Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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

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 Wikipedia's purposes, and if they do not call it that, then Wikipedia 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".[1] 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)

Proposal

hat|This vote has absolutely no legitimacy. Take it to Dispute Resolution because WP:VOTE doesn't allow what you're doing here. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Un-hatted by --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose removing all material where the sources do not discuss "Christian terrorism". If the source does not interpret acts of terror as being "Christian terrorism", then neither should we. Essentially that means removing the "By country" section. In order to imnprove this article, editors should look for sources about Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I've described above - several times - why this is a silly idea. Repeating the same argument again is going to be a waste of everybody's time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it a waste of time to read TFD's comments. I find his remarks generally helpful.DMSBel (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has yet come up with an answer to the point I made. Let me copy it here for ease of access:

"The fact that the transcript doesn't explicitly use the term "Christian terrorism" doesn't matter either. Most WP sources don't explicitly use terms used on articles. To test this, I simply hit the Random Page link and reached List of Memphis blues musicians that claims to be "a list of Memphis blues musicians." The first item in the list is Jackie Brenston, a page that doesn't include the term "Memphis blues musician" anywhere on it, and that links to one source that doesn't use the term either, or anything like it."

Now, are you or any of the other people agreeing to this ridiculous proposal planning to go through every WP article and delete any content that doesn't conform to your brand new interpretation of WP:RS? If so, it won't be long before you get blocked so there's no problem. If not, you are engaged in the fallacy of Special pleading. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly you might be using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Another person misses the point. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay about deletion, which is irrelevant to this question. The issue here is that several editors are dismissing sources because of their own, faulty, interpretation of WP:RS. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree This article requires an entire rewrite. Tentontunic (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree Remove any citations that don't directly support the point, remove any dubious sourcing of any kind, and delete any material that is left unsupported. That will all-but stub the article, and we can then start on the pervasive weighting and POV problems. Whatever route most rapidly leads to a root canal on this article is the way to go.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: My most serious concern is that there was, with regard to how to assess individual cases, practically no agreed methodology, definitions, parameters established before including examples in this article. If there has in the past been some degree of consensus about any of these it seems that those have now been lost sight of. I see no way in which a sensitive article can be written without those having been established in advance. Without those I cannot see how it can avoid becoming a Coat Rack.DMSBel (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - It's a straightforward WP:V policy compliance issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note - There are other problems, for example Assam News does not seem to be a RS - even if it used the term. Moreover examples such as the Gunpowder Plot, where one or two sources may use such a term, should not be included without making it clear that this is not a commonly used description. Moreover even if no sources could be found to call the Northern Ireland events "Christian terrorism" there should still be a paragraph explaining that the motivations of the participants were complex and varied, and changed over time, with a reference off to the main articles. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
  

• Agree - (You probably already know my reasons) Side Note: It looks very much like Rpeh planted that 'poll is invalid' tag? Extremely amusing.

Ion Zone (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Personally, it seems to me that this "motion" or whatever it is, is just an opportunity for editors to re-state their already-stated opinions, and dig in, instead of trying to come to consensus. But it ought not to come as a surprise that I'm actually very friendly to Tentontunic's statement that the page needs an extensive rewrite. I just wish editors would understand that rewriting is not the same thing as blanking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Tryptofish. I don't think anybody disagrees with the notion that this article could be improved, but the problem comes when one group of editors equates "improve" with "blank". No specific problems have been pointed out, and all that seems to be happening at the moment is a piece-by-piece dismantling that is clearly (given at least one editor's record) a prelude to a deletion request. --rpeh •T•C•E• 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note; attempting to "close" a discussion because you don't agree with the consensus will neither work nor improve your credibility. Indeed it does the opposite. Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Note: starting a discussion that has absolutely no credibility or force is a waste of time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Tryptofish I don't see anything about blanking in the proposal TFD has made. Which editors do you think do not understand the difference between re-writing and blanking? My own concern as expressed above is not that the article should be completely blanked, but that there needs to be an agreed basis for determining what should be included. If there is no generally accepted defintion of "christian terrorism" in the literature that needs to be said also. DMSBel (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree in principle with the last two sentences of what you just said. And that's a good thing, because that's the way we might get to consensus. My main point is that we should be working to find consensus, instead of endlessly saying I want to include it, or I do not want to include it, at one another. What I've seen over the last couple of days has included a lot of just-below-3RR edit warring, over deleting sections of the page, then restoring those sections, then re-deleting them, etc., ad nauseum. That's what I mean by "blanking": not necessarily blanking the entire page, but deleting, in its entirety, what one objects to, instead of rewriting it to make it better. And let's, please, realize that this motion-or-whatever it is, is not unanimous, that there are editors on both sides of the divide, and no one should be unilaterally claiming that the discussion is over (either by hatting it, or by declaring that the other "side" is wrong). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment.

"I don't think anybody disagrees with the notion that this article could be improved, but the problem comes when one group of editors equates "improve" with "blank"."

Look who's talking Mr Try-to-do-away-with-any-discussion-I-disagree-with. Ion Zone (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Some have to seriously let go, this article is completely biased and needs careful and impartial rewrite, not to mention the definition of inclusion criteria. Eli+ 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think Ptah has to refrain from making personal attacks like calling ionzone an ass and richfarmbourough silly in the edit summaries, that's childish Eli+ 21:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that goes for everyone, including someone who called me a few names yesterday. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OH Come on!!! that was a pet name, just to show my affection for youEli+ 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not what you said when another editor called you on it at your user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet again Eli displays a lack of knowledge about policy. I called Rich's proposal silly, and never called Ion an ass - I advised her against doing so. Please learn about NPA before accusing somebody of violating it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

the link was there, right at the bottom of your talk page until you blanked it Eli+ 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• In other news Reph is now spamming my talk page because I can't be arsed to try and spell that random jumble of letters he calls a name. XD

Ion Zone (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Just makes you look like a child, Ion Zone, and goes to prove that you have no good faith. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK lets just stop it. Ion Zone, and Rpeh, and Eli you are all close to being taken to AN/I. If people do not start to spell usernames properly I'll take all involved to AN/I myself. I am about to do this.DMSBel (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm right behind you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever misspelled anybody's username. If I have, please tell me where this occurred and I will apologise to the user personally. Ion Zone has done this before, and doesn't appear to have learned from the experience. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not refering to you regarding mispelling, but you have been a bit provocative here too. But if the mispelling happens again I won't issue another warning. No one has to edit this page. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For my comments, I believe I can lean on my SPADE. Deliberately misspelling another user's name is a different matter. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't mispelt names but you are being tendentious. Ion Zone is just about to get taken to AN/I.DMSBel (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've spelt anyone's name right on here when typing them manually. Does it really matter? Seriously? Who cares? I find it difficult. If anything, R's constant complaining and attempts to get anyone who disagrees with him in trouble should be more annoying.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Usernames It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that "Rpeh" and "Ion Zone" are difficult to spell. The former is four letters, and the latter is comprised of two simple words. Yes, people make mistakes, typos, etc., but it's just plain silly to pretend that those two usernames are difficult to spell over and over again. Continued incivility will result in one or both accounts being blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I HAVE NEVER MISSPELLED ION ZONE'S NAME Sorry to shout, but that makes two people who have accused me of having a problem that only User:Ion Zone has. I have never misspelled his name, and I am growing increasingly annoyed at the FALSE accusations to the contrary! --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't care how you spell my name. And it may be easy for you to spell R's name, but I'm not you, I mix letters up as it is without other people doing it too. And R, will you PLEASE stop scandal-mongering.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not scandal-mongering. You have deliberately misspelled my name to cause dissent. It didn't bother me in itself, but now people are accusing me of doing the same to you, I have a problem. Are you going to apologise to me for deliberately misspelling my name? Please do so now. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes just for the record Rpeh has not misspelt anyone's user name here to my knowledge. I apologise if any earlier comment of mine was not clear enough about that.DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, comment retracted. Apologies. Ion Zone, you are seriously stretching good faith assumptions by claiming that you can't spell a 4-letter username. It's not rocket science, and it suggests that you are trying to be passive-aggressive-combative. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not a deliberate attempt to annoy him and I am shocked that anyone thinks this is a serious matter. If I was trying I would have made his name sound like something nasty. Which I didn't. I just misspelled it. I have problems with reading and typing things like this. It is not a big deal. R - can't even get my gender right, but does it look like I care? :)

Ion Zone (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You've never stated what your gender is, and my use of terms like s?he (which is a Regular expression meaning "zero or one 's' followed by 'he'", in case you aren't aware) is a way of deliberately avoiding offense through making incorrect assumptions. On the other hand, your statements elsewhere about my username make it quite clear what you're trying to achieve. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not a regular expression either. ;) Please don't confuse my not trying to spell your name exactly right with a deliberate and extremely subtle attempt to provoke you. I have a lot of trouble with typing words that aren't real and I almost never try to get usernames with funny spellings exactly right.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest everybody takes a day away from both the article and the talk page.

