text:
Talk:Religious terrorism

Issues
Why under the Jewish section does it say "see also Zionist political violence", and under Islam it says "Main article: Islamic extremist terrorism"? Are we not calling a spade a spade?

I find this recently added statement to the Jewish section to contain POV: "Most, if not all, however, support the transfer of Palestinians to other regions within the Middle East, rather than their murder (as opposed to groups like Hamas which want to kill Jews wherever they are found)". Especially the end of it referring to Hamas. It seems to me the statement isn't a fact but an opinion, or at least a generalisation.

I've been lurking on Wikipedia for a while but I'm relatively new to editing articles. If I've misunderstood the concept of NPOV please correct me. Otherwise, I'd like to know what other's opinions are on the quote.--Tye 05:38, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * It's a fair point. (FWIW, I added that sentence). My goal was to contrast the anti-Democratic "terrorism" of those who advocate what's euphamistically called transfer (aka: kick out the Arabs) to the violent "terrorism" of those advocate pushing the Jews into the sea (aka: murder). Without digressing into another "is it terrorism" debate, I think we can all agree on two things: Transfer is an attack on an individuals civil rights as understood in most of the western world, but it's not the same as murder. An analogy to White Supremecists (sp?) groups suggests itself, although most of the listed Jewish groups are mostly bark and not bite. PS - welcome to Wikipedia, Tye! --Mikeage 09:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On another note -- there's a serious problem with the introduction paragraph and the listings. The introduction defines Religious Terrorism as the use of violence to further a (presumed) divine commandment, but many of the groups listed have religion as a common basis, but no divine commandment per se. E.g., the Klan, many of the Irish groups (most? I don't know enough to say), Jewish groups which today support transfer, and used violence for political, not religious goals in the 40s. Thoughts? --Mikeage 04:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The IRA are completely secular - not sure why they're listed here...

Shiv Sena & VHP terrorists???
This has made my jaw drop. Shiv Sena is a political party in Maharashtra. One of their members incited a riot in response to killing of Hindus by Muslims on account of Babri masjid demolitions but c'mon by that description Congress (India's ruiling party) is also guilty of inciting anti Sikh riots, they dont fall into definition of terrorists do they? Shiv Sena & VHP can be called vandals at the most. Let us see

Do their members blow themselves up in public? \ NO

Do they intend to challenge Indian Union? NO

Have they ever carried out attacks in Pakistan? NO

Do they fight any freedom movement? NO

Except a stary incident in 1992 SS & VHP have been peaceful. Just because Pakistan designates them to be terrorists, they DONT become terrorist. For god's sake this is Wikipedia not a Pakistani government website.

 * Shiv Sena has been removed. Unfortunately wikipedia sometimes has inaccurate info - please feel free to remove it next time. AndrewRT 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a silly question..
..but who decided what order to put these in, right now it goes Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Other... seems like either an oddly arbitrary order, anti-alphabetical, or a nice way of saying, hey, we can't put Christians first on list of bad people! Which seems kind of POV--64.12.116.136 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi AE, could you say something about the various changes you've made? For example, Hezbollah does seek the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state, as does the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Asbat Al-Ansar wants an Islamic state, and ditto for Mujaheddin e Khalq. Some of your other edits don't seem quite right either. Could you say what your reasoning is for them? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition, Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist group by a number of countres, "liberating" Kashmir is highly POV, etc. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Here are my edits explained plain and simple:
 * 1. Wanting to create a religious state is not terrorism.

 * True. But they don't just want to create a religious state. They kill people in order to achieve it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but that is not indicated for many of the organizations I removed. It just says their name (without articles) and that they want to establish Islamic state. Some are groups that are unheard of. If they kill people because of that then they are terrorist (I have no problem with that), but if they just want to create an Islamic state it is POV to say that they are terrorist. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 2. Many of these organizations are also political (e.g. the PKK).

 * They're all political. They're killing people for political ends, motivated by their religious beliefs. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, SV, you mistook what I said. I meant organizations like the PKK are fighting for seperatism or other political action. Non religious reasons. For example, the PKK wants separation from Turkey. a-n-o-n-y-m  22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 3. Even if someone is Muslim and they use terrorism, it does not make it religious terrorism. For example, certain organizations in Kashmir are seeking what they call liberation of Kashmir. That has a separatist/rebel reason, not necessarily religious. a-n-o-n-y-m  22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's a fair point, though I don't know enough about that situation to say whether others would call it religious terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, I never removed Hezbollah from the list and I will change the "liberating" thing.

 * By the way, Jayjg, I did not see the talk page of this article. You have no authority to immediately revert my edits, especially after only one day. The least you could do is inform me before acting so arbitrary. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m  19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Anonymous Editor, I asked for clarification in Talk: and then waited a whole day before reverting, which is quite restrained. You, on the other hand, reverted within minutes. Since you claim that I have no authority to immediately revert your edits, especially after only one day, you should apply the same rule to yourself.  Regarding your other statements, the change of Hezbollah description is both POV and inaccurate, and any Islamist group that uses terrorist methods is a religious terrorist group, regardless of whether or not they have political goals.  In fact, almost all of these groups have political goals.  Please fix these issues by returning the original text. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Then make the description NPOV if you want, just don't revert my edit without warning me. That's the only reason I reverted back your edit. About political goals, see what I wrote above. I don't deny certain groups aren't terrorist, I just think some groups are not there for religious reasons. Also, you removed a few Jewish terrorist organizations, why? a-n-o-n-y-m  22:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The removed groups were secular, as I explained in the edit summary, and planned to create a secular state, much like the DFLP and PFLP. You cannot claim the same for the Islamist groups you removed. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * How is the Kurdistan Workers Party Islamist? As for other groups I removed, many are unheard of while others might be Muslims having used terrorist tactics, but are not necessarily Islamist. a-n-o-n-y-m  23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the Kurdistan Workers Party. But how these: They're not Islamist? Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2005 UTC)
 * Asbat Al-Ansar: Aims to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in Lebanon.
 * Gama’a al-Islamiyya: Aims to replace Egypt's government with an Islamic state.

Yes, they are Islamist, but are they terrorist? The description says that they want to create an Islamic state, it doesn't say anything about violent tactics. I would not oppose re-adding them as a compromise. In the cases of some listed organizations, I will see whether they will fit this article. In many cases believe it or not, the US has made up its own descriptions of what it believes to be terrorist organizations. Obviously if the only sources we can find are from here in the US, it's probably not the best resource. The US labels everything as terrorist. a-n-o-n-y-m 23:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * AE, I wonder if you could say for each of the following what your reasoning is. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Aims for the destruction of Israel and to establish an Islamic Palestinian state — deleted
 * The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (كتائب شهداء الاقصى) are one of the militias of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's al-Fatah faction. So? They are not Islamist are they? They are both a security organization and one that has uses some methods of terrorism as resistance. Basically they are at the level of separatists. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * They're seen as Islamist insofar as they carry out joint attacks with Hamas and Hezbollah, and are believed to be financed by the latter. I'll look around to see whether there are solid sources saying they're Islamist. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Asbat Al-Ansar: Aims to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in Lebanon — deleted
 * Already agreed to re-add to article. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ): — deleted that they're allied to al-Qaeda
 * What is the proof??? The Bush admin thinks every organization like this is allied to Al-Qaeda. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If we needed proof, we'd never be able to tie anyone to al-Qaeda. But there's evidence, and the U.S. government is regarded as a good source for Wikipedia. We can add "according to the U.S. government" if you think we should, but then we'd need to establish that no one else had made that link. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Gama’a al-Islamiyya: Aims to replace Egypt's government with an Islamic state — deleted
 * Already agreed to re-add to article. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Harakat Mujahideen — deleted that they're allied to al-Qaeda
 * Not proven. How do we know that they are linked? It doesn't even say that in the wiki article on that organization. Many times you wil get pro-Indian campaigners which will link numerous organizations to Al-Qaeda with no proof at all. Anyways, I left that organization in anyways.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, then we should find a reputable source for the al-Qaeda allegation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hizballah — deleted that they're committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of the Islamic state of Palestine
 * That is completely POV. Saying that the only reason they are considered terrorist is because they are anti-Israel or want a Palestinian state is very POV. They were created to cause Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and resist any further attempts by Israel to invade Lebanon. They are a political party with a military wing, thus they are committed to many things. I also left this organization in the article, and would support any NPOV description that can be created. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * They're not considered religious terrorists because they want a Palestinian state, but because they're committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic (or Islamist) state of Palestine. Are you saying they aren't committed to this? And they're considered terrorist by just about every Western government so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I mean saying that they are commtted to the destruction of Israel is quite POV in my view. Their entire ideology is clarified by the reason they were created (as a resistance org).-- a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU): The primary aim of IMU is to establish an Islamic state in the model of the Taleban in Uzbekistan and over the entire Turkestan area — deleted
 * Very little is known about the movement. Most of it is just speculation How do we know that they want a "Taleban" model state? What is known though is that any terrorism that does happen in Uzbekistan is blamed on them for some reason by the current Uzbek administration. a-n-o-n-y-m  00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, so again it's a question of finding a decent source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Jaish e Mohammed (JeM): JeM seeks the 'liberation' of Kashmir from Indian control as well as the destruction of America and India — deleted that they seek the destruction of India and U.S.
 * Is saying that they want destruction of country x and country y really relevant? It's unfair to say that especially since its a) unproven and b) they never have committed any terrorism against U.S.  a-n-o-n-y-m  00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, we need a source. But if they said it, then it's definitely relevant. If groups don't want to have statements like that attributed to them, all they have to do is not make them in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * But, others put words into the mouths of such organizations.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK): Aims for a socialist, Islamic republic in Iran — deleted
 * Plain and simple: Aren't Islamist. They are one's who want a socialist state, not Islamic. They opppose the current theocracy too. a-n-o-n-y-m  00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, thank you. So anyone wanting to re-add this needs to find a good source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No. This one is an exception because they want a democratic, secular government in Iran (this is quoted from our own wikipedia article). Therefore, just like jayjg removed a secular terrorist organization from the "Jewish" section, this should also be excluded. They are non-religious, they are secular in this case. a-n-o-n-y-m  01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT): LT seeks Islamic control for Kashmir and reestablishment of Islamic rule over entire India — deleted that they seek Islamic control over Kashmir.
 * Yes, I reworded it to make it NPOV. They don't want Islamic control; they want Kashmiri control. Just because they are Muslim does not mean that they want Islamic control. They are basically seperatists who use terrorism tactics. I said it seeks an independant Kashmir and reestablishment of Islamic rule over India. I am not even sure about whether they want Islamic rule over India and still I left it in. Once again, I did not delete the organization from the article. a-n-o-n-y-m  00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, fair point. Again, if this is to be re-added, we need to find a good source saying the group is specifically fighting for Islamic control of Kashmir. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hope that clarifies a few things SV. Glad to help. a-n-o-n-y-m  00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this, AE. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem. Also remember that obviously US sources will have a bias, even I'm saying this as an American. But we will see what happens. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m  01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

JDL
I'm wondering about the inclusion of the JDL. The article is about groups who used "violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes." I'm not sure which divinely commanded purposes the JDL is seeking to further through violence. First, what current or recent violence (as a group) has there been, and secondly, what are we saying the purposes of it are? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Besides, the last line excludes the JDL from consideration in the list "the group is not thought to have any current connection to terrorism."Dusty78 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Religion or race
The term "Jewish terrorism" is directed here. Jews are a race as well as a religion. All of the edits made on the grounds the groups are not religious should be reinserted. Or a new page for "Jewish terrorism" must be created.
 * I'm working on that. See Talk:Jewish extremist terrorism.--Urthogie 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bold
Why are the Christian and Jewish groups bold but the Muslim groups aren't? POV? Rmt2m 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename suggestion
I suggest a rename to religious terrorism. The content would not need to change, really. Thanks for input, --Urthogie 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable entries
There's two groups I'm not entirely sure are relevant to the topic. First, under Abu Sayyaf it states that the group "aims for the establishment of an Islamic state in the Southern Philippines." Now as far as I'm aware nobody is exactly sure what it is that Abu Sayyaf is aiming for, aside from ransom money from kidnappings. Some scholars classify it as simply a crime syndicate and I've even come across some works which speculate that it is in some way connected with the Phillipino military who support the group in the aim of undermining the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. I'm not advocating either interpretation, merely pointing out that Abu Sayyaf is a somewhat murky group and any definite statement of what their intent is seems like over-reach (though I'd be happy to stand corrected if someone can come up with some sources in support of the claim).

The KKK is also slightly dubious, in my opinion. Whilst they do have a certain religious element in their ideology it is by no means the primary motivation for their acts. In particular it seems strange that the KKK is included but similar religiously-oriented but not primarily religiously motivated groups (such as the IRA, the LVF or the UVF) are not. Daduzi 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details on the first group so I couldn't comment on that. As far as the KKK I'd say that its not about motivation so much as the fact that they use religion for justification.--Urthogie 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)?
And also the Ulster Defence Association?

Both of these groups (and others) in Ireland are organized around religious divisions and also are terrorist.

Here's a good article to find a religious terrorists: Terrorism Act 2000

87.118.100.99 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No. In this case terrorism is not religiously, but ethnically and politically motivated: Irish/Republican - British/Loyalist.The situation is similar to conflict between Serbs and Croats in former Yugoslavia. Yeti 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You can't make such a distinction. In every case in which there is significant "religious" terrorism, two ethnically disparate groups living in close proximity espouse competing religions. That's fine unless one group gains a political advantage over the other and warmongers sell them weapons. Wowest 04:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect entries
Why Nagaland Rebels are included as a RELIGIOU~S group? What SYNCRETIC sect Lord's Resistance Army does amongst CHRISTIAN groups? How many terrorist attacks commited Westboro Baptist Church? These entries should be removed. Yeti 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Lord's Resistance Army to a new section as this is not a christian organization but syncretic and join elements taken from christianity, traditional african religions and islam.

Westboro Baptist Church - actually IS NOT a terrorist organization. Yeti 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeti is right, the Westboro Baptist Church is not a terrorist organization. It is classified as a hate group. Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Aum Shinrikyo
Not exactly Buddhist, maybe should put this under Sectarian?

There was this "Jeemah Islameeya" written twice under the Islamic section. Does that mean someone is trying to make the Islamic section appear longer? or maybe it's just a mistake. Anyway I removed it. --212.162.130.85 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church
Are these guys really terrorists? I thought they were a non-violent group. Have they been designated terrorists by the CIA or FBI? I'm taking them off until this is cleared up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.90.241 (talk • contribs).

Actually I have quite serious concerns about this article, the tone seems to be one of trying to find other groups that can compete with violent Islamic terrorists. I think it deserves some clearing up. I don't know how we are defining terrorist or how we are defining religious.

No, the Westboro Baptist Church is not a terrorist organization. It is classified as a hate group. Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan Should Not Be On Here
The KKK attacked Hispanics and Irishmen because they hated those groups, mostly due to a xenophobic dislike of immigrants. The religious issue was secondary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.244.25 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
 * And some people would say that al Qaeda is primarily fighting against Western occupation of Arab lands, and the whole Islam thing is secondary. Doesn't matter. Al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan are still both religiously-motivated terrorists. — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. The KKK have numerous "churches" associated with their movement, including, for example, "The Mountain Church of Christ" in Howell, Michigan, which was associated with the late KKK Grand Dragon Robert Miles. Other people associated with their cabal distributed related literature promoting a "British Israelite" theory in which the only true Jews were now the British Christians, and people now calling themselves Jews are not Jews because they rejected their Messiah. According to this theory, as presented by the KKK members, black people are not even human. It's all presented in a "religious" package, and some people accept the whole thing. Somehow, it's easier to do horrible things if you believe that you're a member of an elite group and your victims are not. Wowest 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC) The KKK values are not church based although they may take over independent churches and commandere credibility but the churches of Christ believe there is no partiality with God so the KKK wraps itself in the 'Church' but is not Christian I don't care what they say. J Cochran Jan 2010.

Nagaland Rebels
I removed the reference to the Nagaland rebels, as per the discussion on the Christian terrorism page.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Identity
They may be hateful, but I can't find reference to any violence so am removing them from the article.

Introduction
I've removed this paragraph from the introduction:

"Further items often neglected in opposing views about terror are; 1) the rights of "innocent third parties" who are tragically manipulated or sacrificed as pawns in political conflicts; and 2) the deception which ferments at the core of terrorism. Deception masks itself behind various strategies of propaganda and indoctrination. Whatever their motives, fabricated threats lie at the essence of effective terrorist tactics, religious or political. Lies about intentions to wreak chaos may generate fears comparable to physical devastation.  In short, at the critical nucleus of terror lie the mesmerizing powers of propaganda and indoctrination."

It seems like someone's original research and is strongly POV.--Nydas (Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert J. Goldstein
Goldstein is a terrorist who planned to destroy a massive amount of Muslim property. There are many others just like him whom I believe should be added to this list.

Irgun
Removed, as the Irgun was not a religious organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but by that reasoning, none of the Islamist terrorist groups are religious organizations

Wowest 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect logic to get in the way of a gang of revisionists. This is considered 'sensitive' - there is to be as little discussion of the (abundant) historical examples of Jewish terrorism as possible. Note the glaring lack of a Jewish terrorism main article. 74.56.218.173 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Please do not confuse "Jewish" as the ethnicity with "Judaism" as the religion. This article is specifically about Religious terrorism. Shall we include the Red Army Faction because Gudrun Ensslin was a Christian? Of course not, the terrorism was not related to the religion. Same with the Irgun. See below at Talk:Religious terrorism. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Atheistic Religous Terrorism?
Shouldn't men such as Stalin be added, as atheist terrorists? Of course, "atheism" is not to blame for his genocide (or Hitler, or Rasputan, or Pol Pot: all atheists) but "christianity" or "Judaism" cannot be blammed for radicals who go against their teachings.

It might add more depth to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.228 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Any definition of religious terrorism includes a claim of religious justification, be it directly from the views of the religion, or from the more controversial interpretations of those views. I don't think atheism has those views (or misinterpretations) to use as a justification. I do agree with you that Christianity, Islam, Juadism, or any other religion cannot be blamed for extremists who misinterpret their views. Bastc (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition is POV
In Islamic terrorism the definition has recently been changed from "religious terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence" to "religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam". I suggest the same change is made in Religious terrorism, as the current definition implies that the motivations and aims of a religious terrorist are actually supported or condoned by the religious beliefs itself. In reality, only a very small minority of Christians, Muslims or Jews support this interpretation of their religious texts and laws; The vast majority of the major religions condemn acts of terrorism.

Since the term religious terrorism is easily misused to ignore the real motivations of a terrorist, and to demonize a religion based on the acts and beliefs of a minority of that religion, we should take more care defining the term itself. For instance, the motivations for the 9-11 attacks, the largest example of religious terrorism, show little Islamic influence or character. Most of the motivations are related to American foreign policy, only (mis)using Islamic texts to exhort violent action. The predominant influence is not Islam, but a very negative view of American foreign policy, guided by a controversial interpretation of Islam. In the same article, president Bush used the alledged Islamic motivation of al-Qaeda by stating "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." This contradicts the reaction by the muslim organisations in America, who "called upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families". Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer explains that "politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."

Since it's blatantly obvious that no major religion incorporates these violent views, and religion is only used as a tool by extremists to justify their actions with interpretations not supported by the vast majority of the religion, the definition should at least cast some doubt over the religious motivations of the terrorists. Bastc (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein
All other examples here are of groups, not individuals. Therefore, as this article stands now, both specific Goldstien and Zata examples are inappropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism both include individuals. The only reason it looks odd here is because "Jewish terrorism" has no main article.129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Irgun and Lehi
These were not Jewish terrorist groups, if anything they were Zionist. Their raison d'être was the formation of a state of Israel, and preferably a secular, non-religious state to boot. This article is specifically about religious-based terrorism, and as the appellation "Jewish" can refer to both an ethnicity and a religion, I believe it is incorrect to use it as a synonym for Zionism. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point Avi about the conflation of Judaism and Zionism, and also the distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish "ethnicity". Somewhat ironically they were also strongly Fascist in their reverence for Mussolini, and Stern's willingness to collaborate with Hitler. However when you write "a secular, non-religious state to boot" with all due respect this is absurd if you read people like Avraham Stern (the founder of Lehi).

 * Avaham Stern's "18 Principles of Rebirth"

 * 1. THE NATION The Jewish people is a covenanted people, the originator of monotheism, formulator of the prophetic teachings, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The Jewish people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructible. (This doesn't sound very "secular" to me)

 * 2. THE HOMELAND The homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18) This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety. (This doesn't sound very "secular" to me either!)

 * 3. THE NATION AND ITS LAND Israel conquered the land with the sword. There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Israel alone has a right to that land. This is an absolute right. It has never expired and never will. (Right or wrong, distorted or undistorted, this is certainly at least a reference to Judaic scripture)

 * 4. THE GOALS 1. Redemption of the land. 2. Establishment of sovereignty. 3. Revival of the nation. There is no sovereignty without the redemption of the land, and there is no national revival without sovereignty.

 * These are the goals of the organization during the period of war and conquest:

 * 5. EDUCATION Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard Israel's eternal patrimony. Inculcate the idea that the nation is master to its own fate. Revive the doctrine that "The sword and the book came bound together from heaven" (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 35:8) (That's a citation of the book of Leviticus, a text that is sacred to both Jews and Christians)

 * 6. UNITY The unification of the entire nation around the banner of the Hebrew freedom movement. The use of the genius, status and resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy, devotion and revolutionary fervour of the masses for the war of liberation.

 * 7. PACTS Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the struggle of the organization and provide direct support.

 * 8. FORCE Consolidate and increase the fighting force in the homeland and in the Diaspora, in the underground and in the barracks, to become the Hebrew army of liberation with its flag, arms, and commanders. (He is of course referring to the Jewish diaspora, a religious diaspora)

 * 9. WAR Constant war against those who stand in the way of fulfilling the goals.

 * 10. CONQUEST The conquest of the homeland from foreign rule and its eternal possession.

 * These are the tasks of the movement during the period of sovereignty and redemption:

 * 11. SOVEREIGNTY Renewal of Hebrew sovereignty over the redeemed land.

 * 12. RULE OF JUSTICE The establishment of a social order in the spirit of Jewish morality and prophetic justice. Under such an order no one will go hungry or unemployed. All will live in harmony, mutual respect and friendship as an example to the world.

 * 13. REVIVING THE WILDERNESS Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for mass immigration and population increase.

 * 14. ALIENS Solve the problem of alien population [i.e. the Arab inhabitants of Palestine] by exchange of population.

