Talk:Eric Rudolph/Archive 1

Wanted Poster
I don't see why we have a mock-up of a wanted poster instead of a descriptive infobox for this page. Shouldn't it be changed? TheCoolestDude 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Additionally, there is a contradiction within that poster. Next to his birthdate it says "age 41," but for the age it says 40. TheCoolestDude 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of "Right-wing Christian Terrorist" appellation
Ok... I am going to say this

Christian Terrorist is about Ideology. Did he express a support from the bible or Christianity that drove his attacks? (and for the purpose of this discussion Christian Identity doesn't count as Christian). If the answer to the above is -no- then he is not a Christian Terrorist he is a terrorist that happens to be Christian. And to use Osama as an example when he commits acts of terrorism he uses the Hadiths and the Koran to justify his political ideology and his acts of terrorism. That makes the appelation that Osama Bin Laden is a muslim terrorist justifiable. By this same token we take a look at the PLO vs Hamas. For the most part the PLO didn't use Islam as a justification and thus were Palestian terrorists vs Hamas which uses Islam to justify their ideology of terror and violence.

So Christian Terrorist for him is stupid.

As for Christian Identity it only applies to the term Christianity because they use Jesus as a representation for god. Yet beyond that superficial level they share nothing in common with Christianity in terms of teachings, salvation of the soul, etc. So if he was involved in Christian Identity that does not make him a Christian Terrorist.

This is the merging of the To those who oppose describing Eric Rudolph as a Christian terrorist and "Extreme Right Wing" or "Christian?" heads

Anon editor 61.58.53.139 changed the description of Rudolph from "an extreme right-wing American terrorist" to "a Christian American terrorist." I'd like to revert it, because: 1) though conservatives seem to think "right-wing" is an epithet, it's simply a description of one's place on the political spectrum&mdash;and in this case, it's clearly accurate; and 2) calling him a "Christian" begs the question, "WWJB"&mdash;that is, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" Most Christians would be offended by any association with the likes of Rudolph. Any objections? (NB: the anon editor made the same change on the Richard Jewell page. Those are, to date, his/her only two edits.)--RattBoy 12:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As wikipedia's article on the term indicates, the definition of far right/extreme right is ambiguous, whereas the definition of a Christian is fairly clear. Christianity revolves around left-wing concepts of the equal treatment of others, which isn't common in far right circles, even those that claim Christianity. I don't see how Rudolph's beliefs or action could be considered unambiguously far right. Whilst the same arguement could be made against him being labelled a Christian, he claims that as his religion (as well as it being his motivation). Perhaps "extremist Christian" would be preferable? Ud terrorist 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the term "extremist" would mean one who takes ideals to an extreme, no? In that sense, "Christian extremists" would be St. Francis of Assissi and St. Ignatius of Loyal, no?


 * He's not a Christian at all, any more than the Nazis in the so-called "Christian identity movement" are. I've removed the adjective, since this is tantamount to a smear of Christians in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 February 2006
 * I suggest that any further attempts to label him as a 'Right Wing' or 'Christian' Terrorist should be backed up with sufficient evidence proving that the motivations for his actions were either political or religious in nature. I'm talking about written statements or official transcripts, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.12.15 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 February 2006
 * I agree, especially given his letter to his mother about preferring Nietzsche to the Bible. TexasDawg 14:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And Nietzshe wouldn't have given him any cause to go out and bomb abortion clinics - his only motivation for that was part of the right-wing christian extremism in america. And yes - i know some of the better christians are opposed to stating that right-wing fundamentalist christians are christian - tough shit, they follow a sect of christianity, albeit one that is signficantly ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus.  The motiviation for their attacks on abortion clinics and homosexuals is their religion - that makes them a religious terrorist.
 * You need to read up on your Nietzsche AND your Christianity. Ever read "Will to Power"?
 * Oh Sweet - I got sources now! http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/18/army.god.letters/index.html
 * army of god website homepage for eric rudolph http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html
 * http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/rudolph.html
 * It's very clear that he is a christian terrorist - your censorship of this article is a NPOV violation and unacceptable behavior for a wikipedia Lordkazan 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that it's reasonable to call him a Christian, since he would want to be called a Christian. And he's certainly a terrorist.  But "Christian terrorist" implies that the goal of his terrorism is directed by Christianity, or that the terrorist is trying to create a Christian state.  Yet, Rudolph claims to be not only a Christian, but a Catholic, and even though there is a vigorous debate over whether, for instance, the Iraq war is justifiable unde Just War doctrine, it is very plain that establishing a theocracy through violent insurgency is not consistent with Catholicism.  Therefore, the most that can be said is that Rudolph is a terrorist who happens to be Catholic.

To those who oppose describing Eric Rudolph as a Christian terrorist, do you also oppose calling Osama bin Laden a Muslim terrorist?

Are you ethical and consistent, or are you biased towards your own religious viewpoint and hypocritical in your views?
 * They're christianist bigots biased in favor of their own religious viewpoint naturally! 12.226.237.65 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is calling Osama that either. I don't see him as a Muslim terrorist.  TripleH1976 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bullshit - straight from the OBL entry "Usāmah bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Lādin (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎; born March 10, 1957 [1]), most commonly known as Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden (أسامة بن لادن) is a militant Islamist and also the founder of the al-Qaeda Islamist paramilitary organization." - Try honesty next time! Eric Rudolph is a right-wing christian extremist and such should be noted in his file - DESPITE your in-group protective objections. Lordkazan 12:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a VALID objection to stating the obviously true fact that he is a christian terrorist. You censorists are going to have to back yourselves up, or it's going into the article - especially since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism mentions him by name and quotes him he has clearly said "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one." Lordkazan 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a despicable, but reasonable, argument that Islam is consistent with, or even supportive of, terrorism. Muslim sacred texts do include exhortation to violent insurrection and deceit in order to establish an Islamic state, which a reasonable person can conclude are still applicable to today.  Therefore, a person can reasonably assert that his terrorism is motivated by his own attempts to faithfully live out his Islamic duties.  The same cannot be said for a Catholic such as Rudolph.

Main page restored (IE censorship of this information rescinded) - reverts will be considered vandalism and dealt with as such Lordkazan 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and just what authority do you have to make that claim? You have a problem with Christianity don't you? He didn't commit his crimes in name of religion.  And if you notice in that Christian terrorism article references to Rudolph have yet to be cited.  The information from CNN is hearsay.  Just because CNN states it doesn't make it the gospel!   TripleH1976 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything I "have against christianity" doesn't require me to lie and pollute the wikipedia. It's fairly obvious that he is a right wing christian extremist as they are the ones that engaged in abortion clinic bombings, the term "homosexual agenda" is exclusively used by them, he was sheltered by them while a fugitive and he was brought up as one.  Furthermore while you're busy pointing fingers at me for alledged bias you should be looking at yourself, because based upon your user talk page and your history of edits I don't trust you to be unbiased here.
 * And yes I have something against "christianity", but not against "christians" (until they give me a reason to personally dislike them - as you have) - it's called: I'm the victim of religion oppression from christians and the victim of genital mutilation thanks to them. If you wish to continue this discussion we can have it on my user page.
 * Eric Rudolph was a christian terrorist - no ifs, ands, or buts about it Lordkazan 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

some sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1 .. how about this - "There is evidence to suggest that his actions may have been motiviated by a form of extremist christianity making this Christian Terrorism, however there is no direct admission of this" - is that more acceptable to your in-group protective censoring ways? Lordkazan 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

and I can understand how you would try to avoid allowing his (almost certainly real) association to your religion be mentioned - you're trying to protect your religion and cast him as "not a real christian" for his beliefs - I would point out that points 1 and 2 on your talk page are not justifiable by your religion (especially your biased language), and point 4 goes against your religion Lordkazan 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LordKazan, I'm going to ask you to calm down and remember Wikipedia policy, in particular no personal attacks and assume good faith. A tantrum isn't the way to build consensus. Is there some other way this information could be handled that would be an acceptable compromise? If you are stating that you are unable to leave your personal biases behind when editing Wikipedia, you're inviting others to stop viewing you as participating in good faith. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I already changed the article in a manner that will hopefully both be more accurate and more acceptable to TripleH - I have reason to believe his edits are NOT in good faith (see the top of his user page) Lordkazan 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, it is much better now. But why do you say my edits are not in good faith?  I have created many good articles for wikipedia.  The list in my talk user page is a small jab at someone.  A certain someone, who defends a child-killer.  TripleH1976 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that even Usama bin Laden isn't called a terrorist on Wikipedia in the introductory paragraph yet some insist on applying that appelation to Rudolph? How 'bout some consistancy? Is Wikipedia just another extreme lunatic Left Wing source? I've changed the description "domestic terrorist" to "militant activist" --67.72.98.87 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly complain about characterizing Eric Rudolph as a terrorist? What else would you call his crimes but acts of terrorism? Do you know what the word "terrorist" even means? Believe it or not, it means something more than a brown-skinned Middle Easterner. Additionally, the current makeup of the "Motivations" section is, to say the least, quite incoherent. How exactly does a self-professed preference for Catholicism mean he is not a Christian?--24.107.35.146 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. The dispute was not about the word "terrorist" but about the phrases "right-wing terrorist" or "Christian terrorist". Most sources do not label him based on his politics or religion. We're not arguing whether he was a Christian. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No. We're arguing about whether it's fair, based on the reporting of reputable sources, to suggest that religion played a motivating role in his actions. The fact that he denies this is the case is interesting, but no more relevant than a similar denial from, say, Osama Bin Laden. WP has been very quick to label certain terrorist groups and individuals as religiously motivated ... and this situation is different because ...? Oh, yes. Because he's a Christian. BYT 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really want to be charitable, because where have you been during all this? I've been right here. Read 24.107.35.146 carefully. He says "How can anyone possibly complain about characterizing Eric Rudolph as a terrorist?" He does not say "How can anyone possibly complain about characterizing Eric Rudolph as a religious terrorist?" You may wish to argue that point, but 24.107.35.146 did not, instead bringing up skin color, as if we had determined that since Rudolph is white he cannot be a terrorist. We are not in fact arguing over whether he is a terrorist at all; we are only arguing, as you say, whether it is appropriate, if his actions were in some part motivated by religion, to call him a "Christian terrorist". Just because that's up above of the comment I'm responding to does not mean that the comment I'm responding to made certain points. --Dhartung | Talk 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  (NB: I'm not responding directly to Dhartung or to BYT, but to the greater discussion here of the "Christian Terrorist" appellation.)  Karl Meier's edit of 01:22, 3 December 2006 pointed out that "it's already mentioned in the intro that he has connections to the Christian Identity movement." As it currently reads (as of early 3 Dec 06), the intro says "Eric Robert Rudolph…is an American domestic terrorist…who…was 'connected with the Christian Identity movement.'" Thus, the intro prominently says both that he is a terrorist and that he has strong ties to a group which uses Christianity as its raison d'etre. Isn't that quite a reasonable compromise? For one, I certainly don't see the article, as it currently is written, as something sanitized by hyper-sensitive Christians to disclaim any connection to him.--RattBoy 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rattboy, I agree that the Karl Meier edit is a good formulation. I don't see the utility in calling him an "American Christian" when we discuss it in more detail in the same paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I made one small change: The aricle had said he was a Catholic AND was connected to the Christian Identity movement. The doctrines of these two groups are mutually exclusive, and Rudolph's claim to be Catholic was in a statement denying ties to Christian Identity and its goals. This is a separate issue as to whether one may be a "Christian terrorist." One can invent one's own doctrine and still be a Christian, by ordinary understanding of the meaning of the word. One cannot be a Catholic and a member of the Christian Identity movement, since there are doctrines which one must uphold to be considered a Catholic. Bold text

