deadline here :) Tentontunic (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good! Thanks. I promise that everything that you and others have been raising will be given thoughtful attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm appalled by User:SarekOfVulcan's actions. Using his admin bit to semi-protect the page, then making a content edit looks like an abuse of power to me. --rpeh •T•C•E• 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He semi protected the page in response to a request from me given the Ip editor edit warring. Tentontunic (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page is fine. Protecting the page and then editing it is not. --rpeh •T•C•E• 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) The Lebanon section and most of the rest of the article should be removed. Christian terrorism is not defined as terrorist actions committed by Christians but as terrorist actions committed in order to achieve Christian goals. The Phalange were a Christian group who may have committed terrorist actions in order to achieve nationalist goals. In fact many of their victims were also Maronite Christians. However no source has even been provided to show that their actions were considered terrorism. In order to include a group we need sources that explain their actions in terms of Christian terrorism. Incidentally, Tentontunic, the ideology of the writer of the sources used does not matter, so long as we distinguish between facts and opinions expressed in the sources. TFD (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding TFD's comment about definition, I find it very sensible. DMSBel (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the way this page has been edited, I admit I got peed off and kept reinforcing my edits, but it seems very much like a lot of people here are fighting for the page to remain an ideological opinionated mess instead of a page built on facts and examples. At the moment I can only find one line that could be considered to be not based on opinion! And that is most likely because I haven't checked the citation for it yet.

Ion Zone (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How are editors differentiating between para-military violence, militia groups, and extremist individuals on the fringes of protest groups?DMSBel (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to say thank you to numerous editors above for, now, taking these concerns to talk. Let's try to keep discussions about individual sections of the page in one place on this talk page, so I'm going to try to reply to some of the comments here, along those lines, in other talk sections, above.

In the comment just above mine, DMSBel asks in general about differentiating between various kinds of groups. I think it's admittedly an imprecise thing to do, but what has always been a useful way of going about it, at other articles, has been to look at secondary sources about the subject, and see whether or not they describe the matter as "terrorism". If the sources call it terrorism, then it is terrorism for Misplaced Pages's purposes, and if they do not call it that, then Misplaced Pages should not either. The good thing about that approach is that it stays on the good side of WP:NOR: we don't get into arguments about what individual editors think is or is not terrorism. After all, if anything is obvious from the discussion here, different editors have different good-faith opinions, and we get nowhere by arguing over those. Go with what the sources say, always. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem we have is that there are few sources available through Google books or scholar on Christian terrorism. However, it is a subcategory of religious terrorism. This definition of religious terrorism from Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism should be helpful: "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring sweeping changes". TFD (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a very useful source. Should we try and work through the countries, and sift out anything that does not come under religious terrorism as defined there? I think the Freedomites (Sons of Freedom) would fall under anarchist terrorism according to your source. Is there any objection to removing them from the article? DMSBel (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could copy paste them to an Anarchist Terrorism page?

Ion Zone (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mess

OK this page is a mess again (although at least well cited mess now). The basic problem seems to be that people say "Oh what about X? we could/should include that." without reading the archives. Entries need to conform with the parameters have laid down, or where it is debated by scholars, we should cover both sides of the debate, not merely look for cites to support inclusion. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

It is a bit. I'll shift the new NI section up to under the the old one, might make things a bit more navigable.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've also put both Lebanon sections together, hopefully in the right order! Sorry about everything jumping about, but this should makes things a bit easier.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the article, not the talk page. Perhaps the only solution is to move the page to "Violence things done by people who were more or less identified as Christian." and let everything in. The page does not distinguish between massacres, wars and other violent acts and terrorism, nor between racially, politically or tribally motivated violence by religious people and religiously motivated violence. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Ooops. Yeah, that has kinda been a feature of this page. We are trying to make it better. I really hope nobody gets annoyed about that little reshuffle.... Did kinda need it though. Tbh, "Violence things done by people who were more or less identified as Christian." is a pretty good summery of the page at the moment, particularly as that Timothy McVeigh could be pretty much anything, agnostic included.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd better leave a note in the history....

Ion Zone (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Keeran, Daniel M. (2009). Christian Terrorism: lay down your life.... take up your cross. CreateSpace.
2. Moloney, Ed (2002). A Secret History of the IRA. Penguin Books. p. 246. ISBN 0-141-01041-X.
3. Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline (1997-01). The Origins of the Present Troubles in Northern Ireland. Longman. ISBN 9780582100732. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. McGarry, John (15 Jun. 1995). Explaining Northern Ireland. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 18. ISBN 978-0631183495. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
5. Dermot Keogh, ed. (28 Jan. 2294). Northern Ireland and the Politics of Reconciliation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 55–59. ISBN 978-0521459334. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. Weitzer, Ronald (1995-01). Policing Under Fire: Ethnic Conflict and Police-Community Relations in Northern Ireland. State University Press. ISBN 978-0791422489. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Coakley, John. "ETHNIC CONFLICT AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: THE IRISH EXPERIENCE OF PARTITION". Retrieved 15 Feb. 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
8. "GERALD of WALES The Norman Conquest of Ireland (12th Century), Britannia". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 16 (help)
9. "The Norman Conquest". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
10. "Irelands History in Maps". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
11. "The Irish Coercion Act, The New York Times" (PDF). Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
12. "Irish Coercion Act, Wordlingo". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
13. Coercion Acts, The Oxford Companion to Irish History. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
14. The Squad: And the Intelligence Operations of Michael Collins, by T.Ryle Dwyer. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
15. "1972: Army kills 13 in civil rights protest, BBC". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
16. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/22/bloodysunday.northernireland1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
17. "New World Encyclopaedia". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
18. "New World Encyclopaedia". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
19. "The legacy of the Bloody Sunday killings,Gardian Newspaper". Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
20. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-night-i-punched-john-lennon-hooley-13577831.html. Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/649397.stm. Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
22. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/feb/20/northernireland.martinbright. Retrieved 17-02-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
23. . BBC News. 2010-11-12. Retrieved 2010-11-13. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles