Talk:Army of God (terrorist organization)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnnyBravo456, Bnmx97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

POV
This article seems to have a definite POV to me.It refers several times to the organisation as terrorists and extremists.It seems to put forth the view that they are all evil and violent and has next to nothing on what the organisation actually does.While I am not affiliated with them (nor do I condone killing)it definitely seems one-sided.Serenaacw 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see, killing people and blowing up clinics are 'moderate' positions, right? Ck4829 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This page appears to be biased towards the subject of the article, and needs more objective information. Missing are mention of certain acts in this organisations past that can be considered "terrorism". Springyard 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this artical seems not only unproffesional, but biased. Im a little confused as to what it is talking about, since I got it from a list of terrorist groups, yet the first paragraph seems to just be a bunch of stuff on something other then what it was originally made for. IM a little confused --Passerby25 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems NPOV to me. An extremist organisation with infamous bombers being described as an extremist organisation with infamous bombers. Did you want to add a paragraph about their traumatic childhood to partially justify them or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.90.141 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a long time since the AOG people have killed anyone, and even when they did their activities definitely did not fit the dictionary definition of the word "terrorist." But they certainly are "extremist."  I doubt that even they would argue with that.  NCdave (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying unpleasant but true things is biased. Militant intimidation by an organized force is still terrorism; even if nobody gets killed. http://www.repentamarillo.com/ is the AoG's current TX project. Uberhill 16:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Took 2 years but this article finally reads "terrorist" as it should. I commend you wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.56.132 (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
Reworded introduction, removed description of two different groups. As to the POV nature of the word terrorism, really that is the only word that truly summarizes the spirit of people who engage in acts of violence (like bombings and targeted murders) to force their will on others. Anynobody 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the word "terrorism" has a specific dictionary definition. Terrorists attack society as a whole.  Typically, they try to slaughter innocent civilians uninvolved in their particular dispute.  Terrorists attack buildings full of civilians, blow up nightclubs and restaurants and subways, and engage in gruesome massacres designed to horrify and intimidate an entire society.


 * Targeted murders, bombings & arson are used by many people who are not considered terrorists, such as Mafiosi and street gangs. The purpose is intimidation, but only of specific people, not of society as a whole.  NCdave (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case the Ku Klux Klan should not have been considered a terrorist organization either, since they only targeted blacks and not "American society," which was overwhelmingly white, as a whole. And yet they are.  The issue is not whether you attack society as a whole, or only a certain part of it (black people for the Klan, white people for the Panthers, abortion clinic workers for the AOG).  Attacking any civilian person or persons for political purposes is enough to make one a terrorist, no matter how restricted your attacks may be.  Therefore the AOG is a terrorist organization, as was the KKK before it.  Guilty as charged, over and out. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, the american army is a terrorist organization. They attack innocent civiliants to impose their view on others. They slaughter people all over the world, sistematically showing that their agenda has got to do with economic politics and not blind humanitarianism.
 * Of couse, I am not expecting to be taken seriously on this argument. But my point is that there is a reason why "terrorism" is pointed out in wikipedia guidelines as a problematic word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter


 * Maziotis (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported Allegations
This article contains unsupported allegations that may very well be libelous. Either the allegations must be substantiated with references or they must be removed.

Example: "The Army of God is associated with several individuals:" With the exception of Donald Spitz, Michael Bray, Bob Lokey, and Neal Horsely, who have acknowledged that they are in some way "associated" with AOG, I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the others named in this Wiki are in any way "associated" with AOG. Before naming someone as being "associated" with any organization, and particularly an organization that is alleged to have "employed terrorist tactics in their effort to end abortion in the United States," it's imperative that some evidence be provided to support that allegation.

The fact that someone is a known pro-life activist does not make them associated with AOG. The fact that the AOG web site lists some of those named here as "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith" isn't evidence that they are in any way "associated" with AOG. To make such allegations without any evidence is libelous, particularly when most of those named here have never "employed" or advocated any alleged "terrorist tactics in their effort to end abortion in the United States."