 * 15. INGATHERING OF THE EXILES Total in-gathering of the exiles to their sovereign state.

 * 16. POWER The Hebrew nation shall become a first-rate military, political, cultural and economical entity in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean Sea.

 * 17. REVIVAL The revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken language by the entire nation, the renewal of the historical and spiritual might of Israel. The purification of the national character in the fire of revival.

 * 18. THE TEMPLE The building of the Third Temple as a symbol of the new era of total redemption. (I certainly wouldn't describe a temple as a "secular" institution ;-)

 * Just imagine for a moment that Stern was a Muslim, and instead of using the word "Jewish", Stern used the word "Muslim" would you still describe him as a "secular" terrorist?

 * They predicated their movement on a perversion of the teachings of Judaism, just as Al Qaeda and some other supposedly "Islamist" terrorists do with the teachings of Islam. Usama Bin Ladin and Ayman Al Zawahiri are not Imams, just as the likes of Jabotinsky, Stern, Shamir et al were not Rabbis. However they used religion just as Al Qaeda do, even though their words have little to do with credible religious teachings of their respective religions. They cannot write of building "Third Temples", use biblical quotations and prophecies to further their cause then assume the cloak of secularity when it suits.

 * As for Irgun, I think that your case is a little stronger. However Ze'ev Jabotinsky (Irgun's founder) said "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine". Why does every Jew have the right to enter Palestine? because of secular reasons? Because of religious reasons? Or Both? He goes on to write only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state". Once again, if terrorists who happen to be Muslim issue statements like "Only Muslim armed force would ensure the Muslim state" they would described by all and sundry as an "Islamist terrorists" or "religious terrorists" would they not? To say that this is true for Muslims and not true for Jews is unfair and this semantic duality has been used to deceive at times.Paulzon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis, it is not acceptable to make the link solely based on that as it is original research or synthesis. We have these, at times, draconian-seeming guidelines to prevent the project from becoming a morass of conflicting opinions in which facts are smothered by various special-interest groups. Unfortunate, but necessary :( -- Avi (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Original Research? Most of that information is on Wikipedia already, and it's sourced, and I provided links. So with all due respect, I don't know what you mean by this Avi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulzon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is calling the Irgun and Lehi "Religious" is not common knowledge, and is likely disputed, so you would need to find a verifiable and reliable secondary source that overtly makes that statement, and even so, it would have to pass WP:NPOV. I apologize if I cam across critical of your analysis, but, especially in contentious areas, we are all best served by being extra careful, regardless of how strong or weak you or I think the evidence may be. Oh, and wikipedia itself may never be used as a source, it is the very definition of unreliable since we all can change it at a moments notice. -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Irgnu and Lehi were not Jewish then what religion were they? Christian? Muslim? Or maybe atheists?
 * To quote Jewish - "A jew is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group".
 * If someone says "X is a Jewish terrorist" I think it is entirely appropriate for this article - it would be Original Research to say "no, X is ethnically a Jew, but is not follower of Judaism" unless you have a citation for this. 129.215.37.151 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Consensus on wikipedia is to treat Jewish ethnicity and Judaism the religion as separate entities. Please do not conflate the two. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Council on American Islamic Relations a "terrorist group"?!
This is ridiculous entry that transcends mere "POV". It is Islamophobic, libellous and shames Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors are going to play this game, then we may as well include "AIPAC" and the "ADL" as terrorist organisations too. If I were a member of CAIR looking at this I would certainly consider legal action against it's inclusion, and the "sources" cited are also a travesty of Wiki's NPOV policy. I propose removing it and removing it soon. Paulzon (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed CAIR from the list. None of the sources were sufficient to support its inclusion. Remember that you are and editor yourself and can fix these sorts of problems yourself. Due to the nature of Wikipedia there will always be problems in need of fixing, and you can help fix them. :) Be BOLD. -Neitherday (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neitherday. I'll try to be more bold in future! ;-) Paulzon (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

CAIR is as much a terrorist group as is CAMERA, which means that it indubitably is not. Whether it has links to terrorist groups is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, and it should never have been here. Good job removing it. -- Avi (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology
Someone has put the Church of Scientology in now. I know that some people have strong views about it but this is ridiculous! I'm removing it. Paulzon (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahdi Army
The Mahdi army are no mothers knitting circle, but they aren't really a terrorist group either, they're a Shi'ite militia. They're not on the US List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, or any other to my knowledge. Paulzon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, Paul, seriously. You have obviously given this a lot of thought. What makes the Mahdi Army more of a militia and less of a terrorism organization than the Irgun or Lehi? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an inherent flaw in making any NPOV list of terrorist organizations: there has never been a clear cut and agreed upon definition of terrorism. -Neitherday (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You, personally, don't need to decide if the Mahdi Army are terrorist or not. Wikipedia rules: if a reliable source publishes that "x says the Mahdi army are (Muslim/religious) terrorists", then that can be included here. See WP:TERRORIST. 129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. To conform to WikiPedia guidelines, what should be listed here is "Religious groups that have been labeled as terrorist organizations" and each group's entry should list who it is that calls the group a terrorist organization. -Neitherday (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism
User:Avraham has removed a large amount of content from the Jewish terrorism section of this article. He claims that this diff is "original research" - how can it be original research when every single point is attributed and cited to a reliable source? It appears that there is a disturbing bias here:
 * If a group, person or event is described as being "Jewish terrorism", then that can't be mentioned in this article, because the word "Jewish" refers to an ethnic group as well as a religion. This standard is applied even when it is obvious from the surrounding context that "Jewish" is being used to refer to a person of Jewish religion eg. see this diff - it is clear from the cited article that the Washington Post consider Zaza to have been Jewish in the religious sense.
 * "Jewish terrorism" has no main article. It appears that when one has been created in the past, it's been swiftly deleted.
 * In order to sanitise this page of Jewish terrorists a new rule has been invented - "individuals are not to be included on this page". The Dalai Lama content is entirely appropriate, correctly cited from a reliable source, and has been undisturbed for over a week. The moment it gets included in the discussion over Jewish terrorism, it is suddenly removed and a new rule - "no individuals" - cited as the reason.
 * Islamic terrorism and Chrisian terrorism main articles both include individuals. But Jewish terrorism has no individuals, because it has no main article.

Questions: 129.215.37.141 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did this "no individuals rule" come from? Is it just something invented in the last week to justify sanitising the "Jewish terrorism" section of the article?
 * If everyone agrees to the rule, then surely we need some new main articles to discuss Jewish terrorism and the Dalai Lama allegations?
 * We can't have a situation where every mention of "Jewish terrorism" is banned because the word "Jew" refers to an ethnoreligious group. Comments?

 * Rather than discuss these issues, User:Avraham has now requested that further editing on this article be banned via Requests for page protection. 129.215.37.140 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe you are under a misconception. We have discussed the conflation of ethnicity and religion on this page before. It is improper to list nationalist, separatist, or secular Zionist groups on this page. This page is exclusively for religious-based terrorism. Arab nationalist terrorism does not belong on this page either, just Islam-based terror. The fact that the term "Jewish" is used for both the religion and the ethnicity, while eminently understandable due to the unique history the religion has played in the ethnic identity, has nevertheless been deemed inappropriate in terms of allowing bleed over from ethnicity to religion and vice versa in many areas, such as categories. Here is no different. Organizations whose terror is sourced in the religion are totally acceptable; non-religious terror groups who are formed/manned by ethnic Jews, even if those Jews are themselves religious, are not, as this page is for religious-based terror. As for the other points raised:
 * No other entry on the page had individuals; the Dalai Llama was a recent addition which I missed. There is no justification for singling out one or two religions for individual examples. If there are enough, then I completely agree with you that a new article page should be started for each religion. If not, we are violating WP:UNDUE.
 * We are not banning ever mention, are we, there are a number of examples under the Jewish section, some of which I expanded myself [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]

-- Avi (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not want to deliberately conflate ethnicity with religion, but I do think that some common sense needs to be applied here - if the cited article is suggesting that a person is religious, then is it not original research to dismiss the article on the grounds that the person may also be from a particular ethnic group?
 * Both Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism include individuals. Why should Jewish terrorism and Buddhist terrorism not include them? The subject of this article is "religious terrorism" - the content is appropriately placed here. I believe that when you say Judaism and Buddhism are being "singled out" you are missing the point that the Christian and Islamic articles both include individuals, and are split out into separate articles because of their size. There seems to be no point in splitting out Judaism and Buddhism based on size, so that is why the content is different - something that you are perceiving as deliberate bias. When a main article is present, the content here only needs to be a brief summary.
 * Given that other people may infer some bias here you may be right that new articles are needed, based on that reason alone. It would also correct the alternative bias viewpoint (I note that on Talk:Islamic terrorism the point has been made several times that Jewish terrorism has no main article).
 * The bottom line is that the individual terrorism content on Buddhism and Judaism is appropriate either here, or in main articles. Which do you support? 129.215.37.156 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition
Has anyone bothered defining what "Jewish religious terrorism" would possibly mean in a rational WP:NPOV way without it being a violation of WP:OR or WP:NEO? Oh, in such a serious forum with a topic of such consequences, why doesn't the above anon get a Wikipedia user name to help build confidence that this discussion is moving along entirely WP:AGF lines. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The book "Terror in the mind of God" has a chapter on Jewish religious terrorism. That is (some of) the content that was deleted. Can you explain why you think it is "Original Research"? Or if you're concerned about conflating ethnicity with religion - suggest an acceptable title that applies to followers of Judaism? 129.215.37.156 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi 129.215.37.156, thanks for responding, hope you can get a regular Wikipedia user ID soon. Well, there is no such thing as "Jewish terrorism" as such because Judaism does not advocate terrorism of any kind nor does being Jewish have a connection with the phenomenon of terrorism, so that for the word "Jewish" as a prefix to be added to describe something as if there is an objective normative "Jewish" terrorism is false. It would be like asking for "Jewish warfare" or "Jewish fighting" when there is no such thing. What there is, is terrorism, or warfare or fighting by people who may or may not be religious Jews or ethnic Jews and if it's truly describable and explicable in rational, objective, scholarly and NPOV ways then by all means go for it. One can also call a spade a spade and talk specifically of Kahanism and the spin-off groups that indeed advocate/d a form of "terrorism" but it can in no way be called, labelled or misconstrued as a definitive reflection of Judaism or what being Jewish means, since Judaism and being Jewish is a peaceful thing. Perhaps there could be an article about Terrorism by Jews in Jewish history or Terrorism by Jewish groups in the modern age or some such title, so that it is clear that it is not "Jewish terrorism" but acts of terrorism by Jews that is the subject. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have "Christian terrorism". The Christian Bible does not advocate terrorism. Why is that okay, but not "Jewish terrorism"? -Neitherday (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Neitherday: Two wrongs do not make a right! There should not be "Christian terrorism" either because Christianity is officially not a religion of "terror" nor should being Christian become a prefix for terrorism which it is not. How many groups are there in the world today that justify their supposed "terror" in the name of Christianity? Probably about zero! I hate to say it, but in today's world, neither Christians nor Jews nor Christianity nor Judaism are supportive of or advocate any form of terror or terrorism. Which then brings us to how to decribe what is happening with the Islamic world and Muslims today and what that is called, and no doubt it is because of radical Islam and its consequnces that this discussion is taking place in the first place and that in a silly desire to placate, and act as "honest brokers" that moral relativism then kicks in and rather than there being a focus on major facts and a serious real topic, a whole set of other bogus topics are created to create an impression of contrived even-handed "neutrality" when reality clearly runs in the opposite direction. Just some thoughts, IZAK (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content
It seems nobody wants to deal with the POV pushers who are willing to log in every day to revert appropriate and well sourced content. For the record, the content is below, maybe some day the Wikipedia model will deal better with the "my religion doesn't have any terrorists!" people. 129.215.37.177 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Juergensmeyer has cited the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, 1994, in which Baruch Kappel Goldstein shot and killed 39 Muslims, and wounded another 150, as a case of Jewish religious terrorism.
 * Jewish:

Yoel Lerner attempted to blow up the Dome of the Rock and wanted to rebuild the Temple Mount site. Mark Juergensmeyer identified him as a Jewish religious terrorist, writing that he "yeared for a Jewish society in Israel. He hoped for the restoration of the ancient temple in Jerusalem, the exclusive right of Jews to settle on the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the creation of a state based on biblical law."

Lerner believes in a form of "Messianic Zionism" - the prophesised Messiah will come to earth only after the temple is rebuilt and made ready for him. He believed that Jewish control over the sacred city was essential to making this happen, and bitterly opposed the Oslo Peace Accord between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. He says that a religiously justified assassination of Rabin had been discussed months prior to the event, and that such an action was "morally justified".

Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin on November 4th, 1995, and was quoted as saying he had "no regrets" and had "acted alone and on orders from God." Juergensmeyer identified this as religious terrorism, and wrote: "In the world view of Amir, Goldstein, and many of their colleagues, their people are caught up in a war with cultural, political, and military dimensions. In talking with Israel's religious activists, it became clear to me that what they were defending was not only the political entity of the state of Israel, but a vision of Jewish society that had ancient roots." .

 * Tibetan Buddhism:

During the 2008 Tibetan unrest China accused the Dalai Lama of being a terrorist mastermind. State-run media have portrayed the Dalai Lama as the shadowy religious figure behind violent riots and ethnic tension. Hundreds of Tibetan monks have been arrested in a security crackdown. The People's Daily wrote "The Dalai Lama is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage to force the Chinese Government to make concessions to Tibetan independence". The People's Daily also accused the Dalai Lama of conspiring with Islamic terrorists and Muslim seperatists in East Turkestan.

The Dalai Lama has denied the accusations, and has repeatedly called for peace and dialogue between the Chinese and Tibetan people. He has also said that he supports the Beijing Olympics: "I always support the Olympics should... take place in Beijing... so that more than one billion human beings, that means Chinese, they feel proud of it."

 * Just because something has a source does not mean it is appropriate. Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think this content is any of those things:
 * UNDUE - The cited publishers are the University of California Press and The Times. They are both credible publishers and should be strongly weighted. Why do you think using them at all would represent undue weight?
 * NPOV - The Wikipedia content appears to be a neutral and accurate representation of the original sources. Which specific sentences do you think are not neutral?
 * OR - Which content do you think is original research? The text is an accurate representation of the original sources. Which sentences do you have a problem with? Have you actually read the original sources?
 * SYNTH - Again, the text is an accurate representation of what the original sources say. What do you think is being synthesised here? Which statements do you think are unsupported by the original sources?
 * 129.215.37.134 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
"Judaism does not condone or encourage political violence or terrorism. " I know for a fact this is true, but I am under the impression Christianity doesn't either.--69.234.193.143 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

 * This article should be about religious terrorism. It is not List of religious terror groups. If you want, then move the lists to a new article. But what is the point:
 * What is the point in including the list of Islamic groups? They are only one click away in the main article. If we include the list of Christian groups, this article will become ridiculously long. So I propose removing the list. The information is only one click away in the appropriate main article.
 * In a similar vein, what is the point of including the Jewish groups? There is an appropriate main article. When a main article is available the accompanying text only needs to be a short summary. Anyone interested in reading more is only one click away.