Bad Christians
I have joined church for quite a few years and I have met many good as well as many bad Christians. Very hard to say bad Christians are not Christians. They faithfully believe the bible, but execute the Bible in a wrong way.

I agree for a sentence, "A devil could hold a good value."

Melih Uzunyol wording
Does anyone else have a problem with:


 * Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, which killed Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others, caused the death of cameraman Melih Uzunyol by heart attack as he rushed to cover the incident.

I mean, did the bombing cause Melih Uzunyol's death? There is certainly a clear causal link, but I don't think we want to phrase it this way. --Dante Alighieri 10:22 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * done Smack

Please remove "captured" from the photo here. 209.56.26.107

Brother's message
Presumably the message his brother meant to send was "Stop chasing my brother, or I'll cut the other hand off".

SPLC link
The Southern Poverty Law Center link is dead - does anyone have a functional replacement? Also, that same line says Rudolph was "pro-laetrile", but the link to laetrile is merely a description of a chemical compound. If there's a philosophy associated with it, it should be explained either here or on the laetrile page. -- Finlay McWalter 12:51, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nationality
There is nothing about his nationality. I assume he is an american...? I've added category American terroists, remove this if he is not an american --Oblivious 22:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Rudolph was born in the United States, so it would be appropriate to have him in the American terrorists category.

Redundancy
I do think it's unnecessary to repeat the entire list of every bombing, name every location, and every victim, all in the first paragraph -- not to mention the overly detailed history of his being a fugitive. At the very least it opens up the possibility of inconsistent edits. Shouldn't an article opening be a brief summary and overview? That seems to be a widely held philosophy. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't reading your comment when I tried to make it more succinct. Anyways, I've replaced the entire text of Rudolph's statement with a simple link, because it seems to me that the statement shouldn't dominate 60% of the entire article. I've also removed redundant sentences that seem to be almost word-for-word. (Hey, this is one of my first major edits on WP! =D) TheProject 04:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, what you did was improve things in the same direction I tried to. I applaud your edits. My comment was directed at User:Neutrality, who may well come back and restore all that text again, for who knows what reason. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm a little lost as to where to find the source that says Rudolph actually was part of the group Christian Identity. As far as I know, he has only been suspected of being part of it. I haven't heard of any proof that this is true. It even says, later in the article, that he has denied being a part of it. Is it possible to find proof to the contrary? Otherwise, saying that Rudolph is indeed associated with the group may be factually incorrect. TheProject 21:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I made some edits to reflect Rudolph's lack of verifiable membership in Christian Identity. Nihila 7 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

I believe one possible link between Eric Rudolph and Christian Identity was that his mother took him to some sort of Identity gathering when he was younger. I read that in some mainstream wire service report after his arrest, sorry, I don't recall where. Maybe a simple search will turn up something referanceable. It's very possible that he had varied interests (or delusions, however you'd put it) in a range of right-wing ideologies and perhaps theologies, maybe changing over time as he looked for support from various sources. *** Carl, Southern Students for Choice, Athens, Georgia


 * Carl, the ADL and Cult News have information on this; it woudl be great if someone would distill the notable points into the article. Nevertheless, Rudolph's own statement is of testimonial value, and he claims there was little influence. Whatever else they believe, it's POV to connect them to Rudolph without hard evidence. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

404 pages for external references.
The CNN.com link to his statement upon conviction has timed out of their system and won't pull up anymore; does anyone have another? ekedolphin 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This URL is now showing an error on CNN's site. I think their format has changed since the url was published here.

Rudolph Letters on CNN's site: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/05/rudolph.letters.ap/index.html
 * I believe the original source, anyway, was this USATODAY article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have communicated with Eric and he is not a racist
The big lie media and liberals like to perpertate is that those with whom they disagree are racist. The media does this with little or no evidence and do those who are against the principles put forth by those who they disagree with. Eric's mother stated in the U. S. A. Today article that was false. She said when Eric was young, she had fallen on hard times, and as people go to different churches when in need, she went to an idenity group for a short time. She said she went to check it out as well as for assistance. She stated it was not what they believed and they left and that was the end of it. Eric was a child and was led by his mother. He has rejected publicly and in private all forms of racism. God created each human being and God made that human being the color they are. Who are we to say otherwise. If God created someone a certain way, who are we to not approve of what God has done? I too have been accused of racism, even though I have had a webpage for around ten years up, denouncing racism. The liberals ignore the plain facts and will attach to some half truth and keep repeating the lie. Do you think the Army of God, Eric Rudolph, etc. is not going to publicly say what they believe. Enough people hate us for what we say, why would we deny something else if we believed it. We believe homosexuals are sick sex perverts and babykilling abortionists deserve what ever they get. If we didn't believe God created all races, why would we deny it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevSpitz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 September 2005


 * Well Reverend Spitz, you have expressed some really ugly stuff here. So, you say, Rudolph is not a racist, but you imply he agrees with you that  '"babykilling abortionists" deserve what ever they get ?'


 * I am not going to fix your hate-filled rant. But by putting an initial blank at the front you render all but the first sentence unreadable.


 * I hope some of the Christians who believe that Christ stood for love and forgiveness, rather than hate and violence, will spell out for you how wrong you are. --  Geo Swan 17:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rev Spitz is the operator of http://www.armyofgod.com/ (WARNING DO NOT CLICK IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH! Graphic pictures of SUPPOSEDLY ID&X abortions - 99% probability that these were featuses that died of naturally causes and had to be extracted) - this site is a right-wing christian extremist site associated christian terrrorism, particularily abortion clinic bombing. SPCL page (which includes evidence that he is, indeed, a racist) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=72 Lordkazan 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't class "abortionist" as a race, and so don't see any logical contradiction in being violently opposed to abortion and yet not racist (though personally I sit on the fence on the abortion issue). However, anything based on a personal communication would probably be considered original research, and so have no place in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.121.198.125 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

You have no evidence of this discussion, and as such it should not have any influence WHATSOEVER on this article. --Sadistic monkey 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limabugh Reference
The mention of him "quoting Rush Limbaugh" to his gay brother is really unnecessary and an attempt to defame Rush, so I've deleted it. ...added by 70.68.45.50


 * Rather than jumping to infer an attempt to defame Limbaugh (who, incidentally, ought to have developed a thick skin by now), assume good faith. Incidentally, are you conceding that this event happened? -- Hoary 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"a message to the FBI and the media"
We read: Daniel Rudolph, Eric's older brother, videotaped himself cutting off one of his own hands with an electric saw in order to "send a message to the FBI and the media." What was the message -- "There's more than one wacko in our family", perhaps? I looked in the linked article and it didn't tell me. If we don't know, then this merely looks like titillating trivia. -- Hoary 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently the family all thought he was innocent; his sister didn't believe it until the plea deal. It's titillating trivia, but it was in the news and is almost always brought up as the most bizarre part of the whole story. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments
I have placed a request for comment on the terminology issue. Interested editors should make their cases here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He committed acts of terrorism against homosexuals, and abortion clinics - which was a trend of christian terrorism in the united states, largely at the encouragement of Operation Rescue. As we agreed upon earlier - there is strong evidence to suggest he was a christian terrrorist, but no admitition as noted on the article page Lordkazan 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any question that "domestic terrorist" is an appropriate term, given that the gentleman in question has been convicted of those crimes. It's a term used by the FBI. I personally don't see that "Christian terrorist" is a meaningful or necessary term, as it's mainly used by POV-pushing groups. I would argue for "right-wing domestic terrorist", since major groups such as the ADL and Public Eye profile him with similar language.. (Since 2000, the FBI has dropped language labeling extremist groups as "right-wing", while retaining the label for "left-wing" groups.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is probably administration POV, but we can only patrol wikipedia not the planet :D. I would be ok with "right wing domestic terrorism" as, in just fairness to all christians, anti-homosexual oppression and anti-abortionism is much more right wing than christian.  (infact the bible says somewhere that if a child is insubordinate stone them to death :D).  Christianity is supposed to be around the left-wing ideals of jesus so "right wing christian terrorism" is ALMOST a contradiction.  If only it was fully a contradiction Lordkazan 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I gather this dispute is over how to characterize his illegal activities? Stay as close as possible to the technical language of the convictions and quotations from leading news organizations such as CNN. That is, if editors disagree about whether "Christian terrorist" is appropriate, it could be debatable in an editorial sense but definitely admissable as a direct quote from a New York Times article. Fair enough? Durova 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, this discussion will be most successful, and least painful, if we orient it around the principle that we should as much as possible characterize him in the same way that the most reliable sources do. It seems like the sources brought up by Dhartung above have suggested a wording that may satisfy all parties. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The policies WP:V and WP:BLP means that you need a reliable source for the labeling, so Durova and Christopher Parham are correct that you need to stick close to the sources. WP:BLP means that you also need to cite those sources for any negative material about him (or every editor is expected to remove the negative material on sight), which certainly includes the "terrorist" label with any preceeding adjectives. Reading the links above from Dhartung and Lordkazan, the best source appears to be the Washington Post article, which leaves the "Christian terrorist" item an open question. Between it, the ADL page, and The Public Eye page, it would be legitimate to label him as having associates or contacts adhering in the Christian Identity, however, all three decline to say that he was himself an adherent thereof or to be certain that his bombings were caused by holding that ideology. If they don't state it themselves, our obligation from WP:BLP to understate the sources means that we certainly can't state it on this evidence. GRBerry 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is what the article states "There is evidence to suggest that his actions may have been motiviated by a form of extremist christianity making this Christian Terrorism, however there is no direct admission of this." Lordkazan 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is better to attribute the phrase to one of the experts who has used it, rather than putting it in the "Wikipedia voice". --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, since all the sources specifically say Christian Identity, the text and link reference should be to that, not to generic Christian. Reading them, they all also go on to say how outside the mainstream Christian Identity is.  Doing otherwise is going beyond the sources, contravening WP:BLP, which is policy.  GRBerry 02:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent points about WP:BLP. In general - and especially for a living person - it's important to cite actual sources instead of using weasel words. Durova 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This RfC was posted over 2.5 months ago. The consensus seems to be to label Rudolph a terrorist&mdash;not a "Christian terrorist"&mdash;and to include sourced material which outlines his ties to the "Christian Identity" movement and other groups. The article reflects that apparent consensus. Isn't it time, then, to remove the "POV" tag from the article?--RattBoy 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't done anything recently because I wasn't yet comfortable with the presentation of the controversy -- which was brought up before even telling of the bombings. It's a tangential issue and not part of the encyclopedic core of the article. I've put most of that into a new section now, and if I'm happy with it in the morning, I think I'm ready to assent to the removal of the tag. It was User:Lordkazan who added it, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality check
Osama Bin Laden is identified as an "Islamist" in sentence one of his article, and as an "Islamic militant" in sentence two. If you think religious motivations are irrelevant, please go make the case on that article first. Thanks, BYT 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Islamist is the name of a political movement, not the religion. Christian Identity is in many ways analogous to Islamism in its relationship to the Christian religion, but they are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. They are different things. If they were the same thing, there would be a picture of Osama Bin Laden in this article, and the heading would read "Osama Bin Laden." As it stands, though we've got an article about an Islamic extremist that mentions his religion (in a politicized form) in the first sentence. And we've got an article about a Christian extremist that must also mention his religion prominently, in the first sentence. RFC concluded the words "Christian terrorist" should not appear -- they don't. Again -- if you think that the person's religion should be minimized in these kinds of cases, maybe you should open up an RFC on Osama Bin Laden and see what happens there. BYT 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Osama Bin Laden is being discussed on this articles talk page, but what I do know is that mentioning that is a connected to the Christian Identity movement is more accurate than simply claiming that he is a Christian. Another thing is that making not one but two separate claims about his religious affiliation in the intro section is superfluous. -- Karl Meier 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims? Who said anything about claims? They're each (separate) established facts. Nobody's claiming anything. BYT 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that is not the essence of the issue we are discussing. Try to read my previous comment again. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, my wife does this to me all the time. I raise topic A, and she announces that we are in fact talking about topic B, and insists that A is not the essence of the issue we're discussing. The issue I'M discussing is the following: he's a religious extremist, and his religion is germane to any discussion of what he did. Whether Christians prefer that it be discussed or not, which some of them clearly don't. Try to read my previous comment again. BYT 06:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I not interested in knowing anything about your discussions with your wife. The point here is that his religious affiliation is already mentioned once in the intro section, and that doing it twice is superfluous. The other important thing here is that it is more accurate to mention he is a member of the Christian Identity movement rather than simply claiming the he is a "Christian". -- Karl Meier 12:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It now seems that Mr. BYT is reverting to have some specific material repeated again and again, even though I made it clear in my edit summary that it has been moved to it's proper section. I want to know, how many times do you think we should repeat ourselves in this article, BrandonYusufToropov?`-- Karl Meier 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One unanswered question, maybe important, maybe not: It says he identifies with Catholicism, "and hopes to stay one". Was he born Roman Catholic, or did he convert? Wahkeenah 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

weird wording
This article certainly gets off to a strange start. Almost immediately we are told that he preferred Neitzche to the Bible. Huh? I don't know what the point of that is. The lead section should establish notability, not dabble in obscure one-off letters that he wrote to his mother. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's basically because some people insist on putting "keywords" at the beginning, which forces us to address it in an awkward way.--Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That went right over my head, sorry. What's this about "keywords"? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again -- reality intrudes
Once again: The first sentence has to describe what's notable about this person. This is a basic principle of the encyclopedia.


 * Indeed. And an encyclopedia should do just that in an accurate and concise way. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What's notable is that he's a violent religious extremist. This is relevant even if Christians prefer his religion not be mentioned. BYT 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The claims about his religious affiliation is hardly the only notable things worth mentioning in this article, and there is no need to repeat them again and again. We have already included the more accurate claims about him being a member of the "Christian Identity" movement, so I don't see why we should waste the readers time repeating ourselves about these issues. An encyclopedia article and especially the intro section of such an article is supposed to be concise. Another thing is, please avoid making personal remarks and bad faith accusations in your edit summaries. -- Karl Meier 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's cut to the chase. How religious is he?  Did Rudolph ever say that he acted out of observance of his religion?  The article calls him, "Catholic."  Does Catholicism endorse or tolerate Rudolph's actions?  If I called myself a Clintonite, and committed an act of terrorism, would the paper refer to me as a Clintonite terrorist?  Are the portions of Catholics who endorse anti-abortion terrorism significantly higher than the portion of the mentally deranged in any given population?  Is it reasonable to allow infinitessimally small proportions of those who identify themselves as belonging to a group define the group?


 * Comparisons to the use of "Muslem extremists" ignore the very uncomfortable fact that the proportions of Muslims who endorse terrorism are considerably large, and that their goal is explicitly the furtherance of Islam. I believe that Mohammed endorsed the violent tactics he did because he lived in a time and place of feuding warlords.  I believe that the Sharia referred to the incumbent culture of wherever Muslims find themselves, and appeals to living according to the Sharia should not be interpreted as struggling to impose 7th-century austerity.  I believe that Mohammed would be deeply distressed at the counter-productivity of terrorism, and would denounce as evil those nation-states which use disputes over terrorism as a means of manipulating their impoverished people and diffusing civil discontent.  But the plain fact is that the support of terror is fairly mainstream in many Muslim societies, including among those in positions of great power and influence.  Even so, "Islamicist" has replaced "Islamic," specifically to emphasize the distinction between those who fight for the exportation of ancient Shariah across the globe, and those who follow the "religion of peace."  Even ignoring that, it would be much better to fix a supposed double standard by dropping the phrase, "Muslem extremist" than to absurdly suggest that Rudolph is a Christian extremist or a Christian terrorist.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

The claims about his religious affiliation is hardly the only notable thing worth mentioning in this article, and there is no need to repeat them again and again.


 * Don't think I said it was the "only notable thing worth mentioning in the article." As for repetition, how many times it shows up after the first sentence is open to discussion. I'm talking about the first sentence. BYT
 * What is important is that the intro section is accurate and that it doesn't repeat itself. To say that he is simply is a Christian is not accurate, and it already include more accurate statements about these issues. What you want to add is simply superfluous and makes the intro less accurate. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We have already included the more accurate claims


 * "Claim" that he is Christian is somehow inaccurate? Explain, please, with specifics. BYT 17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that he is a member of the Christian Identity movement and according to his own written statement "prefer Nietzsche to the Bible" is more accurate then simply saying that he is a Christian. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alice in Wonderland time here. Would we treat, say, a statement from Bin Laden that he'd been cutting down on the time he spent reading the Qur'an as more "accurate" than a straightforward description of him as a Muslim? You are in such severe denial it boggles the mind. BYT 23:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If it were true, we might. But the reality is Bin Laden is doing what he is doing, he claims, at least, out of religious fervor.  Rudolph is doing what he is doing out of political motivations which the religion of his upbringing happens to share (the abolition of abortion), but also in the recognition that what he is doing is profoundly contrary to his religion.


 * Last time I checked the intro of the OBL article, it said that he was an Islamist militant and one of the founders of Al Qaida. It didn't just say that he was a Sunni Muslim, because that is less accurate. Another thing is that of course it would be very notable and worth mentioning if OBL should make a written statement, where he says that he prefer Nietzsche to the Quran. -- Karl Meier 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

about him being a member of the "Christian Identity" movement, so I don't see why we should waste the readers time repeating ourselves about these issues.


 * Again -- what we "repeat" after we clarify in the opening sentence that he is both a Christian and a violent extremist is not a big deal for me.


 * That he is allegedly a Christian is not more notable in this article than the fact that he mentioned that he "prefer Nietzsche to the Bible". I wonder why you are not interested in mentioning this notable fact in the intro section? -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. When behind bars, he said he didn't read the Bible much anymore, and preferred another book. Hey -- Charles Manson, behind bars, said he had nothing to do with the murder of Sharon Tate. Does that belong in the intro of Charles Manson? Since when do we allow convicted felons to write their encyclopedia entries? BYT 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the presumption of his supposed Christianity based mainly on his claims from behind bars? Can anyone infer his Catholicism from his actions?

An encyclopedia article and especially the intro section of such an article is supposed to be concise.


 * Concise. Not willfully blind to established facts we'd rather not see in the opening. BYT


 * His alleged religious affiliations is mentioned twice in the intro section, and material is more accurate than what you want to include. The article and especially the intro section is supposed to be both accurate and concise, and there is no reason to waste the readers time repeating anything. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is, please avoid making personal remarks and bad faith accusations in your edit summaries.