It's pretty clear that tempers are running high and that no obvious solution is going to present itself and the way things have escalated suggests that things are only going to get worse. Yes, I include my own comments in this.

It's 2011-02-22 10pm in London, England right now. I hereby promise not to edit either this page (beyond any requested clarifications) or the article (at all) until 2011-02-24 9am as long as other currently-involved editors agree not to perform any mass-reversions/deletions during that time. Let's come back with clear heads and try to work out what needs to be done. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there are several editors here who are not engaging in childishness. If you need to clear you head, take a break.DMSBel (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rapth, could you clarify what you mean when you say 'the sources are valid' and 'there is a clear link' with regards to the NI section?

Ion Zone (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, your personal attack accusing me of childishness isn't helping your case. You realise that, right? I'm suggesting a sensible action and you're rejecting it for no good reason. Please explain your reasons. I don't know of any editor named "Rapth" who needs to respond to the other comment. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good thing you are so good at thinking up excuses and calling people childish Rep, stops you feeling like you have to justify the content of the NI section.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... the defense rests. I believe my point has been demonstrated perfectly. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are still evading the real issue here, i.e. the NI section and your failure to explain how it shows their motives were Christian.

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

I have opened an Incident at AN/I here [[2]]DMSBel (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed Lebanon section

I haven't been involved with this article before now, and from that standpoint, the discussion above seems to show consensus to remove the Lebanon section. I have done so, although that is hardly the biggest problem with this article. I suggest that we use this as an opportunity to hit the reset button (at least on this section) and try and figure out on the talk page (1) should there be a section on Lebanon in the first place, (2) if so, what should it cover, and (3) how can it be written in a way that complies with NPOV, SYN, and so on? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I've had enough. The campaign from Christian editors to blank this page is evidently going to continue no matter what I do, and I'm not going to bother having my blood pressure raised trying to stop it. Simon, marching into an already-heated debate and wiping out an entire section as your first edit is utterly unhelpful and makes me question your motives. But I don't care any more. This page is off my watchlist from now on. Congratulations to the whitewash crew. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the drama R, and stop making assumptions about people, i don't know about the other editors; i may have been raised as a catholic but i developed into an apatheist, this isn't about religion as much as it's about surfacing the truth Eli+ 17:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, splendid. So the only editor who expressly opposed removal has now removed himself from the article, yes? This is progress: We now have not only consensus but unanimity. Now let's move forwards and fix the rest of the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

R - the only one who seems to be engaged in any kind of whitewash\POV forcing here, is you. Personally, I just want the truth, and if that means staring again from the title, 0k.::::Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there's plenty of blame to go around. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As someone who, myself, removed the section previously, in the hopes that doing so would help lower the temperature of discussion here, and help editors come to consensus, I have no objection at all to your edit. But I want to quibble with something in your comment here. You are wrong that there is actually any sort of consensus about that section. For either "side" to unilaterally declare consensus for their preferred outcome is the wrong way to start the three-part discussion for which you call. But I support your call for that discussion! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, in my case, neither "side" is unilaterally declaring consensus—I haven't been involved, so I'm not on a "side." I'm on the side of creating an encyclopedia; that certainly means improving this article, and from what I've seen so far, it probably means nuking this article and starting again (or, indeed, not starting again). As to the existence of consensus, I'm just calling it as I see it: Tentontunic, DMSBel, Ion Zone, TFD, Sean.hoyland, and Eli seem to support removal, and coming in as a neutral third party uninvolved in the dispute and the personal mudslinging that has accompanied it, so do I. You and rpeh seem less supportive of that proposal. WP:CON requires consensus, not unanimity, and although I would typically prefer more time to elapse, the dire state of the article, the number of people who have commented, and the lopsided nature of the merits all point to the conclusion that there is sufficient consensus to remove. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Let me add this observation. In practice, all that my edit did is change the footing of the debate: until now, the proponents of the material have placed the burden on its critics to show consensus for removal. Sometimes that is appropriate, but here, the proponents are a clear minority. Accordingly, the boot should be and now is on the other foot: If those who want this section to stay in the article can establish consensus to add the material, it can be added. In effect, I have simply changed the status of the text from "in while the debate continues" to "out while debate continues," a status more consonant with the apparent pro-removal trend of that debate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I said that I have no objection to removing the section for now! But it sounds like you just said that you didn't declare consensus but you have concluded that there is "sufficient consensus". And of course the responsibility to be responsible about sourcing and so forth does not change as a function of whether or not the section happens to be deleted at the moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, I said that neither side declared consensus. I did. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

POV through selection of sources

One of my many problems with this article is crystalized in the section on Northern Ireland. We quote Steve Bruce and John Hickey, and while I assume that we have reliable sources for their quotes, my question is this: who the hell are Steve Bruce and John Hickey, and why do we care what their opinions are? What qualifies them, over every other expert who has written about Northern Ireland, to speak for the issue in Wikipedia? Their views are presented here as fact, but I have no idea whether these people represent a consensus of scholars or if they are a pair of kooks, and I fancy that the average reader will have no better idea. So how can we evaluate whether their views are being given undue weight and become a POV problem? We would not allow a user to write "I think the problem in northern ireland is religion," so how can we allow a user to write "Prof. Steve Bruce thinks that the problem in northern ireland is religion," which has precisely the same effect when there is no evaluation of the reliableness for this purpose of the source? An article's neutrality can be obliterated by careful selection of sources just as effectively (if not more so) as by editors' writing.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You could phrase this more elegantly. Bruce and Hickey are expert writers on politics in Northern Ireland and their books were published by the academic press. That makes their books reliable sources. That includes their descriptions of how Northern Ireland is perceived in the academic community. However that does not establish the degree of acceptance, if any, of their own opinions presented in their books. All of this is moot however because they do not discuss Christian terrorism, and therefore their books should not be used as sources for this article. TFD (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before though, a source being academic does not mean it is correct, I have seen plenty of similar who make their case with rhetoric framed as fact. Generally these people work backwards from a conclusion and frame a difference of some sort - however minor - as the defining reason for a conflict. Regardless of established fact. It has always puzzled me how they get away with doing that....

Ion Zone (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Their books are reliable sources for their views. Whether they are reliable sources for factual statements about the conflict's origins and motivations is something that I can't easily evaluate. That's the problem I was raising. For all I know, they do represent scholarly consensus, but how are we to evaluate that? Even if we just say that "some scholars believe" etc., I would worry that we could be giving undue weight to a particular view. Here's an analogy: Suppose we were to write an article about the sacraments, and we quoted only protestant theologians. Those theologians may be expert writers, and their books may have been published by the academic press. Their books may be reliable sources for what protestant theologians think about the sacraments. None of that, however, would not salvage the listing (if not capsized) article which would inevitably arise from excluding Catholic and Orthodox theologians.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why we should use books published by the academic press. Facts are checked through peer-review, and authors must distinguish between facts and opinions. They must also be clear what degree of acceptance opinions have received. For example, a writer says, "although most writers categorize the terrorist attack of XX/XX/XX as an example of "nationalist terrorism", I will argue in this book that it is best described as "Christian terrorism"". We then can accept the (a) a terrorist attack occurred, (b) most writers consider it "nationalist terrorism". We can then look at later academic writing to see if their personal view has gained any acceptance. A book by a protestant minister that states as fact there are only two sacraments and Catholics are wrong would not be accepted by academic publishers. The author would have to say protestants accept only two sacraments. TFD (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That was very well-said! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yes and Yes re. peer-reviewed sources - and pretty much all the rest of your comment. That's definitely the quality of reference needed here. DMSBel (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Phalangist militia + Sabra & Shatila

I propose this source to be used for the section regarding the Lebanon.