Either provide the specific references for each person named or remove the names for which no references can be provided. --Frame-work 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki user Tim Long is a self-professed defender of anti-abortion violence. -- --PRUNOMAN 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I do not understand the significance of your point, PRUNOMAN. Who is Tim Long?  Are you saying that he is connected to Frame-Work?  Or what?  NCdave (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Going through that list of people will obviously be a tedious process. But I started with the first one on the list: Eric Rudolph.  The article currently says of him, "He was the first to announce the then unknown 'Army of God.'"  Of the twenty names listed, Rudolph is the only name with a link to a supporting reference.  But when I clicked on the reference, it took me to a 3/18/2002 CNN article that doesn't support the claim.  According to the article, two letters had been found claiming to be from the AOG expressing support for Rudolph (not from Rudolph supporting the AOG).  There's no indication in the article that Rudolph was a member of or supported the AOG.  What's more, the incident is from March, 2002, which is after the 2001 anthrax scare, so the "first to announce" claim is obviously incorrect.
 * Additionally, the Wikipedia article about Rudolph says that he says he has said, "I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible," which certainly doesn't sound like an AOG-type. That quote is supported by a reliable source, too: a 7/5/2005 USA Today article.
 * So, inasmuch as the Rudolph reference is obviously incorrect, I'm going to delete it. If someone can find a reliable source indicating that he "has publicly associated himself with the group" then please add his name back onto the list (but without the incorrect "first to announce" claim).  NCdave (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawful terrorist???
The Army of God (AOG) is a pro-life terrorist organization which holds that it is lawful and theologically justified to use force to end abortion in the United States.
 * Can someone explain how it can be a lawful organization and also a terrorist organization at the same time. It would appear that it would be one or the other. Or perhaps a lawful organization which is accused of being a terrorist. Tiggerjay 07:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They find their position lawful (taking the life of a murderer before they have the chance to murder), but the law sees them as terrorists. They would never describe themselves as terrorists. - 74.136.218.239 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people don't consider themselves terrorists, but they doesn't make their actions any less those of a terrorist, even if some people might happen to agree with them. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Kill the killers?" Well, then, they should kill themselves. -Laikalynx 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, so the statement really needs to be re-written since it is expressing the views of two different sides without any form of separation. I will take a look at this again in-context and will edit to make it more clear that they believe that they are lawful, while they are considered terrorist by the government -- however I believe that both of these will need some sort of citation/reference. Tiggerjay 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are considered terrorists, how do they promote the "White Rose Banquet" in Washington, DC? Wouldn't they be arrested? How would a terrorist organization get away with hosting a well known public banquet? --71.242.39.58 06:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. But they did, indeed, hold a "White Rose Banquet" at least as recently as 2003; see http://www.armyofgod.com/wrbmikebray.html  NCdave (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any practical definition of the word will refer to the AoG as terrorist. They are capable of holding such a banquet because the powers that be did not contradict them. They are terrorist, they just happen to have a government mandate. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist?
Should the group be labeled as terrorist, though? I mean, I read the discussion above, and while I feel abortion is reprehensible and should be outlawed in most cases, I in no way agree with the actions this group takes, but what I think it ultimatley comes down to for the terrorist or not issue is: does the United States government consider the group a terrorist organization? I know the ELF and ALF are considered terrorists, but I've never heard the FBI classify the AoG as such. I haven't been able to find out for sure, but if they aren't officially labeled as terrorists by US Law Enforcement (which seems likely as, if they were a designated terrorist group most of the people listed would be in jail rather than living out in the open) then the group should instead be referred to as an "extremist group" or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the definition of "terrorism," from the American Heritage Dictionary:
 * The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
 * The AOG does, in fact use and threaten force and violence against people and property. But they aren't intimidating or coercing entire societies or governments, they are just threatening and (occasionally) attacking abortionists and abortion clinics. So what they do plainly does not meet the dictionary definition of "terrorism."
 * Consequently, I'm going to change the article to avoid the misuse of that word. NCdave (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but they do intend to coerce society to fit their ideology. Even if they aren't successful it doesn't change their intentions, and all their actions point towards the same trends shown in terrorist groups. By that same argument one could call the KKK a non-terrorist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.125.108 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the first sentence since it included "anti-abortion" twice (redundant), and did not mention the word terroist in describing the organization. This is based on the FBI's own words on the web page - http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/counterterrorism.htm. So yeah, they are terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.40.93 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I emended your edit, I think it is more NPOV now, and please get an account and learn how we format refs on our pages, please. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons Violation
This page does not provide citations at all for how individuals are linked to the Army of God. In Troy Newman's case, the Army of God has even criticized him. Newman ironically may be on the AOG's diehard opponent's list. Research for the entire section appears utterly shoddy and unsupported. Need new links to fix this. If it doesn't happen soon, I will begin removal of names. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly in regards to cleaning up BLP issues. That said, just clicking on a few of those names, I found we could get sources for these claims from citations ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. And I don't imagine googling someone's name and "army of god" is that difficult. Some people very well may not belong on the list, but a lot clearly do, and you could actively work to help improve the list, instead of adding problem tags and waiting for deletion. Is there a reason why you don't want to find the citations yourself? Sorry if that is a presumptuous question. :) You know, DIY is a good motto!-Andrew c [talk] 20:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The few names you selected must not have included any of the few names I clicked on; my results were the opposite of yours – either no mention of AOG, unreferenced mentions, cites to sites which in no way could be considered reliable sources or to sites containing phrasing which was ambiguous at best. Too bad you didn't have the time to cut and paste a few of the good refs you found into the article [ :) ].