 * Which personal remark was that, please? BYT 17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you insinuation about "the Christians" making specific edits for improper reasons was directed towards among others me. I and the other editors of this article haven't yet made any insinuations about why you, a Muslim editor, is so interested in having spelled out his religious affiliation again and again in this article, so there is no excuses why you shouldn't remain civil, especially in your edit summaries. -- Karl Meier 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hardly see how identifying the apparent preferences of a group constitute a "personal remark." BYT 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might hardly see it, but I invite you to read WP:NPA again. It's there. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." And it's simply unnecessary. Please argue the merits of the article's content, nor your fellow editors' affiliations. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Making bad faith accusations against individual members of an alleged group of editors is indeed a personal remark, and should as already said be avoided, especially in edit summaries. Another thing is that I noticed that you are attacking another individual editor on your user page, labeling his edit summary the "most ridiculous edit summary of December, 2006". That is not just a personal remark. That is a personally attack, and if you do not remove, then I will do it and report you for this. So please do the right thing and remove it yourself. -- Karl Meier 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on that thing on my user page. You're right -- this was inappropriate. Took it off. BYT 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Identity is a racist movement. Rudolph's statement about the bombing did not discuss race, but it did discuss abortion, which is a staple of generic politically conservative American Christianity. Nothing he said needs Christian Identity as an explanation. Christianity alone is sufficient, and regardless of Rudolph's views on race, he is part of a much wider Christian movement of pro-life violence (see Violence in the abortion movement and Army of God) that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with religion. I do not think it is helpful to focus solely on his religion, but I do not think it is helpful to overemphasize his racism when his statement reflects only his religion. We should not forget that there were plenty of non-racist Christians who cheered his actions, such as Michael Bray (see it in his own words). &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For a trivial comparison, see the wording for the opening of Osama bin Laden: "Militant Islamist". It doesn't specifically say he's Islamic. That subject is brought up later under his education, as with Rudolph. Theoretically (though unlikely) one could be a "Militant Islamist" without even being Islamic. For Rudolph, maybe an appropriate term would be "Militant Christianist"? Simply labeling him "Christian" in the opening paragraph is an obvious attempt at POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying "but it did discuss abortion, which is a staple of generic politically conservative American Christianity" is ridiculous. Hitler favored a highly regulated industry.  Would it make sense to call Hitler a Democrat on that basis?  No, because Hitler's notorious actions are inconsistent with the values of Democrats.  Likewise, although "generic politically conservative American Christians" oppose abortion, they do not endorse terroristic means.  Incidentally, I didn't realize Pope John Paul II, head of Rudolph's denomination, was American or politically conservative