129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth is the NDA not a terrorist group??? They're carried out a series of bombings, are fighting for a Hindu state, and claim to have 1,200 trained soldiers and 5 trained suicide bombers in their command.
 * Oh yeah, and the Hindustan Times, which is a reliable source, published Hindu Al-Qaeda training suicide bombers in Nepal. Come on guys, this article is a joke when everyone is pushing the "my religion has no terrorists" POV... 129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism
See Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism and Articles for deletion/Hindutva terrorism which I just stumbled upon. While I take the point that the content of these articles might have had no value (I haven't even looked but I'll take that as a given from the discussion) it's in sharp contrast to articles we do have on other terrorists who associate themselves with religions such as Christianity and Islam. It seems a gap in our coverage, and perhaps an example of undue weight being given to non-Hindu terrorists.

Should at least the article on Hindu terrorism be recreated as either a stub or perhaps as a redirect to Terrorism in India? Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hindu terrorism on Deletionpedia. The content actually doesn't look that bad. 129.215.37.31 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Religious terrorism
I want to copy this matter from the section titled, "religious terrorism" from the article Terrorism that was copied from the Terrorism in Pakistan article originally and incorporate it here. Any objections?

-Karumari (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Its not relevant to this article - please stop inserting this material on multiple articles -Snowded TALK 07:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Religious terrorism


text:
File:Supertramp - Supertramp.jpg

Summary

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:Supertramp - Supertramp.jpg


text:
Talk:WJRE/Copyvio

I, who posted the information, am also the webmaster and copyright holder. The information that was posted on the page does NOT infringe on the copyright. I just copied information from the site to save time and put something up. I will probably add on and change at a later date. Thanks!

Please log in and sign your posts. You are not very credible right now. Brianjd 11:17, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Make sure to read the GNU Free Documentation License. Brianjd 11:19, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Ok...here we go! I'm on the website under the jocks page. I'm Chris. Netchris 5:22, 2004 Dec 11 (CST)

Lets see...I will add a link to this website on the links page. There...done. Netchris 5:30, 2004 Dec 11 (CST)

I have paraphrased this at WJRE/Temp. Brianjd 11:32, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Do I need any more proof or to do anything else? I saw on page that it will stay like this for 7 days before a decision is made. I was just wondering if I need to do anything. I like this site and am new to it. I probably should have read the intstructions more clearly. I probably would have typed up my own information if I knew this would happen! Anyways...I love this site and I commend you for doing your job! Netchris 05:45, 2004 Dec 11 (CST)

By the way...I think the paraphrasing you did looks pretty neat! Thanks! Netchris 05:49, 2004 Dec 11 (CST)

I am not an administrator and not very familiar with Wikipedia policy. Somone who knows what to do should see this soon enough! Brianjd 11:56, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I added my e-mail now...so if they want to e-mail me (I don't know if they do that)...I guess they can. Thanks for all your help though!! Netchris 06:00, 2004 Dec 11 (CST)

 * Very impressive, Chris. I've never had this much cooperation in a possible copyright violation. You verified your ownership without us even asking. Great job. I've restored your article. - Vague | Rant 12:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate all your help! This truly is a great site! (Oh geesh...I finally figured out there was a signature/timestamp button at the top! I guess I still have a lot to learn!)  hehe... Netchris 13:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:WJRE/Copyvio


text: User talk:65.34.246.165

title: User talk:65.34.246.165


text: Category:1232 deaths

title: Category:1232 deaths


text:
Supertramp (album)

Supertramp is the debut album by the English rock band Supertramp, released in August 1970. The first UK press was released under the title "And I'm Not Like Other", but this title was printed on the labels only. In some countries it was released under the titles Surely (Singapore), and Now and Then (Spain).

It was not released in the United States until late 1977, but available through importers and was usually carried in record stores that specialised in British imports. The 1977 issue reached No. 158 on the US Billboard 200.

Background and recording
All the album's lyrics were written by Richard Palmer, since none of the other members of Supertramp were willing to write any. Palmer himself later said that he considered writing lyrics "like having to do school work" at the time. The music to the songs were all composed jointly by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson.

The album was recorded entirely at Morgan Studios in night sessions running from 12 am to 6 am, due to a superstition on the part of the band members (fuelled by their having heard that Traffic and Spooky Tooth recorded at late hours) that there was some "magic" to recording at night. Hodgson later recalled "Invariably our engineer, Robin Black, would fall asleep on us in the middle of the sessions, which were pretty intense as it was, because we fought a lot with Richard Palmer." He was fond of the resulting album, however, and commented over a decade later that "It was very naïve, but it has a good mood to it."

To promote the album, the band played at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970, held a few weeks after release.

As the songs for Supertramp's third album, Crime of the Century (1974), were introduced into the band's live set, the songs from Supertramp were mostly dropped, never to return. The two exceptions are "Home Again" and "Surely", which were occasionally played during encores for several years after. "Surely" has also been included on some of the band's compilation CDs.

Songs from this album, including "Words Unspoken" and "I Am Not Like Other Birds of Prey", were used as part of the soundtrack for the UK film Extremes (1971), along with music from other groups.

Reception
The critical response to the album was generally positive, with a review by Judith Simons in Daily Express commenting: "This debut record album by a group of promising musician-poets is rather more melodic than most discs which pass under the label 'progressive pop.'" Despite this, the album was a commercial flop.

Retrospective reviews are more negative. In their review, AllMusic said the album was "inundated with pretentious instrumental meandering, with greater emphasis and attention granted to the keyboards and guitars than to the writing and to the overall effluence of the music." However, they admitted that the album's "mixture of ardour and subtlety" is appealing.

Track listing
All songs written by Rick Davies, Roger Hodgson and Richard Palmer.

All lead vocals by Roger Hodgson, except where noted. Lead vocal credits per Richard Palmer.

Personnel

 * Supertramp
 * Richard Davies – organ (tracks 2–5, 7–10), piano (tracks 1, 7, 8, 10), electric piano (tracks 2, 7, 9), harmonica (track 2), backing and lead vocals
 * Roger Hodgson – bass guitar, acoustic guitar (tracks 1, 6, 10), cello (tracks 3, 4), flageolet (tracks 5, 8, 9), lead and backing vocals
 * Richard Palmer – electric guitar, acoustic guitar, balalaika (Track 4), backing and lead vocals
 * Robert Millar – drums, percussion

 * Production
 * Supertramp – producer
 * Robin Black – engineer

title: Supertramp (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbibium

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to an unspecified target. See also Votes for deletion/Untribium. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unbibium
This article has been tagged for deletion by User:132.205.3.20, but he seems not to have been able to figure out how to finish up the deletion process. The article has been nominated for deletion once before: see Talk:Unbibium. No vote --Carnildo 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Until something is known about these very heavy transuranium elements I tend to vote merge into a list. As of now, the heaviest element is element 114, with 115 and 116 awaiting confirmation. There is not much point in a fancy infobox when such elementary properties as the half-life or decay energy are unknown because the element hasn't been made at all. Pilatus 22:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I tend to think that the elements in the island of stability, and last classically stable elements (139, 138, 137, 136) are deserving of articles on their own. 132.205.46.188 01:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We could mention that fact in a paragraph on List of undiscovered transuranium elements. Pilatus 09:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge -- Klafubra 23:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: potential merge source Unbiquadium was speedily deleted moments ago 132.205.46.188 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a fair bit of such entries left. As I said, recreate those systematic element names that are missing and have them point to List of undiscovered transuranium elements until they are reported and merit an entry of their own. Pilatus 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please create all such redirects (up to, say, 200?) because that will stop people from recreating them. A neat table would be nice. Delete or redirect. Radiant_ >|< 13:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The extended periodic table once had links up to element 218 until a consensus for that page was reached to delete the red links so as to discourage the creation of empty stubs. Caerwine 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly Merge: There has been at least one article in a scientific jourmnal dealing with its theoretical properties, so it not that we don't know anything about eka-thorium, we just don't know very much. Granted, the amount of information known is minimal enough that merging with other theoretical period 8 elements into a single article may be a reasonable option, especially since the elementbox templates aren't really set up at the moment to handle anything past period 7. Caerwine 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * COMMENT see related vote: Votes for deletion/Untribium (Untribium and others)
 * I propose we merge this VfD into that one. 132.205.45.148 17:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Supertramp (album)