In response to an assassination on the then president elect Gemayel the Phalangist militia took revenge by attacking the Sabra and Shatila refuge camps killing an estimated 700 men women and children.

Ensalaco,Mark Middle Eastern terrorism: from Black September to September 11 University of Pennsylvania Press. 30 November 2007. ISBN 978-0812240467

I think this a neutral way to put this massacre, there is of course more which can be added to the section regarding this groups activities. Tentontunic (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The book does not mention "religious terrorism" and in fact refers to the Maronite Christians as a "minority" and the Phalange as "[b]orn of the fascist movements in Spain and Italy in the 1930s".[3] There is no relevance to this article. TFD (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Phalangist`s are christian, the book is on terrorism. How is this not relevant exactly? Tentontunic (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to youmany times, this is synthesis, and I do not wish to explain it to you again. TFD (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How is the use of one source synth? You would need more than one source to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " That is roughly what WP:SYNTH says, right? And given you just now said you believe this is synth please explain how you have explained this "many times"? Tentontunic (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See above: "You seem to not understand syntnesis. It says, "a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." The analysis that Irish terrorism was Christian terrorism has not been made. While I accept that different authors may use different terminology to mean the same thing, that is not the case here. What synonym for example do the authors use for "Christian terrorism"? TFD (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)" TFD (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I would nuance it by saying that there is some leeway for when the source (I haven't yet read this source, but I will) says that the subject is terrorism and also (within the same source) says that Christianity is in some significant way a part of it. We do not have to be too rigid about requiring the actual phrase "Christian terrorism" (although it's a potentially useful search term). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct The Four Deuces, I do not understand how the Phalangist`s who are Christian (unless you think they are not?) being examined in some detail in a book on terrorism is synth. However to prevent further argument, Khan, Ali L. A theory of international terrorism: understanding Islamic militancy Brill. 1 June 2006. ISBN 978-9004152076 p47 says the massacre was the embodiment of Judeo-Christian terrorism, shall this one do? Tentontunic (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Khan does not say that but actually says, "For many in the Muslim world, who resent the phrase Islamic terrorism, which in their view malighns Islam, the Sabra and Shatila massacre was an embodiment of Judeo-Christian terrorism...."[4] Here is a link to a book about religious terrorism that we could use as a source, that actually mentions Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] The problem I have with including the S&S massacre is that it doesn't appear to be an act of "'Christian' terrorism," and so it's off-point in this article. (For the same reason, Sabra and Shatila massacre needs some cleanup, but I can only deal with so many articles at a time.) I'm happy to stipulate that the Phalangists were/are Christians, but they were/are also nationalists, and their actions appear to be motivated by nationalist concerns. It was incidental to their actions that they happened to be Christians (which, of course, is part of my problem with the whole notion of "Christian" terrorism, but that's a whole other argument). Lookit: If a muslim goes postal and kills a bunch of people because he's mad about he's not an Islamic terrorist. And if a Saudi nationalist who happens to be a muslim goes postal and kills a Syrian for insulting Saudi Arabia, he's not an Islamic terrorist. Both are obvious—if you suggested otherwise at a cocktail party, people would look at you funny—and this is no less so; why in the world would anyone propose that nationalists retaliating over the assassination of their party leader was "Christian terrorism"? The whole idea is bizarre to me.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you raised it, it's not exactly the same thing to talk about "a Muslim goes postal" or "a Saudi nationalist" in the singular. It's possible (note that I'm just saying possible) that when a large group, virtually all of whom are Christian, attacks another large group, virtually all of whom are non-Christian (or, as in the case of Northern Ireland, a different Christian denomination), that there may have been a role for religious identity in those acts. Just possible, I'm saying, depending on what secondary sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's possible, but it seems hard to drag it across the threshold of plausible without excluding a priori the context, including other possible motivations arising thence, the group's own stated motivations, and what reasonable, dispassionate observers conclude to be the motivations. Everything points to S&S being motivated by a kind of crude revenge (that is actually directly contrary to Christianity, by the by) over the assassination of a political leader by his adherents, a leader and a party motivated in turn by primarily secular concerns.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we need to be careful about basing editorial decisions on whether editors consider something to be "directly contrary to Christianity", although I do realize that you were only saying that parenthetically, not as part of your main argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Simon Dodd is correct in his comment above. Moving from ''could have been primarily religiously motivated"(ie. the possibility exists) to "must have been primarily religiously motivated" is logically fallacious. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disagreeing with that aspect of it; I was commenting on something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Christian terrorism

I tagged this earlier for neutrality and accuracy, but forgot to note it here (thanks for the heads-up, Tentontunic). The section reads as follows: "Many Christian groups rely on their own interpretation of the Bible to justify acts of terrorism, targeted on groups as diverse as medical workers in abortion clinics and racial, ethnic and religious groups." Like many sections of the article (and indeed, the article as a whole) there's probably a kernel of truth behind this, but it is blown comically out of proportion in what I can only assume is an Okrentian attempt to create an illusion of parity between "'Christian' terrorism" and, well, that other kind that probably doesn't exist and certainly isn't at war with us. (The effort becomes literally laughable when, shortly thereafter, the article gets so desperate for examples that it is reduced to citing violence by an Indian group with fifteen members—fewer than the average staff at an Indian restaurant!) "Many" Christian groups? Who? How many? The sentence makes it sound like Christian violence is common when it is in fact as aberrational as it is internally contradictory. And the second sentence underscores the problem with the former. While violence against abortion clinics might be classifiable as terrorism, it is motivated by pro-life beliefs, not directly by Christianity. That many of those who do it are (or claim to be) Christians, and even that their pro-life views may be (but need not be) religiously-motivated, do not change this. This stands in sharp contrast to things like the St. Valentine's Massacre, which was directly and explicitly sectarian, or Islamic terrorism—the elephant in the room here—where terrorism stems directly, explicitly, and exclusively from religious beliefs. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reference /citation in this section does not name the work it cites. Rather than jump on this I checked to make sure that there was no earlier citation which included the book title, but there isn't. All there is in this section is an author's name and a page number. I could hazard a guess what the work might be, but thats all it would be. DMSBel (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The natural thing to do here is to ditch the existing text and rewrite it, given that we're talking about a very small piece of text with an pretty specific job to do. Can we hash out a paragraph here on the talk page summarizing "'Christian' terrorism" (actual and attributed) in modern times? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked in Bibliography? That is were the book reference is. I was thinking of breaking the article into two sections, Modern and older forms of terrorism. Are you not liking this idea? Tentontunic (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes I had not seen that. Thanks. I take it your question is to Simon Dodd re. breaking the article up. May I comment that the term "terrorism" is itself a modern term, and seems to originate around the time of the Reign of Terror in France [[5]]. DMSBel (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of were the term origented please exuse typos. one vino too many. 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs)

Who among us can honestly say that they've never dredited... - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon, you need to look at that sentence before I edited! Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Over-broad citations (ie. page ranges) in a number of sections

I am going to add this to three sections: the lede, Romania, and Uganda, as there are citations in each of these sections which only give a very wide page range, and need to be narrowed to within the range of two or three pages.DMSBel (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, I will just put it at the top of the page, and list the citations here.DMSBel (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede: B. Hoffman, "Inside Terrorism", Columbia University Press, 1999, p. 105–120.

Romania: Payne, Stanley G. (1995). A History of Fascism 1914–1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press (pp. 277–289) ISBN 0-299-14874-2

Uganda: Ruddy Doom and Koen Vlassenroot (1999). "Kony's message: A new Koine? The Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda". African Affairs (Oxford Journals / Royal African Society) 98 (390): 5–36. DMSBel (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Uganda: "Lord's resistance Army"

I have re-worked this section slightly, however in checking sources I see the following text in this section: LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle,

The source from which this has been drawn (practically word for word) states: Mr. Kony's fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle, but some Islam is mixed into their beliefs as well - here [[6]]

How are we to deal with this? By including the full quote? By removing the LRA from this article? By including it in Islamic terrorism too, or something else?