 * "Militant Christian" is accurate, I think, as long as Christian is wikilinked to the word itself instead of some other attempt at circumventing the plain issue. I just don't want to see the religious aspect dismissed to focus on the racism, which is in this case of lesser importance. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see you said "Christianist", instead of "Christian". I didn't notice that before. That's not going to fly here. His views are, as I said before, "a staple of generic politically conservative American Christianity." That's the beginning and end of it, as far as Rudolph and abortion goes. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you need to use that specific labeling, rather than the generic "Christian", which is an obvious attempt to throw all Christians in with this bomb-thrower. There are plenty of peace-loving Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. They just don't make headlines. Wahkeenah 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried not to use any particular labelling yet. That's why I'm here on the talk page. If "militant Christian" is okay with you, let's go with that, and I'll oppose any further attempts to shave it down to merely "Christian" standing alone. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wahkeenah -- obvious bias to you, perhaps. To others, it's simply factual. This is an encyclopedia. We deal in facts.
 * Re: Theoretically (though unlikely) one could be a "Militant Islamist" without even being Islamic -- this is (I'm sorry) just surrealistically inaccurate. Name one such individual, please, from the real world.
 * The unacceptable POV-pushing would be to pretend he had NO religious motivation, or that that motivation was so unimportant as to be absent from the first sentence of the article. BYT 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As you've been told already, there is no hiding his alleged Christianity within the article. Bringing it up in the opening paragraph reflects your desire to paint all Christians with the same brush, just as is too often done with members of other faiths whose primary notoriety is as bomb-throwers and who use their religion as justification for it... or who hire others to throw the bombs, which is why I say it is possible to be a "Militant Islamist" without being Islamic. I didn't say I know any. But some folks like to join causes and take up arms for egotistical reasons. It happens all the time, and there could be Islamist mercenaries. Wahkeenah 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're in a strange, double-sided world. We can and should say "Islamic militant" in the opening sentence about OBL, and thus everyone knows his religious affilliation. Rudolph, however, is a kinder, gentler, variety of religious extremist, and for him, we will soft-pedal the question of which religion he belived he was serving by murdering civilians by excising any reference to that faith system, direct or indirect, in the opening sentence. We're doing this because ... ? BYT 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, you could say he's a "Militant Christianist" or a "Christian Militant", or whatever, just like the Bin Laden article says he's an "Militant Islamist", not just plain "Islamic", and for the same reason: To simply label Bin Laden "Islamic" with no qualifications would be anti-Islamic POV-pushing, just as labeling Rudolph "Christian" with no qualifications would be anti-Christian POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So "militant Christian extremist" would work for you? BYT 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with that, or something like that, provided it has a link (as with Militant Islamist) that defines what that expression means. I don't speak for the others here, of course. But if Rudolph uses Christianity as his personal "justification" for bomb-throwing, just as militants of other religions do, then it seems fair. Most Christians that I know would say Rudolph is not a Christian, because he blatantly violates the teachings of the Bible... just as many Islamics might say that Bin Laden blatantly violates the teachings of the Qur'an. But in each case, those guys consider themselves to be believers. Wahkeenah 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. The fact that Christians (not WP Christians, mind you, but the larger community of Christians) want to distance themselves from this guy is utterly irrelevant. They're good people, I'm sure, and they mean well. But if we allow their preferences on whether it's okay to say Rudolph was operating within their faith system to govern the content here, we are giving in to systemic bias in a profoundly unacceptable, and deeply biased, way. Muslims don't get to exercise that kind of sanitizing on articles about Zarqawi or OBL do they? BYT 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Billy Graham page, for example, you'll see him labeled not as just plain "Christian" but as "Protestant Christian Evangelist". The opening paragraph is supposed to summarize what someone is "famous" for, and for "what they do". I'm not so sure Rudolph is all that famous for being allegedly "Christian" or for "doing" Christianity; he's mostly famous for being a bomb-thrower. That's the complaint the others have. But as you indicate, we have to careful about Christian-centric bias, and strive for consistency across the board. Wahkeenah 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree about his status being simply that of a bomb-thrower. His religious motivations were the subject of national news coverage.  BYT 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. CNN Headline News for the next couple of dsys was "Olympics! Bomb! Christian! Abortion! Olympics! Bomb! Christian! Abortion! Olympics! ..." I was actually surprised to arrive here and see people arguing that his Christianity was non-notable. That was the story. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if the news media made a point of it, then that's further argument in favor of covering it in the opening, provided it's clear (as with Bin Laden) that he's fringe, not mainstream. The right-wing might argue that bringing that up is "liberal bias", but there is no such accusation when it comes to the media also identifying Bin Laden as Islamic. I was going to mention earlier that in a perverse way, you could equate the thinking (so to speak) of Rudolph with John Brown, who self-justified his murderous behavior on the grounds of "the big picture" of abolishing slavery. I'm sure Rudolph considers himself a martyr to his cause, just as Brown presumably did. The difference is that in those days, they didn't mess around with guys like that, they actually made martyrs out of them, i.e. they strung them up. Rudolph should consider himself lucky that he's living in this more "humane" time, where he can think about his "martyrdom" over the next few decades in his prison cell. Wahkeenah 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, his self-identification as Christian is covered already twice in the first two or three sentences. Or maybe it has changed in the last hour or so? Wahkeenah 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it changes constantly. One minute he's a worldwide celebrated Christian saint, five minutes later he's an apostate and a neo-Nazi. And everything in between. I will lay out three things I often see in the intro which I consider weasely.
 * The Three Weasels of Eric Robert Rudolph
 * He's "self-professed/self-identified as Catholic" which seems intended to imply that he's not really a Catholic. Because if he was really a Catholic, there's be no need to point out that he's only self-professed. So, effectively, we haven't really mentioned his religion yet because we're denying his claim to that religion.
 * He prefers reading Neitzche over the Bible these days. Implication: he's not really a Christian, because only apostates or atheists read Nietzche more than the Bible. It appears to be a reference to his religion, but on closer inspection, it's actually a circumvention of the issue.
 * He's "connected with the Christian Identity movement, a militant, racist, and anti-Semitic organization," but strangely, not a religious organization. Don't let the name fool you. This is on par with saying "oh, we mentioned Bob's in the Ku Klux Klan, and they're a Christian organization, so we've covered his religion." I hope you don't mind the cut and paste, because I don't feel that it's been adequately addressed yet:
 * "Christian Identity is a racist movement. Rudolph's statement about the bombing did not discuss race, but it did discuss abortion, which is a staple of generic politically conservative American Christianity. Nothing he said needs Christian Identity as an explanation. Christianity alone is sufficient".
 * So, if we can somehow get past the efforts to deflect and dismiss his religious views, that would be a great start. Rather than obsessing over which adjective to apply to "Christian", can we please simply state that: he did it because he is a Christian (fact), and that the majority of Christians condemn his actions as immoral (fact). Not that the majority of Christians consider him un-Christian or something like that, which would be yet another attempt to trivialize or eliminate his Christianity from consideration. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to get the notion that no one really knows what's going on in this guy's head, and maybe he doesn't either. This is the problem when they plead guilty: the "real story" doesn't have a chance to come out in court. I do find it amusing that he copped a plea rather than taking the opportunity to get on the stand and profess whatever his views are, and go out in a blaze of glory (oh, wait, they don't use the chair anymore). If there's anything to be admired about Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing, it's that McVeigh stuck by his beliefs, twisted as they were, all the way to the end. Rudolph is not only a murderer, he's gutless as well. But how are we to find out what the real story is? There is an interesting parallel, though... right-wing Christian groups distanced themselves from Rudolph just like the militia groups distanced themselves from McVeigh... in fact, they kind of disappeared from the news. It's one thing to talk rebellion against the Feds, it's another to carry it out. Wahkeenah 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the nature of a lone wolf terrorist. They go into the mission knowing that they must separate themselves from the organizations they serve.
 * Listen, what specific wording do we want to use here? And since we seem to be reaching some kind of consensus, could I ask that someone besides me make the edit when we do figure it out? BYT 12:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Coelacan: To claim that he "did it because he is a Christian" is just about as POV as it can get, and there is nothing in the article that really support that that claim. The obvious explanation is that he did it because he was against abortion, and because he was inspired by a political organization (Christian Identity), that is also very strongly against abortion, and is willing to use violence. There are many religions that oppose abortion. Here is for example an article on an Islamic website that argue that abortion is haram, and that a woman (in cases where the pregnancy is caused by the woman having committed zina) should first be stoned after having given birth to her baby. What we do now in the intro section is to mention is that he was a radical anti-abortionist and that he was a member of the Christian Identity movement. That is the most accurate and most notable information that is available to us regarding why he did what he did. The information regarding that he was born as a Catholic has also been restored, and frankly I disagree with that decision. Has he ever mentioned that the specific teachings of the Catholic Church inspired him to commit the act of terrorism? Or is there anything else that makes it important to have this in the intro section and not - for example - in the quite mislabeled "motivations" section? -- Karl Meier 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if other religions are opposed to abortion too. Hypotheticaly, if Rudolph were a Muslim, then I would be pointing out that he did it because he's a Muslim. There's nothing in his statement that needs Christian Identity to explain it, because he didn't say anyting racist or unique to that group. He has denied being a member of Christian Identity, and in fact his opposition to abortion is much more easily explained by simply from being a Catholic. You don't get to enforce a proficiency test about his Catholicism. Grab a random Catholic off the street and ask them to cite the specific papal encyclicals that condemn abortion; they won't be able to do it, but every Catholic who has sat through a few Masses knows the Church's stance in this regard. There's nothing about Christian Identity that opposes violence, so why would he repudiate any connection to the group? He doesn't have to protect them. Neither he nor they had anything to lose from the connection, and so if there's no conflict of interest then we may take him at his word. He dated a woman who was Christian Identity for six months and that's it. Now, I don't have a problem with mentioning that he was involved in the group, and I don't have a problem with it being in the intro. However, by itself it obscures his religious affiliation by implying that he was motivated by racism instead. The "self-identified" caveat on Catholic does the same thing. Here is some language I would compromise on: "Rudolph is a Catholic and was also "connected with the Christian Identity movement, a militant, racist, and anti-Semitic organization. He declared that his bombings ..." I still feel that the Christian Identity bit is a red herring, but at least it's contrasted with the clear and simple statement that he is a Catholic without adjectives. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He did it because he wanted to, and he justified it (apparently, since we don't seem to have any direct testimony) on the grounds of Christianity. Wahkeenah 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me an abortion bomber who wasn't motivated by religion. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Take out "abortion" and you've still got it mostly right. Except that these are guys who have a predispotion towards murder, and they use religion to justify it. Wahkeenah 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence to support the statement that they were predisposed to murder (by what anyway, their genes?) and using religion as an excuse, whereas I can show you a solid handful of citations from any book of scripture that explicitly encourage murder. And the fact is that there are no atheists bombing abortion clinics. Why not? Some atheists do kill people. So why aren't any of them blowing up abortion clinics? Because atheists do not believe that a clump of cells is a human with a soul which must be protected from "murder". At least before the third trimester, you have to believe in the supernatural to believe that abortion is murder. So you can't argue that this is a guy who wanted to kill and used religion as an excuse, because only religion could make him believe that abortion should be his dragon to slay. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you propose going to every article about every murderer and specifying his religion? Also, "mainstream" Christianity does not advocate murder, nor do the words of Jesus. But religionists of all kinds have justified their behavior on religious grounds. A more "benign" example is the Roman Catholic policy against female priests. They believe women should be subservient, and by an amazing coincidence, they find scriptures that justify that belief. Wahkeenah 02:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me someone who wants to believe that a clump of cells is on equal moral terms with a human, and then uses this desire to justify believing in souls. That's putting the cart before the horse. It doesn't happen that way. The "reasoning" here is one-directional. I do propose pointing out the religion of murderers who have stated that they murdered for religious reasons, yes. As to the words of Jesus, I don't recommend that you actually read the Bible (it's neither fun nor informative), so I can understand how you'd be so ignorant of the violent teachings attributed to Jesus. Find Luke 19:27 for yourself, and here on Wikipedia we already have an article on But to bring a sword. Or Matthew 15:4-6, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for not stoning disobedient children to death. It's repeated in Mark 7:9-13, but this time at the end he says that failing to kill disobedient children has completely nullified the Pharisees' claims to uphold the word of God. Tell me again about the words of Jesus. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, they never taught us that in Sunday school. I wonder why. But if this keeps up, you're liable to turn me into an agnostic. Oops, too late. :) FYI, I also philosophically oppose abortion-on-demand, but for secular humanistic reasons. And I don't bomb clinics or anything else. :) Wahkeenah 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a wild guess that you oppose abortion after the fetus has developed a nervous system and is capable of experiencing pain, but not before. Am I right? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many indentions it will take before these responses are vertical. I just think that killing people is morally wrong, in general, no matter what their stage of development, with exceptions depending on circumstances: saving the life of the mother, for example; or self-defense (admittedly a slippery slope). And I felt no pang of regret when they fried John Wayne Gacy for what he did, but generally I agree with the liberal view that capital punishment is applied capriciously and arbitrarily, so generally I'm against it. I also think that a large percentage of the public feels the way I do about abortion in general, which is somwhere in the middle-ground chasm between left-wing absolute abortion-on-demand and right-wing anti-abortion fanaticism which I think has more to do with controlling women than it has to do with any "right to life" stuff. I also believe in prevention rather than abortion, and that every child should be a wanted child. And I also recognize that, being male, I can't possibly know for sure what a woman who elects to have an abortion is really going through in her heart and mind, and thus it's not really my call to make, I can only tell you how I feel about it; which is why you won't see me marching at abortion clinics or throwing bombs at them. Is that as clear as mud? Wahkeenah 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They're religious extremists, and the religion in question is Christianty. In this case, it should be specified as such. In the opening sentence. (By the way, have you seen the guy's web site?) "Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight." What exactly are we debating about here? He is a clearly mililitant Christian extremist and should be so designated. BYT 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no question that he thinks he's Christian. In fact, he's a murderer who uses religion as his justification. The intro also states that he is connected with a Christian extremist group, some way or another. Wahkeenah 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is... no "true Christian" has ever murdered someone. Hmm. A pretty, fanciful sentiment, but unfortunately it's not a litmus test that you get to enforce. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It already says early on that he identifies himself as Christian. How many times does it need to be stated? If I decide that I'm a Buddhist, and I decide that Buddhism's teachings tell me I should go kill every Shintoist I can find, does that reflect on Buddhism, or on me? Wahkeenah 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care how your killings reflect on you or Buddhism. I only care that your Buddhism is accurately noted. It says "self-described" Catholic, which is intended to imply that he's not really a Catholic, because if he were really a Catholic he wouldn't kill, and if he were really a Catholic we wouldn't point out self-described, etc. It should say he is a Catholic. Nobody is ever a Catholic without being a "self-described" Catholic (except in countries where Catholicism is violently suppressed, not the USA). So to emphasize "self-described" is to make a further statement. It means "Rudolph is a (liar about being) Catholic. Do you see what I'm saying? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I "describe myself" as a Buddhist, does that mean I actually am a Buddhist? Wahkeenah 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of Wikipedia, in absense of compelling evidence to the contrary, yes. If you were raised Buddhist, this is even more reason to believe your claim. Pat Robertson describes himself as a Christian. Go over there and change it to "self-described Christian" and then have this argument with the editors over there. On second thought, don't, as it would be WP:POINT. But there is no reason to emphasize that a person is merely "self-described" unless there's compelling evidence that they are not merely hypocrites, but conscious liars. In this case, there isn't. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That gets to what I've been trying to figure out. Nobody is literally "born" a certain religion, as you've said. But one can be "born into" a Catholic family, or whatever. So, was this guy born into a Catholic family? Did he convert? Or does he, like Michael Richards and his non-Jewishness, merely "adhere to the philosophy" or at least think that he does? Wahkeenah 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Skimming over this transcript, his parents were Catholics and raised him as such, his father is now dead and his mother no longer is Catholic(?), but Eric has never left the faith. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. And Osama Bin Laden thinks he's a Muslim. Yet we don't tactfully steer away from references to Islamist militancy in the opening sentence there. We had made some headway, I thought, on the problem of systemic bias. Maybe not, though. What, precisely, do you think he should be called in the opening sentence? BYT 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One key difference is that Bin Laden is the leader of a movement. He has (presumably) many followers. Is Rudolph a leader, or is he just a lone nut? It is strange, though, that murderers who act on their own are described as looneys, whereas murderers who "inspire" many others to commit murder on their behalf are described as leaders. The problem I have with the article now is that very early in the article it already says he's Christian. How many times does it need to be said? Wahkeenah 01:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once. In the opening sentence. Where the reader is supposed to learn what is notable about this person. I can't believe you are splitting hairs like this. Wasn't it yesterday that you and I had a discussion about systemic bias here? On this very talk page? BYT 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was before I realized that in the (then) current version of the article, the opening of the article already says it, and trying to say it again seems like overkill and POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 02:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, looking at the current wording, as of this second (provided I've got the right version, as wikipedia's history function seems to be screwed up right now) it says "Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber (born September 19, 1966) is a militant Christian extremist [1] with ties to the Christian Identity movement". Truth to tell, I think that's worded pretty well. The one question in my mind now is why he thought there was an abortion clinic in the Olympic Park. Wahkeenah 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that it's useless to talk about what the intro paragraph of this article currently says, because it will not say that when the next editor reads your comments. I ask you to look again at my "list of three weasels" above that are usually in the intro paragraph. Do you agree that they all serve the function of dismissing his religiosity? And I'm sure he thought there was an abortion clinic at the Olympics like McVeigh thought Janet Reno was in Oklahoma City. It's symbolism, gathering attention for one's movement. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe he just likes bombs. Maybe he's the weasel... crediting (or "blaming") Christianity for what he gets a kick out of doing. Wahkeenah 03:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well unless you can dig up some reliable sources on that, you're completely in the territory of original research and there's little point in going off on that tangent. The fact is that Christians kill (a lot), and we would be hard pressed to make the case that this is somehow an exception of a killer claiming to be Christian insincerely. I'm not going to run down this path any further unless you have citations. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already said that the opening seems reasonable now, so I think it's covered. For the moment, at least. Wahkeenah 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go with "militant Christian extremist" as well. Are you in agreement that the other forms of religious mentions in the intro (self-professed, neitzche, racist CI) are contrivances that dismiss his legitimacy as a Christian if they are the only mentions? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Karl's agenda is pretty clear -- focus on anything, but anything, that will keep a clear reference to this gentleman's religious fixation out of the opening sentence. Alas, this sentence is, as I have stated many times, where we are supposed to learn what is notable about Mr. Rudolph. BYT 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am getting pretty tired of your personal remarks and bad faith accusations about my and other editors "agenda" here and in your edit summaries, so I am asking you now, please tone down that stuff. The intro section spells out his religious affiliation very clearly, and is given more than enough weight there. -- Karl Meier 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Karl
The Washington Post thinks his religion is notable. Karl doesn't, though. Karl, could I ask you to comment on Mr. Rudolph's web site? Does he seem like a religious extremist to you? If so, what kind of religious extremist is he? Is he a militant Buddhist? A militant Hindu? A militant transcendental meditation afficionado? BYT 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First and most importantly he is an anti-abortion extremist, and he himself made it clear that it was opposition to abortion that motivated him doing what he did. It should also be mentioned that his religious affiliation is already spelled very clearly and not just once, but twice, in the intro section. I believe that should be more than enough. Rudolph's opposition to abortion was the direct and most notable reason why he did what he did. Rudolph himself mentioned that: "the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand." Unlike for example the 117 (or more) Islamic terrorist organizations that exist, he didn't commit the attacks to promote his specific religion. He did it because he was against abortion, and consequently that is what is most important and what should be mentioned first in the intro section. -- Karl Meier 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Got it. I missed your answer. Is he a religious extremist, or isn't he? BYT 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most importantly he is an anti-abortion extremist, and that should as the most notable thing be mentioned first. His religious affiliation is spelled out twice in the intro section anyway. -- Karl Meier 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Supposedly, he's a Roman Catholic. Do you consider Roman Catholics to be religious extremists? Or is it just him? Wahkeenah 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Karl that the first and most important aspect of his motivation is his opposition to abortion, and that should be the focus of the first sentence. I've pointed out that his opposition to abortion derives from his religion, and so it's important to mention his religion too, and I think that this version very closely approaches doing that as well as possible. I'm not sure how I would further improve it, but sticking his religion in the first sentence instead of his anti-abortionism is not an improvement. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And your own agenda is becoming clear also. Coelacan's version was very clear about his religious beliefs. Your beef seems to be that it needs to be in the opening sentence, as a way of linking Christianity to him specifically. I don't care with the Post has to say, as they are known as sensationalists and muckrakers. The key issue is, is he acting in behalf of a significant organization, as Bin Laden's minions do, or was he doing this on his own? If you can find evidence that he's a front man or a soldier for a specific organization (not just the generic "Christianity"), then you'll have a point. But you can't use the "Army of God" page as evidence. Anyone can set up a website. Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army, which had about as many members as you could fit into a frat house? For all we know, that "army of God" could be one guy. Wahkeenah 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Army of God is real and it isn't just some dude's website. Read page 7 of Image:Jordiweb.pdf, which is an FBI agent's affidavit that I just uploaded: "JORDI is also seen in the same photograph walking behind Neal Horsley, a key player in the "Army of God," an underground network of persons who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion." AoG is a decentralized terror group, for which Michael Bray is the public spokesman. Rudolph was suspected (I didn't follow up on whether it was confirmed) of sending some of the AoG letters himself: "Rudolph is believed to have written letters received by the media after the bombings. They were signed by a group called the Army of God. The letters claimed responsibility for the bombings and were declarations of war against the federal government." Clayton Waagner is another AoG member. There are other groups that operate like this (not just religious terrorists) and the tendency is that they will remain in loose communication with the spokesman until they are caught. Bray likely only knew Rudolph by code name before his arrest, the usual modus operandi of this type of group. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish the importance of the Army of God -- but rather the motivations of the person in question. On one side, I've got one of the most respected newspapers in the US -- not the New York Post, with which you seem to be confusing it, but the Washington Post -- (to name just one major media source) -- and I've got the scribblings of the convicted felon himself.