 * As far as the question of whether to delete or to let all the names stay until it's established they can't be verified, I would definitely support deletion sooner rather than later; in fact my first inclination was to begin doing so as soon as I had time, but when I saw Jzyehoshua's talk page comments above, I decided to let it go for a while. It's not like this is an article about people who like peach ice cream, where erroneous listings would be pretty innocuous; identifying someone as a member or supporter of a group labeled as terrorist is fairly serious stuff. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need pretty good sources to identify people with this organisation. Dougweller (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my concern as well, that a terrorist organization would list so many individuals using terms like "Pro-Life", "anti-abortionist", and "Unborn" repeatedly without providing any citations.   A quick examination via Google did not turn up anything for several individuals at the time, making me more suspicious.


 * After doing a more thorough examination, here are the individuals I was able to verify were part of the AOG:


 * Neal Horsley - This article states Horsley is part of the AOG while providing some citations. Furthermore, an  HBO release (Soldiers of God, 2000 - Amazon - link won't go through Wikipedia spam filter) appears to definitively show Horsley and another list member, Bob Lokey, as members of the AOG.
 * Shelley Shannon - AOG member according to the AOG website.
 * Donald Spitz - Does appear to be AOG member according to this AOG webpage.
 * A list here mentions Mike Bray, Donald Spitz, Matthew Trewhella, Dave Leach, and David Trosch as signing a petition supported by AOG for pro-life violence. All appear linked to AOG and many are sourced elsewhere on the AOG website.
 * Clayton Waagner is mentioned here as an AOG member, and most obviously here.
 * Dan Holman - As seen here, has an extensive history with AOG.
 * Stephen Jordi - I hesitantly label him as linked to AOG based on this search, which shows multiple articles on him. However, while AOG definitely supports Jordi following Jordi's actions, it's questionable how much is returned by Jordi.  I would have to look closer at the articles.
 * Scott Roeder - As seen at Assassination_of_George_Tiller, Roeder appears affiliated with AOG.
 * Eric Robert Rudolph - As seen at Eric_Robert_Rudolph, Rudolph's affiliation beforehand appears a bit uncertain, though he did from confinement allow a single posting of his statements on the AOG site. Whether this is a case of AOG 'claiming' him after the fact I'm not sure.
 * Chuck Spingola - Clearly states here he is in the AOG.


 * Uncertain/Unlikely


 * Jack Cashill - A Google search of "Jack Cashill" "Army of God" turns up 97 results - none of which are appearing particularly applicable (and many of the top ones merely quoting this Wikipedia article!). The attempt to link a WND reporter to AOG appears baseless.
 * Troy Newman - As previously stated, Newman if anything is criticized on the AOG site, see here, here, and here. Furthermore, as stated in this article, Newman and his Operation Rescue have been consistent in now criticizing the violence towards abortionists like Tiller, since back in 1993 Operation Rescue expelled Donald Spitz for supporting such violence.  It appears whoever threw Newman's name in did not do their homework, and may have just mentioned him because his name was on the AOG website, when in fact the AOG was criticizing him instead.
 * Wiley Drake - Mentioned in this article as having been found on an AOG petition, but Drake denies in the article ever signing it. While discussed here and here, there appears no solid basis for the claim at this point, and given his opposition to the claim, could've resulted in a lawsuit against Wikipedia.
 * Drew Heiss - Am having trouble finding anything definitive on an affiliation is proving difficult. In fact, his website which was cited before actually shows him saying of AOG, "The list of those visiting and communicating with the man accused of killing Wichita abortion provider George Tiller reads like a who's who of anti-abortion militants. Two convicted clinic bombers. The man behind the Army of God Web site. Several activists who once signed a declaration that defended the killing of abortion providers.  And federal agents have now talked to many of them."  This certainly doesn't sound like something an AOG member or even sympathizer would say.
 * Stephen Wetzel - Name appears just once on AOG site, and they are simply reposting something of his they liked. Wetzel may be in a similar position to Drake, and in the same article as Drake it is stated "Steve Wetzel, who posted the statement originally on a website called Missionaries to the Unborn, said there was some confusion, because some people sent e-mails supporting Kopp believing he was innocent and being railroaded by the government and were later shocked when he confessed to the crime."  If so, Wetzel and Drake would've been defending Kopp thinking him to be innocent, and then had their names unintentionally added to the AOG's list, with the AOG believing they supported Kopp's violence.  Search results appear inconclusive.
 * Bill Whatcott - Wikipedia page on Bill Whatcott does not mention an AOG affiliation. A single AOG page written by Donald Spitz, using his name in the page title is the only AOG mention of him.  Have not seen anything yet from search results to be sure.