I think at the very least the full quote needs to be included, then it can be decided what to do next.

I propose that a new article is created which would allow for groups (such as the LRA) and individuals which hold syncretic beliefs. It could perhaps be titled:

• Terrorism and Syncretic Religious Movements

or

• Terrorism and Quasi-Religious Movements

perhaps both those articles need to be created, it would certainly give more possibilities when it comes to groups or individuals professing a Hodge-podge of beliefs. (I use hodgepodge descriptively)User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe add the full quote and go with the second title? (I doubt many people know what 'syncretic' means, and my spell-checker doesn't know it either)

Ion Zone (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Syncretic is not all that unknown a term in discussions on religion. However having read a little bit more, I think Syncretic and Quasi differ significantly. Quasi refers to resembling something due to incorporating some of it's elements or attributes, having some but not all of the features. [[7]]

1. almost but not really; seemingly: a quasi-religious cult

2. resembling but not actually being; so-called: a quasi-scholar

DMSBel (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend including the full quote until something more comprehensive can be found. Essentially we should have sections on the LRA and Northern Ireland even if we doubt that they belong, because people will expect to find them here. None of the list parts of article should be in great depth since everything is covered in detail elsewhere. It remains to be seen if anything of substance can be compiled outside the list section. Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I changed the wording to "A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of christian and islamic beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[24]". It was described as "a quasi-religious movement" in one of the sources that was already in.

I don't know about people expecting to find them here. Generally including things on that ground would result in a lot of popular misconceptions List of common misconceptions being included and maintained in other articles: For instance I've no idea how many people still think that lemmings run suicidally off cliffs en mass. But even if it was the majority of people the only point of mentioning it in an article on lemmings would be to highlight the misconception, and then explain that actually it is sometimes the case that they accidentally fall off ledges and cliffs when exploring new territory (poor little critters). So I think we should steer well clear of including groups because people would expect to find them, and rely heavily on peer-reviewed sources which list them. The article is clearly still in a process of clean-up from it's earlier atrocious state. There are things to be learned about how it got like that. DMSBel (talk) 15:18

It was my intention to treat the Northern Ireland section as though someone had asked the question "Is this conflict religious?" and then proceed to explain the motivations for it in brief. If we just removed it it would come back pretty quickly. Probably in a form even more fallacious and constructed than it was before since most people outside Ireland seem to think the religious connection is an established fact.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight tag on "History"

With this edit Simon Dodd placed an undue weight notice on Christian terrorism#History. He didn't give an edit summary. The tag says an editor has expressed concern re undue weight. Who? Where? He never mentioned this tag on the talk page, or explained concerns. It is a copout to tell others to "discuss and resolve this issue" without stating what the concerns with that section are, so I am removing the tag. If it is replaced then the concerns held by an editor should be clearly spelled out on this talk page. I have conveyed this to Simon's talk. Moriori (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it was intended to be covered by the POV through selection of sources section. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Moriori; thanks for the heads up. There was a lot of editing being done that day and a couple of tags got away from me. In the future, you might want to consider approaching the issue the way Tentontunic did: just ask. In any event, and in addition to Sean's observation, the undue weight problem is simply this: While the section recounts an incident or two of arguably terrorist activity, there is no effort to situate the events in context or to define their place in the overall picture. Without that, they're simply anecdotes which may loom larger or smaller in the overall picture, and so the coverage of them may be due or not. Again, thanks for the heads up; I've replaced the tag.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You say they "might be due or not.". Quite so. You don't know, but you inserted a tag alleging undue weight. I think you should remove the tag. Moriori (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the tag is not a perfect match for the issue, but it's close enough; tags are intended to be functional not rigidly formalistic, and the tag serves its function. It gives readers notice that the section is a problem and directs editors' attention to it with a broad characterization of the problem. The issue could be variously characterized as undue weighting, neutrality, or factual accuracy (factual completeness, actually), so I'm happy to consider replacing the tag with a different tag if you think we have another one that is more apt, but removing the tag altogether is tantamount to suggesting that the section will do as it now exists. It won't, so one imprecise tag or another will have to. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Moriori, your first and second comments are essentially inconsistent. You asked Simon to do something. He did it. The concern has been described as per standard tagging requirements. There is disagreement about WP:DUE compliance which means that the tag should stay. An editor cannot "know" nor are they required to know whether they are 100% right or wrong in their asssessment of policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Modern Christian Terrorism

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Above, in the section subtly titled "Modern Christian Terrorism," We're already talking about how that text is defective and how it can be replaced. If there's a copyvio problem with the existing text, I'd say that adds urgency to the task. Folks, let's just level the existing text and start again. We'll get there faster if we start again. I have boldly done just that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to skip the "R" of WP:BRD, meaning that I'm not going to revert you. That's because I agree with the prior talk that the deleted material was very poor quality and needs to be re-researched and re-written. But deleting it on the basis of COPYVIO? That's a stretch. If you go back to the deleted version and compare it to the original material in the source, it was a rather low-quality paraphrase, but in no way was it a copy, or even what a pretty strict assessment of plagiarism (and I'm very strict about plagiarism, both on-Wiki and in real life) would consider to be that. Anyway, I'm working on researching that aspect of the page, and I intend to write a much better quality version of what was taken out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was close enough based on Wikipedias definition of plagiarism "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." Either way, the section was begging for a rewrite (see constant ongoing discussions above). Now we can all stop making excuses on both sides of the section and have a valid reason to rewrite it. I am not bias to the section nor do I have a personal point of view on it. But as previously stated, the way the section was written was causing a lot of infighting. But since it was plagiarized from a book, we can all be bold and rewrite it. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree about whether the passage met that definition, and, more importantly, agree to agree about the need for a rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sections

I have removed several sections and texts where nothing in the sources or related articles established that the groups were "Christian terrorists." It is entirely fallacious to claim that a terrorist who happens to be (at least purportedly) a Christian is a "Christian terrorist" in the only sense of that phrase which can support an article on Wikipedia: terrorism motivated by Christianity. It establishes nothing of relevance to this article to show that terrorists with purely secular goals also (but incidentally) claim discipleship. I have, however, left intact those sections describing dubious or borderline (or, indeed, delusional) cases, such as the Ugandans and Indiana, who both explicitly claim quasi-Christian goals among other secular purposes.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like what I've seen so far, the article is actually starting to look like it has basis in fact!

Ion Zone (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we are talking about these two sections: [8], and [9]. The Wikpedia pages that relate to those topics are, respectively, Doukhobor and Russian National Unity. On the face of it, both of those pages appear to me to indicate some motivation by Christianity, although I don't know much about the subjects. Did you look for any other sourcing before deleting these two sections? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