Rick Davies does not sing in Shadow Song
People, stop reverting my edits. Rick Davies doesn't sing a word on Shadow Song. In fact, he doesn't sing a word on the entire album except for a shared lead vocal on Nothing to Show. Richard Palmer-James is the one who sings Shadow Song accompanied by Hodgson. Just compare the main voice in this song with the main voice in Maybe I'm a Beggar. It's the same man ! Palmer clearly commited a mistake. He only recorded this album with Supertramp and it was a very long time ago, so he had two reasons not to remember its recording quite well. If a source says 2+2=5, is it wise to put this information in an article or to conclude it was an obvious mistake that shouldn't be considered as fact ? If you are all deaf or can't hear the clear difference between Palmer's gentle, soft voice and Davies' rough and bluesy one, then at least put something like "information disputed" near the singing credit for that song. But really, I think this article desperatly needs supervision from Supertramp real fans, not temporary fans who only enjoy It's Raining Again and The Logical Song. (Clausgroi (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
 * (1)You need to give "Shadow Song" a more careful listen. It is clearly not Palmer singing there, as multiple editors have already noted. Davies is capable of singing in more than just a "rough and bluesy" tone. (2)Your "the source doesn't matter" is in obvious violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and more importantly, it's obvious that you don't believe it yourself, as demonstrated by your editing the article to falsely claim that the source says Palmer sang lead on the song, rather than just removing the source. (3)"information disputed" is just as much a deceit as "Palmer sang lead on Shadow Song". All available sources concur that the lead is by Davies and Hodgson, so there is no dispute. (4)Saying that everyone who opposes your edits are not "real fans" does not lend weight to your position. Quite the contrary.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, here we go... 1) I did, many times, then (not in the 70s, but when I first heard it) and now. I love this album and I must confess that Shadow Song is one of my favourites. Not for a moment did I ever mistake the singer: it's Palmer all the way, accompanied by a soft harmony by Hodgson. Excuse me, "multiple editors have already noted" ? No, they didn't. They say it's Davies because the source does. It's not even an opinion. If it's written there, I think most people don't even bother to listen to it to check if the source is right. The thing is not only the very unique style of Davies's singing, but his actual voice. It's not about tone, it's about timbre. Davies has got a very nasal and unsmooth voice. It just doesn't sound like the one we hear in Shadow Song, which is very smooth, crisp and not nasal at all. And hey, don't you ever forget we are humans beings and commit mistakes. If you really think you're going to convince me that Richard Palmer is a perfect human that is not liable, not subject to error, I can tell you beforehand that you won't succeed. 2) Show me where I said "the source doesn't matter" or "is not important". I really think you misunderstood what I said. My opinion is that we have to be sceptical even about sources. If it makes sense, I think it's OK to believe it. If it doesn't, it MUST be contested. We can't simply believe it because it is "the indisputable truth". To quote Davies, we can't just claim "I believe in what you say. Is the undisputed truth". There is no entire and pure truth such as a dogma. If we keep on this, the discussion will turn into a philosophical one, and that's not my intention, but I hope you understood my point of view. If we consider all we read in sources to be true, then there really is a God and Jesus walked over water and brought a deadman back to life, simply because this is written in the Bible and, therefore, as a source, must be true. Also, let's not put religion into it, I just wrote this as an example, ok ? "...as demonstrated by your editing the article to falsely claim that the source says Palmer sang lead on the song, rather than just removing the source". Where did I say this ? I think the one making false claims here is you. I would never lie saying the source states Palmer is the singer. It says Davies is, and I think Palmer commited a mistake, as I said before. 3) "All available sources" ? You mean... one ? And "information disputed" wouldn't be a lie because someone is, indeed, disputing the information given by the source: me. 4) Ok, I might have exagerated here, but I do believe a loyal Supertramp fan would not confuse the singers' voices. No diehard Beatles fan confuses John and Paul. Let's not be hypocrite ! However, I recognise this is not really an argument and doesn't prove my point, but rather more like a personal opinion.Clausgroi (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You gotta love Clausgroi's egotism, though; he has no problem with basically posting "I'm right and Calamity, Richard Palmer, all the other editors to this article, and Wikipedia's policies are all wrong, and if I say that 2+2=5 you should all accept it as WP: TRUTH no matter how many sources say that 2+2=4!" Anyway, yeah, the question of who sang lead on "Shadow Song" was settled a while ago. The track is a rare instance where Davies sings without affectation, so you can more easily recognize it as him by comparing it to his speaking voice. Basically, it sounds like Davies and Hodgson, and Richard Palmer and Calamity say it's Davies and Hodgson, so there's no reason for Wikipedia to not say that it's Davies and Hodgson.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really understand what you read ! You twisted my words so falsely that I don't even know where to start. I think I'm just going to ignore everything you said in quotes. Anyway, this is not a matter of being egotist, it's a matter of a passionable fan disputing a claim that seems to be wrong, even if it was said by an original member of the group. You are confusing things: it's not about the singing itself, but the voice, the timbre. I explained more about this question to NukeofEarl above. Your "lack of affectation" excuse for (allegedly) Davies's singing was, at the sime time, funny, a little ridiculous and a proof that you agree with me that the voice in Shadow Song is very different from Davies's. Otherwise, why would you invent an excuse to explain his totally different singing ? We heard Davies singing very calmly and passionately many times throughout Supertramp's career (e.g., Downstream). Not a single one of them sounds like Shadow Song. Also, listen to a YouTube video interview with him called "Rick Davies talking about Supertramp performing and his career". I know it's recent and his voice changed a bit, but the timbre remains basically the same and it sounds nothing like the gentle voice from Shadow Song. Even the accent in the song is different from his usual American bluesy accent. Actually, the falsetto parts are the ones I think proof more than any other that the man singing is not Davies. We all know how funny Davies's falsettos sound; just listen to Goodbye Stranger ! And, if you're still not convinced, listen to the other song sung by Palmer (preferably a high-definition digital version, not an old LP): the voice from 0:42 to 0:48 in Maybe I'm a Beggar is definitely the same from Shadow Song. Note that Palmer's voice trembles a bit on the word "much" from "I ain't got too much sense". It's the same trembling voice from "figure" in "figure on a lamplit wall". Listen to the whole song if you please, you'll surely notice the similarities; they are evident. Just don't say to me that it is Rick Davies singing Maybe I'm a Beggar as well ! Also, Calamity doesn't say anything about Rick singing on the song. The source for that is the interview with Richard Palmer done in 2011, 41 years after the album's recording, one of the reasons why I truly think he didn't remember that information quite well.Clausgroi (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For both of you, read this certified review of the album in which the writer states "Turns out Rick Davies sings lead on only one song ("Nothing to Show"), meaning all the rest of the vocals are handled by Hodgson (before his voice became annoying - it's actually quite good here) and Palmer": http://starling.rinet.ru/music/supertrc.htm. Read also reviews and comments from ProgArchives users regarding this LP.Clausgroi (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusation that editors opposing you "don't even bother to listen to it to check if the source is right" is worse than groundless; it's patently false, since editors were saying that before the source was there. Haven't you ever heard the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially not at houses of solid brick"?
 * It's fine to be skeptical about sources when you have good reason, but that Palmer might have misremembered doesn't cut it. By that logic, every source in existence is wrong about everything.