 * Heiss, Drake, and Cashill were the ones I'd immediately looked at before, given the prominence of WND and the religious affiliations. However, all appeared very questionable.  While many names might belong better than I first realized, the previous author appeared to be trying to affiliate several people without sourcing or basis that definitely fits BLP violation rules, and I still think it best the section get redone, given how many names are questionable.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Troy Newman's connection to Scott Roeder was mentioned at Roeder's trial. Newman has long had associations with members of AOG and continues those associations.  One major figure is Newman's former pastor Dan Holman, wrote the foreward for Newman's 2nd edition of Their Blood Cries Out which advocates the murder of abortion providers.  Newman was often seen protesting with Jennifer McCoy (FKA Sperle) who associates with the AOG.  Newman associates with Ron Brock, often seen at AOG events and advocates the murder of doctors.  Newman mourned the loss of people he referred to as allies including Robert Ferguson (who had columns on the AOG website) as well as Paul deParrie and Daniel Ware (who spent time in prison for plotting to kill hundreds of pro-choicers).  I could go on and mention John O'Toole (who was on the AOG HBO documentary), Patrick Johnston and the person who owns Operation Rescue's HQ and Troy's former leader Jeff White.  Next time you accuse someone of not doing their homework I suggest you do more than look at Operation Rescue press releases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.174.210 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that a number of search results showing up for these individual's names and "army of God" are simply reposts of the Wikipedia material verbatim:

-CyclopsWarrior.Blogspot.com

-AbsoluteAstronomy.com

-WorldLingo.com

-thepeoplesforum.com

-wapedia.mobi.en

-bingcoupons.com

-search.com

-instapedia.com

Though not verbatim for the whole page, the list is:

-DailyKos.com, also [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/31/737312/-If-You-Call-An-Army-to-Fight,-Then-Dont-Be-Surprised-When-They-Heed-Your-Call. here]

Anyway, I could keep going, as these are just from the first 3 pages of results, but you get the idea. Is it normal for so many other websites to copy verbatim Wikipedia material, even the sources? It looks really weird to see them all referencing material for an article that didn't even provide sourcing for the facts referenced. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is perfectly normal, unfortunately. You even find 'books' on Google Books that are just published copies of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

denomination?
What are the most common denominations of this religious group? Fulcher (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
There isn't one. Why not? I find it appalling that Christians, or anyone would find it acceptable to murder anyone regardless of their reasons. Ok, and please do not respond with, 'how about war?' I am not intersted in a discussion about war. I am, in my opinion, not capable of writing a decent section on any controversy about this subject.Mylittlezach (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it needs one, the whole article shows it is controversial. The first sentence calls it terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some sort of mention of the many, many pro-life groups that condemn them would make clear how isolated these people are from the vast majority of the pro-life movement? The AoG apparently lists a number of them on their own site. Or would it be better to call the section "pro-life condemnations"? Not including those condemnations leaves the wrong impression that these terrorist methods are on the edge of acceptability in the pro-life movement. They are not. TMLutas (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth mentioning, but also that we should strive to keep such criticism to that mentioned in reliable secondary sources, ie. an anti-abortion group posting a criticism on their website is not enough. That way, we can do a better job of ensuring due weight. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert of recent expansion
I appreciate the recent effort to expand the article by Ds466438, but I had to revert it for these reasons: There were also other issues (mostly poor organization/wikification), but these are the ones that really required a revert. If you can find reliable sources and use your own words, the article could benefit from the expansion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overreliance on unreliable or otherwise improper sources. Among them: Altum's article, which is cited for a number of statements, is an undergraduate work, which we do not accept. First Monday, which is likewise cited multiple times, claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, but a look at their website doesn't substantiate this claim. History Commons is user-generated. (You may be able to look at the sources these writers used; if those sources are reliable, you could read those and use them instead.)
 * 2) Copyvio. The entire "Key Players" section appeared to be lifted wholesale from the cited source. Do not do this.

Assassin
Shelley Shannon is not an assassin. Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons. Yes, Shelley Shannon did attempt to murder George Tiller by shooting his both arms. Abortion is a extremelly controversial subject and articles related to abortion such as this one should be written with extra care not to convey emotions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, articles should be factual. This article betrays the author's pro-abortion position when it should be totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.10.218 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

'Soldiers in the Army of God'
I thought I'd watch this documentary and put some info about it in here? Anyone object? Cap020570 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be great. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Great!!! Full disclosure.. it will take a few weeks, but now I'm really looking forward to doing this. Cap020570 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Army of God (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://thetribonline.net/news/print_story.php?story_id=2757
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116215628/http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent edit because I was able to add a citation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)