RNU seems to be a nationalist group. I get no sense that they are motivated by Christian concerns; to the extent they have Orthodox affiliations, that seems to be a product of nationalism and history rather than any discernible Christian motivation. Doukhobor is a different kettle of fish: it isn't clear to me that they are a terrorist group at all, but that doesn't seem to matter for current purposes, because (unless their WP page is wrong) they aren't Christians: "They rejected … the Russian Orthodox priests, icons, all church ritual, the Bible as the supreme source of divine revelation, and the divinity of Jesus." You can't reject Christ, Church, and the Bible and expect claims to be a Christian to be taken seriously. It would be like calling yourself a pro-lifer for abortion (or a "Catholic for 'choice,'" for that matter, but people actually do the latter, so that's a bad example).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I asked whether you looked for any other sourcing, I take it the answer is "no". To the best of my understanding, Christianity (at least mainstream Christianity) teaches against terrorism and similar violence, so one cannot expect Christian terrorists to adhere to logical applications of mainstream Christian thought. Nor should we substitute, for sourcing, any editor's personal opinion about who can or cannot "be taken seriously". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In this talk section, I also want to make a note of Rich's removal of the KKK material: [10]. I'm aware of the discussion at other pages as well as here, about the KKK not really being Christian in motivation. And—please don't get me wrong!—I'm not arguing (yet) for reverting it. Clearly an reinstatement of the section would require more careful sourcing than has occurred in the past. But, as an early step in looking at whether or not such sourcing exists, let me point out this: [11]. I'm not saying (yet) that it's a source, but I'm going to try to get a copy and see what it offers. For now, I'm just making a note of it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask this: Do you concede the possibility that once this article has been stripped of all the material that is irrelevant, non-notable, poorly-sourced, and otherwise not viable, what will be left may be a stub, if not a husk ready for AfD? Some songs—you know, you strip off the production and there's nothing left under it. The recording is a potemkin village. Likewise here: I don't start from the assumption that there will be an article left when we're done. Now, notice what I have not said. I have no opinion on whether there will or ought to be an article left after this process. But I don't assume that there must be, and so I'm not editing on the presumption that we have to preserve enough material to retain a viable article. It's entirely possible that we're going to end up with a stub. Neverhtless, my view is that we should steam-clean this article (and I hope that I've contributed positively to that effort) and see what is left when we're done. Maybe nothing will be! But that "risk" is not a good enough reason (in my view) to fail to clean it up. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What a strange comment! It seems to me that the question of whether or not an article should ultimately remain should be answered the way that Wikipedia always determines WP:Notability. Based on what sources say, it's a notable topic: [12], [13]. So I would expect that the decision at an AfD would be "keep". But I do concede, happily, that the page is in serious need of improvement! And if you're not personally interested in looking for better sourcing, I'm sure that other editors, including me, will be interested. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I take the view that anyone can add things to Wikipedia; that's easy. The real work of the project, editing, is in sifting and removing. At any rate, my point is as I said. We should do this cleanup without a thumb on the scales, acknowledging the possibility that there might not be enough verifiable information left to support anything more than a stub, and that that outcome is okay. The upshot of that point is that we don't have to include material just for the sake of having anything in the article, so makeweight efforts to force square pegs into round holes ("such and such an organization is kind of a Christian group and they're kind of terrorists, and they're nearly notable; should we include them?") strike me as needless. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it takes very little effort to hit the delete button. A very important part of the work of editing is tracking down reliable sources, and reporting them accurately, so that the square pegs are in square holes. Editors should be prepared to justify what they add, and editors should be prepared to justify what they delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, to hit the delete key, but that's a red herring. I didn't say pressing the delete key was hard. I said that the hard word was in sifting out what has to be subject to the delete key. And if it took little effort to do that work, if that work was easy, Wikipedia would have far less cruft and far fewer bloated articles than it does. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the time consuming task is not pressing the "delete" key. It is reviewing sources and checking for synth, checking for contextomy (quoting out of context). These may not have been deliberate but they need to be removed, and then the section needs to be considered on the basis of what reliable sources remain in it. If it was built on synth or contextomy then weight of responsibility falls on those who still think it should be included in the article to come up with the quality of sources needed here that can overcome the charges of synth etc. - such would need be of a high standard (peer-reviewed within the field of study). Editors who state that the subject is notable should not be concerned with a high standard of verifiabilty being required. DMSBel (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Klan section

I reverted Rich's deletion of the KKK because such a deletion was obviously motivated by a political ideology. (The intention being part of modern Conservatives' attempts to disassociate Christianity from the KKK.) The KKK has always been an organization taking its cues from their particular interpretation of Christianity, using Christian symbolism, and justifying their acts as being Christian in nature. Even now, one has only to go to any modern KKK website and see that they discuss Christian Supremacism as much as they discuss White Supremacism. Go here [[14]] if you want to see first-hand evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet our article Ku Klux Klan says nothing to that effect. It seems to me that if you want to edit that article to make that point, or can find a valid source which identifies the Klan's primary purpose as Christian to support inclusion here, you'll be on stronger ground for inclusion. Deleted. As an addendum, you don't help your case by accusing others of bad faith; I see no more basis for accusing conservative editors of attempting to "disassociate" the Klan from Christianity than for accusing you (a liberal editor, per your talk page) of attempting to associate them. That's not to say that you actually have a COI; you will protest that point, and so would they. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess those giant burning crosses, the fact that they always use Christianity in their speeches as justification for their Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Semitism, and the fact that they are openly Christian Supremacist has apparently escaped your notice. It's blatant Revisionism to disassociate the Klan from Christian Supremacism...and just as bad as if I were to attempt to edit the pages for the SDS or RAF to eliminate their ties to Left-Wing extremism. Furthermore, the fact that you point to the Wikipedia article on the KKK as "justification" is ludicrous...as the same kind of Revisionist editing by Conservatives is going on there as well. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, I found plenty of support for my argument in the first book that showed up on a Google search: "Its intent was to reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible." [[15]] On the same page, you can find quotes from senior Klan officials, such as these: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why...Christian white men are...to give the Jews some of their own medicine..." and "We honor Christ as the Klansman's Only Criterion of Character." (The book is "Dictionary of antisemitism from the earliest times to the present," by Robert Michael, Ph.D. [[16]], and Philip Rosen, Ph.D. [[17]].) I'm just gonna go ahead an revert the edit again...as it should be quite clear that I have proved my case. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You need sources that include them in Christian terrorism, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since almost no sources refer to ANYTHING as "Christian Terrorism," (because of pro-Christian bias) you know full well that you are using an impossibly precise "rule." I quoted respected academics above pointing to the religious orientation of the Klan. I did, however, find this reference to the KKK under the heading of "religious terrorism" in this book. [18] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the incipient paranoia ("everyone has pro-Christian bias except me and my anti-Christian liberal pals!"), one might observe that if almost no sources refer to anything as Christian terrorism, that counsels that an article called "Christian terrorism" at Wikipedia is almost inherently a POV/SYNTH/OR problem, doesn't it? Four Deuces is right; it's original research and synthesis. The sources you cite may support modifications to Ku Klux Klan, but they don't support the proposition that the Klan's primary activity was directed to purportedly Christian objectives. To avoid an edit war problem and to let other editors chime in, I will your revert unreverted, but I'd support another editor who chose to revert.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you use this discussion as a reasoning to claim that the entire article should be eliminated...further proving the point regarding bias. Please explain how the Klan's opposition to Catholicism and Judaism is not rooted in their interpretation of Protestant Christianity. Oh, and I'm not "Anti-Christian." I'm anti-Christian-Supremacism. Being anti-White-Supremacism doesn't make one racist against white people either. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says, "There were/are terrorist organizations that use religious references despite being racist like the Ku Klux Klan in the United States". That is acceptable to this article as is the observation of some that the reason the term "Christian terrorism" is rare is due to a bias (provided it is sourced). What we cannot do is present our own views in articles. The normal view of the Klan though is that they were trying to preserve the privileged status of the dominant native born white Protestant majority, what they saw as "real Americans". They were not trying to set up a theocratic state. Al Qaeda otoh encourages foreign-born converts, regardless of race. TFD (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate the arguments on both sides here. I mentioned some time ago in this talk that I am looking into further sourcing, and I have been slowly doing so. What I increasingly find, not only with respect to the KKK but also several of the other sections, present and former, of this page, is that there is quite a literature on the term "Christian terrorism"—not so much whether a particular group were or were not Christian terrorists, but how the application of the term to such groups has been, itself, a matter of serious debate. I suspect that will be the case here: insufficient sourcing to allow Wikipedia to say that the KKK are Christian terrorists, but plenty of sourcing for the debate about whether they are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed...and what's rather "telling" about these debates is how often those arguing against the existence of Christian Terrorism rely upon the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Here's a good example of that one in action: [19]. (Incidentally, the quotes from these "priests" back-handedly acknowledges the KKK as being a Christian Terrorist organization...while then saying essentially that "No True Scotsman Christian can be a terrorist!")Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD or merge?