On the other side, I've got your opinion. Is this an encyclopedia, or your blog? This is not about whether he's founded or led an organization -- a very recent topic, by the way. Lone wolf terrorists, by definition, don't do that. It's about whether he's a religious extremist. If he is, could I ask you to respond directly to the pertinent question of why are we trying to sanitize that fact, by keeping it out of the opening sentence? Do we do that in other articles where the subject's religion is notable? BYT 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan is onto something. Is there a separate page for this self-styled "Army of God"? If it is indeed a real and significant organization, and not just the fantasy of a handful of lunatics, then that's what you should connect this guy to, rather than trying to smear all of Christianity. I looked at the Ku Klux Klan page. They consider themselves a Christian organizaion, and they have had a lot more influence in this country over the past 140 years or so, yet no one has painted them as "Christian" in the first line of the article. Wahkeenah 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get hung up on the Army of God thing though. It's not his religion, it's a terrorist group. His religion is still Catholic. Replacing one with the other would be like suggesting that Osama's religion is al Qaeda. There's a good argument to be made for putting "Christian" in the intro of the KKK article, however, the KKK is primarily a racist organization. The Army of God draws its anti-abortion war cry directly from modern conservative Christianity, their only difference is that they choose to physically fight for their beliefs. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Taking "Onward Christian Soldiers" literally, ja? Since he's a Catholic, I wonder what the Klan thinks of him? Wahkeenah 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which raises another question, then... Is al-qaeda primarily religious, or is it primarily political? Wahkeenah 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue that it's primarily one or the other. It is very much both. The religious aspect certainly cannot be dismissed. Part of the recruitment is the promise that Allah will reward martyrs more than anyone else in Heaven. Of course not every member of al Qaeda is on a suicide mission, but it's useful to look at the ones who are/were. Suicide does not make sense for most people who are not currently suffering. But it does make sense if one truly believes, with an unwavering faith, in God and Heaven, and that martyrdom assures one a place in Heaven (maybe even a superior place). It is unlikely that al Qaeda could round up so many people willing to perform suicide missions without the assistance of a literal interpretation of the Quran and a stong faith throughout the organization. Most of the 9/11 highjackers came from comfortable middle-class families. They were not desperate. No matter what the political ramifications of their acts, they would not be benefited in this world by ending their lives. Their actions only make sense in a religious worldview with an afterlife and a god who rewards martyrdom. But we are getting sidetracked now. This page is for really only discussing improvements to Rudolph's article. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 14:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Is al-qaeda primarily religious, or is it primarily political?". I am afraid that question doesn't make much sense when discussing Al Qaeda. Traditional Islam and the version that Al Qaeda subscribe to doesn't distinguish between religious and political matters. Traditional Islam has religious rules for both how the individual should practice Islam, and how the state should do it. Al Qaeda is fighting in order to restore the Caliphate and make first the Muslim majority states and then the whole world practice Islam. Anyway, Coelacan is correct. We are getting off-topic here, and we should return to issue we are supposed to be discussing. -- Karl Meier 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what, Karl? That's not what I asked you-- what you felt was most important in the introduction. I asked you whether or not he was a religous extremist.
 * I answered you. His religious affiliation is not the most important thing, and how much it contributed to his decision to do what he did can be discussed. What can't be discussed is that the primary reason he made these attacks was to protest that abortion is allowed in the United States. He himself mention that as the reason, and is what is most notable, and should be mentioned first. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When you called me on that entry I had on my userpage that I had not realized was a personal attack, I admitted you were right, thanked you for calling it to my attention, and took it off. Why did I do that? Because I respected WP, and because I respected you, and because I respected the process of having a dialogue with you.
 * You didn't realize that calling someones edit summary "the most ridicules of December 2006" was a (personal) attack? It was good that you did the right thing and removed it, but I have to say that in the long run it doesn't help much if you keep making similar disrespectful remarks and insinuations. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are now dodging this question, and I don't think that shows a lot of respect for me or for this process, or for WP.
 * My personal opinion about this not very relevant to this article, to Wikipedia or to you. I answered above with what I believe is relevant to this article that we are discussing. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is (in my view) such a thing as religious extremism in this world, and as a Muslim, I am personally, painfully aware of its presence among my coreligionists. Are you aware of it in your coreligionists, or are you not? Is this man a religious extremist, or isn't he? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. BYT 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I can't be aware of any extremism among my co-religionists, because I don't have any such co-religionists. I am an agnostic. I agree that there is extremists in most religions, but some sure has more than others... Even though I don't believe in any of them, I still find that some religions has a system of believes that I personally consider to be more sympathetic, democratic and humane than others. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OH YEAH??? I once saw an agnostic roundhouse kick a Buddhist in the face! It was a sparring accident though; they were practicing martial arts. But STILL. It was pretty extreme. You should have been there to see it. =p &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just how we agnostics make Buddhists and others see "the light", and I can tell you that it is very efficient. Right after something like that, people don't know anything about any Buddha... or anything else actually :-). As you can see on my user page, I sometimes like to "convince" a few people too in my spare time. -- Karl Meier 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Wahkeenah 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to be an atheist, but I gave it up. No holidays. Wahkeenah 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
 * You know what, Karl? That's not what I asked you-- what you felt was most important in the introduction. I asked you whether or not he was a religous extremist.
 * I answered you. His religious affiliation is not the most important thing, and how much it contributed to his decision to do what he did can be discussed.


 * What are you, doing your George W. Bush imitation here? ("Reality will go away if I wait long enough ... reality will go away ... reality will go away.")


 * For at least the third time, I'm not asking you about what should or should not go into the introduction or what you feel is important there. So please don't pretend I am asking you that. I'm not.


 * I'm asking you whether you feel the category "religious extremist" even exists, and if so, whether you feel this guy falls into that category or not. These are pretty straightforward queries, and they're certainly relevant issues to this talk page. And by the way I'm sorry for assuming (erroneously, apparently) that you are a Christian.