 * I invite you to check the article's edit history and review your own edit, because you did not remove the citation for the Palmer-James interview. You falsified what it says, just as I said. As for Calamity, I suspect Martin IIIa simply confused the two cited Palmer-James interviews and meant Supertramp Soapbox Assylum. Given the number of errors in your own posts and edits, I'd avoid attacking people over such inconsequential mistakes - remember the saying about glass houses.
 * There are in fact devoted Beatles who confuse John and Paul's voices. In fact, there are even devoted Police fans who confuse Sting's voice with that of Stewart Copeland! Have a look through the edit histories for the articles on the Police's songs. Finally, that link is not a "certified review". Everything on George Starostin's site is written, edited, and published by one man. His site has already been deemed an unreliable source by WikiProject Albums. Moreover, a critic can hardly be considered a better source for vocal credits than a member of the band itself. As for your claim that you fit the definition of a notable/reliable source, I can only laugh. Wikipedia editors are not only not notable/reliable sources, they are not sources at all; that's just WP: Original research.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I truly believe that people who visit this article don't even notice the vocal credits. They aren't really important. Those who do don't stop to think about it. After all, if a sourced Wikipedia article is stating that, why should they bother to put it to the proof ? It's basically like "well, the source says, so it's true; why should I doubt ?", which is exactly what you say.
 * No, the fact that people can commit mistakes doesn't mean everything is false. It means all information in the sources MIGHT be wrong, but is probably right. As I said, if it makes sense, we assume these people are right. If it doesn't, it's more than healthy to our human need for truth to doubt it, and that's exactly what I'm doing. All I want is this article to be as closest as possible to 100% true, once 100% might not be possible. I'm not stating that my opinion is the truth or that it should be considered a source, YOU are the one saying that. All in all, it's just my opinion, and I am pretty convinced about it, just as anyone is convinced about their own opinions. If we weren't convinced about our own opinios, why even have them ?
 * Regarding my edits, why on earth would I remove the sources ? Do you think I'm mad or what ? That would be dishonest of me. Every source in any article is important, and I do not have the right to simply remove it because I want to or disagree with it. I haven't "falsified" anything, I don't even know why you're saying that. YOU are the one falsifying things here, saying I said things I have NOT said. I've never said, for example, that my opinion was expressed in the source. It's more than obvious that my opinion goes against the source, and that's the only reason why I'm writing all this !
 * The source Supertramp Soapbox Assylum is exactly the one which contains the interview with Richard Palmer. You and Martin said several times things like "all the sources...", but you two probably forgot that Supertramp Soapbox Assylum is the ONLY source which states Rick Davies sang lead on Shadow Song. If you showed me another interview with Palmer, published in a different year, where he stated again "Rick sang Shadow Song", I would have to be humble enough to admit that my opinion had about 1% of chance of being right. However, as we all see, that interview is the only one we've got about who sings lead on Shadow Song, and that's exactly the one I think is wrong because Palmer is subject to misremember some very distant and unimportant details about a band that he was in 41 years before the interview.
 * No, a diehard Beatles fan knows, and quite well, who is who, to the point of knowing who sang the line "she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah" on the outro of All You Need Is Love (John) and who shouted "I got blisters on my fingers !" at the very end of Helter Skelter (Ringo). There's a huge difference between a casual fan a maniac one. A casual fan might not even know the names of the members, whilst a beatlemaniac knows the birth and death dates of all 6 members (including Stu and Pete), their parents, the number of their old houses in Liverpool etc. No way a dedicated fan could mistake his or her favourite singers' voices.
 * "As for your claim that you fit the definition of a notable/reliable source...". You see ? I have never said this. Stop making this discussion a Greek tragedy about the villain who says he is almighty and right about everything and the good boy who is humble and believes what the source says because the source says so.
 * I'm really curious: after all this debate, which is being written by civilised gentlemen in the appropriate space and has no reason not to be, have you listened to Shadow Song again to check it ? Have you compared the first vocal, which sings the first stanza alone and is joined by harmony vocals afterwards, with the one in Maybe I'm a Beggar, which was surely sung by Palmer because *the source says so* ? Do you really believe that the man singing gently in Shadow Song is the same one who sang Asylum, Bloody Well Right, Lover Boy, Gone Hollywood, Downstream and Casual Conversations, amongst others ? Do you believe that the crisp, clean and soft falsetto in the middle of Shadow Song was sung by the same man who sang the lousy falsetto on Goodbye Stranger (and I'm not demeaning Davies because I love him and probably like him even more than Hodgson) ? If you do, then you have something that I don't: faith (believing in something even knowing that it is probably not true). I just want to know what you think as a Supertramp fan and music listener, so don't answer "of course I do; it's in the source !". Clausgroi (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive my bluntness here, but both you guys are giving this issue way more energy than it merits. Clausgroi's proposal is to replace sourced content in the article with his original research. No original research is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, so we can't do that. Simple as that. If Clausgroi cannot understand and accept the No original research policy, then he should talk to a mod or admin for assistance; discussion of Wikipedia's core content policies is beyond the scope of this talk page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that nothing I say will change anything here. The article is still going to be like that even after all this debate. The only thing that would change it would be a new interview with Palmer, Davies or Hodgson about that. Although I don't consider that impossible, I think it's unlikely. Anyway, I still want to know the opinion of both of you, that is, if you two really think it's Davies singing Shadow Song. This is a "talk" page, so let's do that. Tell me what you sincerely think and we'll end this discussion once and for all, unless new evidence shows up. Clausgroi (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin IIIa - Thanks, I do admit that I lost perspective for a minute there. Clausgroi - I'm pretty sure we both already said that in our first posts here. It's under point (1) in mine.--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Update about lead vocal on Shadow Song edit war
A user named "Trsupertramp" has just changed the vocal credit on Shadow Song to "Palmer". I swear it's not me. He doesn't have a profile and this is the only contribution he has made. I don't rule out the possibility that it is a kind of bad joke by someone who saw this debate or even a fraudulent attempt to "incriminate" me by making it seem as though I created another account to change that information. Clausgroi (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to plead innocence; no one's accusing you. Assume good faith is a well-known Wikipedia policy. Besides, if it were you, I'd expect you to be posting as "Trsupertramp" on this talk page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm trsupertramp, from Norway, and I changed the vocal credit on shadow song. It was based on a misunderstanding. trsupertramp (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Supertramp (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimgying Zhang

Pimgying Zhang was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Music of Texas

title: Category:Music of Texas


text:
User talk:Rnypubliclibrary

please disregard unwanted edits from this IP address.

Thanks

title: User talk:Rnypubliclibrary


text:
Fernmeldeturm Mannheim

The Fernmeldeturm Mannheim is a 217.8 m concrete telecommunication tower with an observation deck in Mannheim, Germany. It was designed by the architects Heinle, Wischer und Partner and built from 1973 and 1975. It contains transmission facilities for VHF radio services, microwave communications, and omnidirectional radio services. A glassed observation deck and a revolving restaurant at a height of 120 metres allow a nice view over Mannheim and the surrounding area. The tower is a modern landmark of the city of Mannheim.

In December 1994 a German SAR Army helicopter returning from a medical patient transfer mission collided with the top of the tower and fell to the ground. The crew of four people died instantly. Parts of the top of the tower were disconnected and also fell to the ground.

title: Fernmeldeturm Mannheim