I noted above that "once this article has been stripped of all the material that is irrelevant, non-notable, poorly-sourced, and otherwise not viable," the remainder "may be a stub, if not a husk ready for AfD." As the material dwindles, and it becomes more and more apparent that the article's problems are intractable (even User:Bryonmorrigan confessed above that "almost no sources refer to ANYTHING as 'Christian Terrorism'"), I'm wondering if we should just cut to the chase and put this thing on the block at AfD, either for a delete or a M&R to Christianity and violence? We could also tag it for a merge, but my experience has been that disputed merges are unproductive, open-ended timesinks, while AfD has the advantage of being a pretty definite process, with a defined start and end. Before launching such a process, though, we'd have to finish stripping out the problems to demonstrate how little is worth salvaging.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Keeping on proving what I mean about Right-Wing Christians promoting the lie that Christian Terrorism doesn't exist. Every time someone talks about Christian Terrorism, you guys accuse that person of being "Anti-Christian." It's a very useful, but disingenuous tactic. I mean, you're simultaneously arguing for eliminating statements about it...while using the fact that Conservatives have been fairly successful in stifling discussion of it as "proof" that it shouldn't be talked about. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:PERENNIAL. Or, more simply, take a look at the top of this talk page to see links to the past attempts to AfD this page. Lotsa luck with that. In the end, I'm pretty sure this page, which entirely meets WP:N, will end up being expanded, not swept away. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"The same Western media that carry frequent references to "Islamic terrorists," however, largely avoid the phrase "Christian terrorists." Yet, terrorist groups have in fact associated themselves with Christianity (e.g., Ku Klux Klan, Christian Army of God)..." [20] But I guess that the "Encyclopedia of Christianity" is a Liberal, anti-Christian group for making such statements. LOL. Bryonmorrigan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Again they do not call anyone "Chrisitian terrorists". Note too that the Tamil Tigers, who they also mention, are not considered religious terrorists either. TFD (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's so notable that the article resorts to citing a fifteen member Indian militia. Clearly this is a pervasive problem. (My decision to leave that citation in place was partly sarcasm and partly reductio ad absurdum). What exactly are you citing from WP:PERENNIAL? Lastly, the 2004 AfD predated the existence of Christianity and violence by some five years; I think a D&R / M&R proposal would fare better today, particularly once we remove the remaining "problem content." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

By perennial, I was referring to how people keep wanting to get rid of pages that they perceive as criticizing religions. You don't need my permission to start an AfD. But be careful what you wish for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, terrorist organizations with only 15 people could NEVER accomplish anything, right? I mean, Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, and Robert Jay Mathews required an army of "thousands" to accomplish their terrorist acts, right? If some group of 15 people in this country were converting people to Islam under gunpoint, I'm pretty certain that you'd be calling them "Islamic Terrorists." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get the results you want at AfD, but I admit it would be amusing to see you try. What argument are you going to use? That the topic is non-notable? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternet

Alternet is a poor source. We certainly need a better source for the lede.Lionel (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While the article was posted at Alternet, the author is a well-respected, credentialed authority on the topic of "religious violence." [21] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not use Alternet. Even when written by scholars, it is a tertiary source - articles are not referenced and do not enter academic debate. Therefore if there is any conflict between sources we have no way of resolving them. My impression is that Jurgensmeyer has defined religious terrorism as wider than other writers would. The literature I have read that classifies terrorism, for example, group actions by McVeigh and others as right-wing terrorism or single issue terrorism. McVeigh saw the U.S. government as controlled by anti-American forces and believed he was starting a revolt of the American people. TFD (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, he also uses the term "Christian Terrorism" in his book, "Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence," published by the University of California Press in 2003, and in many other articles available on the web. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Then use them. But I do not see the main literature on terrorism as supporting his broad grouping of religious terrorism. Certainly religion is an influence on the ideologies of many terrorists, but most writers do not consider it to be the main influence on many of the groups mentioned by Jurgensmeyer. TFD (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to use the book, then. As I'm doing my own reading, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that defining what "the main literature on terrorism" does or does not support is going to be a tricky matter, given the diversity of opinions in sources out there, and rather vulnerable to the opinions of individual editors here. It may prove best to carefully attribute a given characterization to the source from which it comes (avoiding the implication of "Wikipedia says so-and-so was a Christian terrorist"), and to also include a rebutting source where appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I worked on the articles left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism and some sources are listed there. They tend to define terrorism according to its objectives, in this case to establish a religious state. TFD (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't add the Juergensmeyer citation. I'm just defending him as a reputable "expert" on the subject. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gregory's reaction to St. Batholomew's massacre

For one thing, we have a pretty good article on Huguenots. This is a flamboyant rewrite. 1. The Pope did not organize nor authorize the massacre. Why is he the poster boy for terrorism?

2. Since they lost, they are viewed with pity, as are all losers in history. But the Huguenots were poised to take over the government. Their enemies struck first.

3. This was done in a day when each side figured the other was possessed by the devil, an attitude which pretty much persisted into the 20th century. But in those days, the devil-possessed were considered better off dead, particularly if dangerously numerous.

All in all, well out of context or relevancy. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. A great piece of Christian apologetics of terrorism. You are one day late, though. Hans Adler 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the book review by Ian Gilmour used as a reference in the article. We should use the books mentioned. TFD (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me how the discussion above leads to: [22]? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the beginnings of an "edit war" being waged by Christian apologists... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryon, it looks that way to me too, but please no one edit war. Just because someone else makes what appears to have been a bad edit, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to stoop to that level. Perhaps there is a good explanation for it forthcoming in this talk. Time will tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor who last removed the passage has partially restored it, and I've made some further fixes (I hope) to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilmor says that Gregory liked the killings. More appropriately, he probably said the infidels/revolutionaries were better off dead. Pretty much the reaction on either side in those days. This needs to be better tied in with more than a private commment. Did he issue an edict encouraging the killing of more Huguenots?

I can assure you that despite post-war hand-wringing, the reaction of the average American to the news that authorities had locked up West Coast Japanese early in WW II, wasn't "Gee, that is terrible!" It was, "Damn good thing somebody did something."

It's okay to detach ourselves to write objectively about these events, but detaching ourselves to write one-sided fiction, isn't useful. If the Huguenots had taken over the French government (killing a lot of Catholics BTW), the reaction of the Protestant monarchs would not have been, "My, that is terrible." It would have been, "Good! The more Papists dead the better!" Pretending that only one side harbored ill feelings and the other side had only pure motives, is not reasonable. Student7 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

An awful lot of what you bring up, west coast Japanese and all that, was nowhere near my mind in thinking about this. I hope that editors are neither detached (to the point of being insensitive), nor committed to a POV. The source says that this is what the Pope said. What "he probably said" lacks sourcing. If you have sourcing for support for violence among the Protestants in this incident, then by all means let's add it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That passage raises a serious concern under WP:REDFLAG. I don't have access to JSTOR; that doesn't necessarily rule it out as a source, but I would like to know what exactly Gilmour says. Does he have a quote? A paraphrase? What does he cite? For so inflammatory and bizarre a claim, I think we need a pretty robust source. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a search, and found the passage online, and added the link to the citation. It appears to be a direct quote, although it would be nice to be able to see more of the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That red flag is getting darker and larger by the minute. So you're saying that you haven't seen the source either? And in the link that you added, there's no footnote numeral to give even a glimmer of hope that Gilmour cites anything. I think we have to be done with this claim until we see the source or find a better one, and if the source is, as it appears to be, a mere assertion by Gilmour without any proffered basis, we're also done with it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, it's getting darker and larger by the minute! Actually, what I said was quite clear, and anyone can read it just above. It's interesting: a little ways above, I cautioned other editors not to edit war with you, and to give you time to return to this talk and present your thinking on that edit. Here, in contrast, you did quite the opposite. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Addenda: At RSN, User:NuclearWarfare has JSTOR access and offered to forward me the article; I'll happily forward it on to those who want to check. NW says that it's a bare assertion, and on that assumption, I'm afraid that this claim has to stay out. We may (or may not) be able to use Gilmour's other claim (that the massacre was "christian terrorism"; it depends on whether the claim checks out and whether Gilmour's opinion is notable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether we are discussing a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here. Are we saying Gregory caused the massacre?