 * Please don't change the subject. Please don't lecture me. Please don't crack jokes. Please just give me your take on this. Is the guy a religious extremist, or not? Thanks. BYT 12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 12:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether he is a religious extremist, it's whether he's sufficiently "notable" for it. Is he part of a vast conspiracy to terrorize citizens and foment a violent religious-political revolution? Or is he a small-time-cult-like murderer who just happens to justify it by religion? When someone hears the name "Eric Rudolph", and assuming they know who he is (I would guess his name recognition to the average American is way, way below that of Bin Laden), do they think "Christian" or do they think "Olympic Park bomber" and/or "abortion clinic bomber"? Wahkeenah 13:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the question of whether he is a religious extremist has not been explored properly on this talk page. Some people seem to want to dance around the issue. That's why I asked Karl the question (not about the intro, but with regard to the article as a whole), and it's why I'm asking it again now: Karl: Is the guy a religious extremist, or not? BYT 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Coelacan's revisions made it perfectly clear he's a religious extremist. What's your issue, aside from insisting that it be in the first sentence of the article? Wahkeenah 13:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BYT, you crack jokes about Karl and Bush and then ask him to not crack jokes. Maintain some integrity, please. Your insult today is well over the boundary of WP:CIVIL and treading close to WP:NPA. Cease. Wahkeenah, the scale of his operation has no bearing on whether he qualifies or not. The FBI recognizes Army of God, so it's notable, end of story. And I think I've given a pretty solid argument that you're painting the wrong picture with regards to this "just happens to justify it by religion" stuff. If it was Manson-style murders he was performing, I'd take that possibility seriously. But the only reasons to kill over abortions are religious reasons. And I don't think you have ground to keep questioning the sincerity of his beliefs. I think that's established. But in any case, even if you were right, it would be WP:OR to do so, and we can only report what reliable third party sources have told us. And Voice of America! of all media outlets! has used the term "Christian terrorist". And they let some Reverend give a response; his argument against it was basically Christians can't be terrorists because Christianity is a religion of peace. Sound familiar? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I disagree that my revision paints him as a religious extremist. All it did was point out that he is religious and he is an extremist. I don't know that it's in our scope to assert that he is a religious extremist or specifically a Christian terrorist. Again, WP:OR. I think that we can discuss that some sources have called him a Christian terrorist, but this would necessitate discussing that other sources have denied it, and the space for all that has to be in the body of the article, it can't fit in the intro. Once that is covered from all sides in the article body, some mention can be made in the intro, because the intro is supposed to prepare the reader for the rest of the article. But the intro mention will have to give brief lip service to both sides, i.e. "some have called him a Christian terrorist, others have denied this," and that is going to take its own sentence. It will never fit into the first sentence of the intro. And indeed, it never should, because as important as it is that he is a Christian terrorist, it is nevertheless of slightly less importance than his actual activity as an anti-abortionist. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow it's not original research when a reader walks away from the very first sentence of the Osama Bin Laden article knowing that religion drove his murderous choices. But it is original research when a reader walks away from the first sentence of this article knowing that religion drove Rudoph's murderous choices. And therein lies the problem that people apparently don't want to address. BYT 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The go fix the OBL article. The state of OBL's article is not a precedent for ERR's article. WP:OR applies everywhere. If it's not properly being applied on OBL, then go fix it. You don't get to ignore WP:OR here just because someone else is doing it elsewhere. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, I don't think WP:OR applies there. Or here. I think there is in fact a thing called Christian extremist terrorism, and I think that the people who engage in it should be identified clearly, without airbrushing, as militant Christian extremists, just like we identify Islamist extremists. BYT 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR apply to every single article on Wikipedia. It is obvious that BYT's most recent edits has been against policy, and I am happy to see that he now also admit that. -- Karl Meier 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be largely an argument between you as to the way to label him in the first sentence of the article. According to wiki policy, that has to do with what he's "noted" for. Good lucky working it out. :) Wahkeenah 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may quote:


 * Yep. CNN Headline News for the next couple of dsys was "Olympics! Bomb! Christian! Abortion! Olympics! Bomb! Christian! Abortion! Olympics! ..." I was actually surprised to arrive here and see people arguing that his Christianity was non-notable. That was the story. — coelacan talk — 01:02, 17 December 2006 
 * BYT 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And yet, I was saying that his religion was noted by the media, not that he was noted as "a Christian terrorist". One can be "a Christian" and "a terrorist" without being "a Christian terrorist"; Timothy McVeigh would fit that precise distinction. And I wasn't saying that it belongs in the first sentence, and while Christian terrorism does exist, you can't assert it here without providing WP:Reliable Sources to back up that assertion. So go get your reliable sources, but when you do, let me repeat: "I think that we can discuss that some sources have called him a Christian terrorist, but this would necessitate discussing that other sources have denied it, and the space for all that has to be in the body of the article, it can't fit in the intro. Once that is covered from all sides in the article body, some mention can be made in the intro, because the intro is supposed to prepare the reader for the rest of the article. But the intro mention will have to give brief lip service to both sides, i.e. "some have called him a Christian terrorist, others have denied this," and that is going to take its own sentence. It will never fit into the first sentence of the intro. And indeed, it never should, because as important as it is that he is a Christian terrorist, it is nevertheless of slightly less importance than his actual activity as an anti-abortionist." &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we stay on topic? I have not suggested that he be called a "Christian terrorist." Not my dog. Reality-based sources, with which you are obviously familiar, do suggest that he is a Christian extremist, and a violent one. That is what is notable about him, certainly more notable than the targets he selects. His religious extremism should be mentioned clearly, per WP policy, in the opening sentence. BYT 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything I said applies to "Christian extremist" as well. Go get your sources, and let's see them. Then we'll put them into the article body, along with the counterargument. The article intro can only introduce what is said in the article body, so start there. And we'll see what comes of it from there. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. See the "Motivations" section, please. BYT 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder: (1) why his supposed friends stopped protecting him; (2) why he still identifies with Catholicism rather than other supposed groups the press has tried to link him with; and (3) whether he only bombed clinics where abortions were being done on whites. You'd suppose he'd be fine with abortions of minorities. Wahkeenah 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...
We are now reverting without explanation, and this in willful disregard of extended discussions here involving multiple editors. Not at all my understanding of WP:Consensus. {By the way -- this was my edit, I didn't realize I was not logged in.}

The story so far -- we concluded that that which was in the opening sentence had to reflect that which was in the body of the article. We also concluded that that which was notable about the person had to go in the opening sentence.

There remains the question of whether this individual is notable for religious extremism. Please note that I am not asking any other question beyond that -- not what you think the proper structure of the article is, not how your New Year was, not where you consider certain points in the article should be addressed; not how the Patriots are going to do in the NFL playoffs. Question before the house is: Is Rudolph a religious extremist?

Please address it directly. Thanks, BYT 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having cited, in the body of the article, reliable sources identifying Rudolph as both a Christian and an extremist, we should address the issue of whether his religious extremism is, or is not, notable. I say it is. Please discuss this issue here, rather than simply reverting, as this kind of discussion is the nature of collaborative editing. BYT 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it to a vote. Wahkeenah 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe WP:VIE -- voting is evil -- and that we should WP:DDV. See also this metawiki article . Is there something you want to say? BYT 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The dilemma is that you're saying it's notable, and it seems like more are saying it's not. Why should your opinion overrule the others'? Wahkeenah 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be your perception of the dilemma. My perception is that the discussion reached a point where I was asked to track down reputable sources demonstrating notability, and I did so ... but people maybe weren't actually interested in determining what reputable sources had to say about this.

NPR/WBUR: Rudolph is “Christian Identity extremist”

HARPERS: Rudolph is “Christian Terrorist”

VOICE OF AMERICA: Rudoph is part of an “attempt to try to use a Christian ideology to try to forge a kind of racial and social purity" []

WASHINGTON POST: “Rudolph, a high school dropout, was linked in news reports and by federal authorities with the Christian Identity movement, which espouses white-supremacist and anti-Semitic ideas, and is said to have written a ninth-grade essay denying that the Holocaust took place.”

The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Share, Gossip, and Follow the Golden Rule By Michael Shermer, Dennis McFarland “Religious extremism in America is particularly potent when gathered together under the umbrella of militia groups. An example can be seen in the life of Eric Robert Rudolph, the American terrorist charged in the 1996 Olympics bombing … When he was captured in 2003, it was reported that he was a member of the Christian Identity movement, (an extremist group that believes Jews are satanic and blacks are subhuman), was known for his anti-Semitic and racist views, and that in his seven-year evasion of the FBI and law enforcement agencies, he probably had help from militia groups …” The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Share, Gossip, and Follow the Golden Rule By Michael Shermer, Dennis McFarland (Times Books, 2004).

I could find dozens more like this. BYT 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll just have to see what the other editors have to say about it. Just because the Yellow Press wants to link Christianity to this guy doesn't mean the average reader would consider it that way. Wahkeenah 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Yellow Press?" BYT 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an old-fashioned expression for the news media's tendency to try to create or expand upon controversy. US media are famous for it. See Yellow journalism. Wahkeenah 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was what you were getting at. Under that standard, I'd think you'd be more likely to be talking about the National Enquirer or the New York Post than the Washington Post or Times Books, which is what I've given you. Unless, of course, you're using 'Yellow Press" to designate any medium, no matter how prestigious, whose standards for notability conflict with yours as an individual reader. That's not what you mean to say, is it? BYT 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The worst-case scenario is probably the Hearst newspapers, which essentially fomented the Spanish-American War. The Washington Post and the New York Times have long-standing reputations for muckraking and sensationalism and left-leaning agendas. Now, if the Washington Times says it, you might be onto something. Wahkeenah 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My point (and I do have one) is that you implied that the sources above were somehow deficient because they supposedly fell under the category of "Yellow Journalism."

I disagree with you there. I think these sources are perfectly acceptable citations for establishing notability, which is, or was supposed to be, what were were talking about. Putting the Washington Post in the same category as the Hearst papers in the 1890s is ... um ... not accurate.

Note, too, your sudden conflation of "left-leaning" and "muckraking." What, exactly, are you objecting to? We're trying to establish notability, and the sources I've provided are eminently mainstream. Are you saying that the act of disagreeing with you, by definition, takes a paper or publishing house or radio station out of the mainstream?BYT 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that you are looking for citations to support your predisposition towards linking Christianity with this guy. Wahkeenah 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that you are fast-forwarding over vast chunks of reality, and some rather clear WP precedents in place in comparable articles, in order to support your predisposition toward sanitizing the article -- presumably in order to avoid offending members of certain groups. WP:NOT. And by the way, if you imagine the Voice of America -- an organ of the federal government -- to be an example of "yellow journalism," you have an ... intriguing ... set of standards in place. BYT 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks I think the mediation cabal may be the optimal way towards dispute resolution on this issue. 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Wahkeenah 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm tired of having him lumped as a Christian. Christians do not bomb people! Fighting for Justice 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. They didn't start the Crusades, either.