It seems to me we have two factions here. One is the French folks who committed the massacre. The second is Gregory, sitting in the Vatican. The relationships between the two, other than a shared religion, seems a bit tenuous IMO. If you think that the Pope could say, "Jump!" and the French would say "How high?" on the way up, you have not been reading history. The relationship was a lot looser than that.

Right now, an editor is perhaps suggesting a "smoking gun." But after all this time, there is nothing that connects Gregory with the massacre, other than his delight at what he presumed, was the "winning" of the good guys over the forces of (what he presumed were) evil. I don't see that opinion of some, essentially, bystander, belongs in the article on terrorism. This isn't Osama, the planner, here. I don't know what the reaction of the President of Syria or the King of Saudi Arabia was after hearing about the 9/11 attacks. But I don't see that they can be blamed for "terrorism" in the event that I don't care for their reaction. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles are not sources for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

---

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)

0k, shall we go through this mess a bit at a time?

"Martin Dillon interviewed paramilitaries on both sides of the conflict, questioning how they could reconcile murder with their Christian convictions.[22]"

I think this is a fair enough enquiry to make - if, and only if, the larger article shows, in no uncertain terms, that the conflict is about religion....but it doesn't exactly say if the question was answered or not and ends up floating in a very selective looking way. It also makes the NI section's fallacious starting assumption, that violent acts preformed by religious people are automatically done in the name of religion, very plain.

Overall this statement isn't really doing anything more than imply that religion plays a big part in the conflict. If we keep this it HAS to be fleshed out more, and I would suggest placing it at the end of the article as well. At the moment, placed at the front and quoted in that highly selective way, it does nothing but help to plant the implied idea that the conflict is religious in nature without actually showing that this is the case. The one good thing it does is flatten the idea that this is terrorism by referring to them as 'paramilitaries' straight away!

Ion Zone (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, no sources say that the terrorism in Northern Ireland was "Christian terrorism", and it is usually described as "nationalist terrorism". TFD (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do, and the necessary quotes are included on the article so I cannot understand how you can make this claim. The Steve Bruce (1986), God Save Ulster quote begins "The Northern Ireland conflict is a religious conflict". The David Harkness source states "Of course the Northern Ireland conflict is at heart religious". The John Hickey source states "It is more a question of religion inspiring politics than of politics making use of religion". That's three out of the first four sources testifying to the religious basis of the Troubles. I've stated elsewhere on this talk page that the fact these sources don't explicitly use the term "Christian terrorism" is of no importance and certainly doesn't give a reason to delete an incredibly well-cited section. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not understand syntnesis. It says, "a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." The analysis that Irish terrorism was Christian terrorism has not been made. While I accept that different authors may use different terminology to mean the same thing, that is not the case here. What synonym for example do the authors use for "Christian terrorism"? TFD (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly. I'm afraid you (and others) are using WP:SYNTH in hugely-wide strokes in an attempt to remove content you don't like. Look at the Pearse source. As paraphrased on the article, "In his writings he often identified Ireland with Jesus Christ to emphasise the suffering of the nation, and called for his readers to resurrect and redeem the nation, through self-sacrifice which would turn them into martyrs". I'll agree that he's not using the phrase Christian Terrorism, but then I can't think of many people or organisations that would ever use the term "terrorism" about their own actions. Pearse calling for his readers to become martyrs to achieve redemption is uncannily like modern calls for peeople to become suicide bombers. Now read the rest of the source - the whole of it - and tell me it doesn't support a religious motivation for terrorism. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Again, no sources say that the terrorism in Northern Ireland was "Christian terrorism", and it is usually described as "nationalist terrorism"

My point exactly, but I'm trying to get the people who think it is to justify why they think this. Analysing Rapth's posts, I can say the reason is, in his case, quite simply because he wants it to be true and thus is 'justifying' his belief that this is so with the use of outright statements that allow him to pretend that Christianity, itself, was the motive. Note how we are now on 'volume two' of the debate and Rapth has yet to produce a single example of a terrorist attack in Ireland committed in the name of Christianity, or explain how those statements equate to actual motive. All he does is point to them and say that they are valid. Deep down he knows that being deeply religious is not in itself a reason to kill people, nor is it the motive in Ireland, but he 'rationalises' this away by sourcing people who assure him that it is. If it really was he'd be able to explain how they furthered their faith through the campaigning for home rule in Ireland and cite actual examples of attacks that have, inof themselves, explicitly religious motives. As well as examples of them saying "we fight BECAUSE we want to further Christianity in such-a-way" instead of quotes from fairly distant observers that outright state that this is the reason and others that simply compare the suffering of Ireland to the suffering of Christ.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

rpeh, once again you didn't seem to address any of my points. In your most recent post you described Pearse as a terrorist, but this is clearly your own conclusion. This is a fundamental assumption for the inclusion of the Easter Rising in this article, and there aren't any sources cited that describe it as a terrorist action, that is just your viewpoint. We don't even have to argue the Christian motivation angle to terrorism on the Easter Rising because no legitimate sources claim that it is terrorism. Unless you find a source that describes the Easter Rising as terrorism it doesn't belong in this article and I will delete it.

(I'm an atheist so I'm not trying to defend Christianity, play the ball not the man. The rising volunteers didn't target civilians so they aren't comparable to suicide bombers, and all armies glorify dying for one's country.) Kilkeel (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

I never said anything about Pearse being a terrorist. Please re-read what I actually said. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

R - that sounds exactly like what you were saying. In any case, if he isn't a terrorist, why is he on this page?

Ion Zone (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, since we all seem to be in agreement that he isn't a terrorist, does anyone object to me removing the references to him? If not I'll just go ahead.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The way the section is written undermines the nationalistic separatist motivations behind the violence in NI, it's fair to say that this section also is full of bias. Eli+ 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what's more, since R seems to agree that the sections mentioned above aren't even about terrorism, I'm going to delete them now. If anyone wants them back I think they need to properly justify their inclusion and not simply revert my edits and state outright that they are relevant.

Does anyone object to my deleting the following section also? All it does is imply that the conflict is religious even as it states that it is not. It's very much the dictionary definition of weeding round an inconvenient fact to state an opinion as truth.

"Although often advocating nationalist policies, these groups consisted of and were supported by distinct religious groups in a religiously partitioned society. Groups on both sides advocated what they saw as armed defence of their own religious group.[20]:134–135"

Ion Zone (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the passage Ion Zone quoted should be deleted as irrelevant, as it implies that the conflict is religious without actually saying so, and therefore doesn't match the subject matter of the article unless a reader mistakes the juxtaposition of two separate facts as an assertion of religious motivation. If we are to continue to include the individual facts from this passage, they need to be stated in neutral language which doesn't seem to purposefully cast doubt on the groups' motivation of "advocating nationalist policies."

What has been left is acceptable, although now we should include the opinion of an expert or two asserting that it is a secular nationalist conflict in order to counterbalance the other opinions for WP:WEIGHT. Kilkeel (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

Ok then, I think that's two (or more? I think Simon did in the Ireland: Continued section) of us who think that line should go. If nobody disagrees, I'll just get rid of it and we can start thinking about proper additions to the section - something like a description of the motivations involved, clarification that the groups involved are considered paramilitary, and possibly some expansion of the Orange Order bit if someone can verify the source.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(Continued in next section) Ion Zone (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - Making this section better

Ok, this section has, broadly, been fixed by Simon, however it still needs to be better, much better. We need to start including more evidence of the actual Nationalist motives behind the violence. Ion Zone (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on the following being removed? As far as I can see, all it does is imply that the conflict is religious even as it states that it is not. It's very much the dictionary definition of weedling round an inconvenient fact to state an opinion as truth. At the very least this section needs to be ajusted to account for the actual lines drawn being Nationalist.

• "Although often advocating nationalist policies, these groups consisted of and were supported by distinct religious groups in a religiously partitioned society. Groups on both sides advocated what they saw as armed defence of their own religious group."

Ion Zone (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both points—it's better, but it needs more work. The article was in such desperate condition that I felt justified in swinging a machete at it; at very least, my coarse-grained work needs polish. As to what should be included, it's a tricky target to hit. My broad view is as follows. (1) Terrorists and groups that explicitly claim exclusively or primarily "Christian" motivations or goals should be included, no matter how delusional, albeit with careful writing. (2) Terrorists and groups that can fairly be described as above, based on reliable sources, should be included, even if they do not themselves explicitly claim that identity, albeit with extremely careful writing. (3) Terrorists or groups who just happen to be "Christians," or whose "Christian" identity is entirely incidental to their terrorist activities, should not be included. It makes no sense to say, for example, that Russian nationalist terrorists are "Christian terrorists" simply because they happen to claim an Orthodox identity: if their member's welcome pack included a CD by the latest pop sensation, would we include them in an article headed Bieber terrorism? Terrorism is best treated as being defined by its goals—which, incidentally, is why I have serious reservations about treating abortion-related terrorism in this article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we go too far down the path of developing editor-defined criteria for what is or is not in scope, I want to point out the value of looking at how Wikipedia makes use of secondary sources. I'm reading what such sources say about how religious terrorism is differentiated from other kinds of terrorism, and I believe that will be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I did include a bit of text from before your re-write in my second post calling for just such a re-write. I've changed that now. I agree with Simon that the article needs work, and also with his criteria. My main problem with the section is that it still asserts that the conflict is religious without proper clarification that it is nationalist - the quoted section in particular. The rest I'm not too worried about now, it's in a position now where improvement is going to be a lot easier.

Incidentally, I'm going to archive the original debate for this section as it is prolonger relevant. I think this is just about the best way we can make this page smaller at the moment.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Given how much editors are still having unresolved difference of opinion, let's not archive stuff too fast, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with T on this. The talk page is a little long, but I don't think it's too much so (and I say that having had to skim it to get up to speed today, so those already familiar with it should be in great shape), and since we still have a lot of issues in play, I don't see any immediate rush to archive. Also, I think we should really hesitate to start from the conclusion that ulster is a purely secular conflict and work back from that conclusion to the article text. That's my opinion, and yours too I think, but if reliable sources representative of the academic mainstream argue otherwise, the article ought to at least note that position. I find it perfectly plausible that the ultimate version of the text will acknowledge that there are competing views on the sources and character of the conflict.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I only archived the older part of the debate, and I did link to it - my last post is repeated in the top of this section. It was my hope that we could continue debating with that massive chunk of text still assessable but not getting in the way.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a general pointer to anyone new to this talk page: the order of threads within the talk page was recently moved around, in order to try to put related topics together. I don't have an opinion about whether that was good or bad, but I think it's helpful to know that things are no longer in chronological order from top to bottom. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Though they are grouped together, I think that the related threads are, mostly, still in the order they were created. To me, this matters far more than knowing exactly which conversation started when as we have had more than a few parallel debates on here.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

(Continued from the end of the original Northern Ireland section as it is much easier to edit this one)

0k it's deleted (I think two days is long enough), for the moment at least, if anyone would like it back please justify its inclusion. I have a huge amount of coursework to be doing currently, but I will come back and add a few things to the Ireland section when I have time to go find sources and the energy to write coherently! Also, I'm going to continue talking in this section as the original one has become very cumbersome!

Ion Zone (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that this is good, the way we are looking at the content in terms of the individual sentences and sources, rather than as sections taken as a whole. Thanks for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New to WP, and I'll try and hunt some evidence down over the next couple of days, but as a man born and bred in North Belfast(place with the most "sectarian" interfaces in N.I, all in very close proximity) and an avid life long follower of Northern Irish politics, I would say the ratio stands at about 20% religion, 40% ethnic(eg "native" Irish VS scottish/English "settlers/planters") and all the hatred that brings with it, and 40% cultural/political (Gaelic Irish VS Scottish-English culture,which has eventually evolved into a unique but still divided N.I culture, nationalism VS unionism, where religion is very much a means to an end rather than an end in itself). Religion plays a part, but just to give outsiders a bit of perspective, the most extreme people in Northern Irish society, and the ones doing the fighting, are almost universally apathetic when it comes to religion. I promise you that on a Sunday morning you would have been more likely to find republican/loyalist paramilitaries in bed, in the pub or at a house party still drunk/drugged up from the night before than at any sort of religious service. Again, I'll have to find a link, but I remember hearing from a reliable source (grizzled and respected politics teacher at a college in Northern Ireland)that one of the republican hunger strikers in 1981 told a priest who was asking about last rites to "fuck off", because he didn't "believe in any of that shite". The Northern Ireland conflict was mainly ethnic,political and cultural in nature, and religion was a tool used by both sides as a type of cultural defense, a way to make sure they weren't assimilated into the opposing culture. As a result of this religious hatred has developed, but it is the main motivating factor for only a very small minority of the republicans/loyalists in the late 20th/early 21st century. If you hunt through pages and pages of statements and hours of footage and interviews with loyalist/republican leaders(the ones who were fighting), religion will rarely be mentioned the way it would be by religious fighters(Al Qaeda etc). This wasn't a PR move, these men were political/ethnic fighters first and foremost. Just thought you'd want another Northern Irish perspective, I've lost family members in the conflict, and in my opinion you have to be careful including the conflict on this page. It was absolutely NOT a holy war like you would see in the middle east. In fact, if you come to Northern Ireland and ask around, you'd be surprised at how secular a society it is. People would tell you they are catholic or protestant because it is little more than a codeword for "native" Irish or Scottish-English "settler", but if you dig a bit deeper rates of people attending religious service regularly wouldn't be much different from mainland Britain, and mainland Britain is far more secular than, say, America. I understand this is subjective and can't be included, but hopefully this helped to explain the general thrust of the N.I situation from someone who has lived and breathed it for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.118.40 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you and mainstream sources about terrorism group terrorism in NI under nationalist terrorism (sometimes referred to as "separatist" or "ethnic"), rather than religious terrorism. Currently the article mentions a minority view that the conflict is based on religion, and the NI section was deleted. Anyway the discussion page is for improving the article and you are welcome to provide any comments on how that may be done. Also, if you wish to post a comment, please start a new discussion thread at the bottom of this page, where it is more likely to draw attention. You may also wish to create a user account. TFD (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To the new editor: welcome, and I hope you decide to stick around! My impression, from reading sources that I'm still working on, is that, indeed, much of the subject matter surrounding Christian terrorism is like what you describe: something where the people involved have complex and even contradictory motivations (true as well of many other "kinds" of terrorists), and where it isn't as simple as a holy war, but where it also isn't as simple as a conflict in which the parties are expressly secular. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Some writing may say that, but I do not think that it represents a majority view. The conflict in NI is a result of history. England conquered Ireland and expropriated most of the indigenous population of NI with English and Scottish immigrants. They then confiscated food from the indigenous population, leading to the death and emigration of at least 2 million people. When Ireland achieved independance, the UK held on to NI, which was claimed by the Irish Republic. Of course most (but not all) of the republicans were Catholic, while most of the loyalists belonged to Presbyterian sects, or were Methodists or Anglican. But the conflict pre-dates the Reformation. Blaming the conflict on religion seems far-fetched. TFD (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you said that. It's not what I said. I said that it is complex, and not expressly secular, which is different than blaming it on any single thing. And anyway, if, as you say, some writing treats it as Christian terrorism while the majority view is something else, we should neither omit that "some writing", nor misrepresent it as the majority view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, this is more of an evidence vs evidence affair than a general discussion page. Yeah I think I will take a couple of hours and create an account and get a better idea how this works, see if I can give back a bit. Anyway, hopefully that helped in a way sometimes you need to take a step back and get a wider view before getting back into the nuts and bolts, helps with perspective and all that. Just quickly on the issue of whether it should be here at all, in my (humble) opinion there's nothing wrong with including it on a page about Christian terrorism, if for no other reason than people will expect it to be there, indeed it may be the first thing that springs to their mind, and it might help enlighten people who are curious. As long as it is stressed it is often seen very much as a "junior partner" to politics, culture, ethnicity etc in the confusing and complex N.I conflict. Right, I'll be back when I've got something a bit more constructive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.196.34 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2011

As I read the short section now, it seems npov, trying to cover both perspectives and doing a pretty good job IMO. Certainly not WP:UNDUE. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)