Mediation cabal works for me, too. What's the process, please, Netscott? Can you start it? I'm obviously an interested party here. BYT 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparing the Catholic-sanctioned Crusades with this lunatic is absolutely absurd. Such ignorance demonstrates that you have no business editing this article. Wahkeenah 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ignorance"? You're testy today. Calm down and refrain from personal attacks, please. WP:NPA. Fighting for Justice said that "Christians do not bomb people," an obviously flawed claim that warranted a reductio. This "yellow journalism" business you've raised is unfinished -- does Voice of America fall into this category, please, or doesn't it? BYT 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says TWICE in the opening that he's Christian. You're insisting on saying it THREE TIMES. Explain why. Wahkeenah 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly! My only conclusion would be that BYT has some sort of prejudice against the Christian religion. Fighting for Justice 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That has become more than obvious. Wahkeenah 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Like we haven't been over this before. There is such an objective phenomenon as religious extremism; it does occasionally involve Christianity, by name; Rudolph exemplifies it and is, according to mainstream, reality-based sources like Voice of America, notable for doing so. That means a responsible, accurate description goes in the first sentence, even if it offends certain people's religious sensibilities. Word counts are not what I'm on about. BYT 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just put CHRISTIAN in every line in the article, to be sure nobody misses the POV-push your doing. Wahkeenah 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because our goal (and our responsibility) is to summarize what actually makes this person notable, and to do so in the opening sentence. Once that's been accomplished, then yes, more important work on this article can proceed. But the earth does orbit the sun, and if the factuality of that has a place at Galileo, then the factuality of Christian extremism has a place here.

If people would stop wriggling and twisting in this fruitless effort to declare that Rudolph somehow isn't a Christian extremist, we could move on. And Wahkeenah, I think you will find me a good partner for doing so. Try me.

For the record, I've been editing this article for some months, and have made no such wholesale assaults on the text as you suggest. I've stood up for, and jumped through various hoops for, a reality-based introduction, yes -- is that really worthy of your scorn? A problem only arises when people pull out their airbrushes and try to pretend that a widely reported reality simply doesn't exist. Now shall we acknowledge reality and work together on this, or did the Titanic actually run into a popsicle, and we all demand that the concept of "iceberg" be banned from its introductory sentence?BYT 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As we all know the article has to be written according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which also discuss issues regarding giving specific issues and opinions undue weight. The current version of the intro section already mention his religious affiliation twice, while a the much more obvious reason for what he did, that he is against abortion, is only mentioned once. I am against BrandonYusufToropov's suggested change to the intro section for two main reasons: 1) His religious affiliation is already mentioned twice, and we shouldn't give undue weight to something the may and may not have been a important reason behind his actions. 2) His religious affiliation is already discussed more accurately later in this section. There is no reason for us to be less accurate in an attempt to have everything in the opening sentence. -- Karl Meier 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This careful skepticism from Karl regarding Rudoph's motivations seems disingenuous. (Follow it through: "Come to think of it, can we really be certain about why any of us decide to do anything?") Rather than pretend to be able to psychoanalyze, we are tasked here with determining what is most notable about him according to reputable sources, and then with placing that, encyclopedically phrased, in the opening sentence. Period.

Anyone following this discussion knows full well that the goal was to determine whether there are mainstream sources documenting Rudolph's notability as a religious extremist, not to identify what "may and may not have been a important reason behind his actions." I have offered such sources. Some people, however, are going to great lengths to avoid commenting directly on them.

Since you have re-entered the conversation, Karl, and have taken it upon yourself to dispute the point, I would like to ask you something explicitly: Is Rudolph notable for religious extremism, or is he not? BYT 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The religious background of the article's subject is of course notable. We have many sources that demonstrate just that. However, I can't find the policy that says that everything notable about a person should be mentioned in the opening sentence. Could you please point me to it, and quote what is relevant? Another thing is that claiming as a fact that he is somehow a Christian extremist is against both NPOV and OR. There are some sources that have alleged that, but Rudolph as never mentioned his religious believes as the reason behind what he did. The reason that he himself has mentioned again and again is that he is against the laws regarding abortion in the United States. -- Karl Meier 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I didn't ask you whether his "religious background" was notable. I asked you whether he was notable for religious extremism. This has got to be at least the third or fourth time you have dodged this direct question. Is there a reason you don't want to answer it?


 * 2) See WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." It also tells us that the first sentence should "begin with a clear description of the subject at hand."


 * 3) I love this one."Rudolph has never said he was a religious extremist (or:has denied connections to Christian Identity) (or:has said he likes Nietzsche more than the Bible) (or:other brazen sophistry), therefore the matter is uncertain, in controversy, dubious, fill in the blank." Unless you're willing to rewrite the lead of the Charles Manson to incorporate Manson's views on whether or not he is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, I'm going to respectfully suggest that you not use this kind of thing anymore. BYT 13:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He's notable for bombing abortion clinics and the Olympic Park. PERIOD. Wahkeenah 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your view. As requested, I determined that Voice of America and other major media outlets felt very differently, and considered him notable for religious extremism. Or is it your view that Voice of America is a practitioner of yellow journalism? I never did get a straight answer from you on that, you know. Is it? BYT 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His alleged connection to Christian extremist groups is noted in the article already, TWICE. Your continual attempt to add it a third time is POV-pushing on your part. Wahkeenah 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wahkeenah -- this "it appears twice" thing is just a bit of a red herring. As I have pointed out repeatedly, I am not doing word counts here, but rather trying to incorporate in Sentence Number One what is notable about this person, which is what we're supposed to do. What is it, specifically, about the words "Christian extremist" that you object to? Presumably it's not that they're supported only by yellow journalism, because you've stopped talking about that, after raising it as an objection. What IS wrong with putting those words in the opening sentence, please? BYT 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it is (1) there is no proof that it's "notable" beyond the yellow press emphasizing it in the initial story; (2) there is no consensus for including in the opening sentence when it's already discussed twice immediately afterward; (3) your continual insistence on re-re-emphasizing this makes it look like you are trying to link mainstream Christianity with this guy, i.e. to push your own anti-Christian agenda. Wahkeenah 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's take these in order.
 * 1: "There is no proof that it's notable beyond the yellow press emphasizing it in the initial story." Would you please tell me whether or not you consider the Voice of America to be a representative of the "yellow press"? You can't simply throw these labels around and expect them to stick if you won't talk about the specifics.
 * 2: Fine -- see the revised lead, which now has one and only one reference to his religion.
 * 3: To the contrary -- your continual reversions makes it obvious that you are trying to sanitize the page for him (or perhaps for Christianity itself, I don't know). In any event, you are going to great lengths avoid describing this guy in accordance with what is clearly notable about him, according to mainstream citations. BYT 12:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see what the other editors have to say about it, assuming they haven't given up in exasperation by now. Wahkeenah 12:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm one editor. I hold the unfashionable, minority opinion that celebrity homicidal nutballs aren't notable and don't deserve articles at all (unless of course they are notable for something else, e.g. Carlo Gesualdo). But I'm hugely outnumbered here. If you do have articles on these people, then an obvious ingredient is an account of what (according to the best possible sources) it was that made them tick. For Rudolph, it seems to have been two strains of Christianity (plus other factors, perhaps). So the article (if it exists at all) should say this. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't say it conspicuously. -- Hoary 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem...
There is no question that one user is trying to headline this guy's alleged Christianity. It's also pretty clear that that one user, being a Muslim, is pursuing a personal... and arguably justifiable... agenda of addressing the apparent double-standard in the coverage of religious extremism. Anytime there's a terrorist bombing in the middle east, it's a Muslim terrorist, a Muslim extremist. There is no question that there's a propagandistic thing going on there. Of course it's a Muslim. The middle east is mostly Muslim. The problem here is that it's apples and oranges. If you were to have a writeup about a bomber in the middle east, an article that was being read primarily by Muslims, and which called him a "Muslim extremist", you would get a major argument from those quarters, just as this page has from Americans. It's a given that the majority of Americans are Christian, so calling someone a Christian extremist is insulting, just as it would be insulting in Iran to call someone a Muslim extremist. In short, you need to lose the Christian extremist business, because it's POV-pushing. And if there are articles that label someone first-and-foremost a Muslim extremist, they should be examined also. If someone says "I did this for Allah" or "I did this for Jesus", then they are fair game. But has Rudolph said that? Has he ever said anything about why he did this stuff? If not, the label doesn't fit. Wahkeenah 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Number one -- why are we so interested in what this guy says as a means of determining the lead entry of an encyclopedia? Do we let what another mass murderer says (or doesn't say) about his crimes drive what starts another entry in the encyclopedia? Where?


 * Number two -- the "go fix those articles first" response is getting old, and at this stage it's not really very interesting to me. Why don't you go fix them and see what happens. As it stands, WP's yardstick is as follows: Either someone is notable for religious extremism, or someone isn't. This guy is.


 * Number three -- my religion has about as much to do with the actual editorial content I have contributed to this article as it does with my contributions to Harry S. Truman and Holocaust denial. Lay off. I am tired of you bringing my religion into this, and, frankly, personally offended that you persist in doing so. If you keep it up, I will file an RFC.


 * Number four -- what, exactly, makes you conclude this page is intended primarily for Americans? BYT 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he is not notable for being "a Christian", except in the scandal-mongering, sensationalistic press, which constantly tries to make something out of nothing. He is notable for being a bomber, period. His alleged motivations for said bombing are speculation. In the old days, bomb-throwers were referred to as "anarchists" by the yellow press, whether they really were or not. And the fact that you advertise your religion so prominently makes you fair game for suspicions as to your own neutrality on the subject, especially when you keep pushing this issue. I would make the same argument about someone who waves the Christian flag on his user page and then denies bias in editing articles about Evolution, for example. I'm not saying you're biased, I'm saying that you're making it look that way. Wahkeenah 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it back. Basically I did say that you're biased. However, I can't prove it, it just looks that way to me. Wahkeenah 17:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? You're going to have to live with my userpage, and not make it part of the discussion. That's part of the contract here.


 * I want to point out that I have asked you specific questions above, which you're dodging. (Numbers one and four, above.)


 * Also, re your; except in the scandal-mongering, sensationalistic press, which constantly tries to make something out of nothing -- I have asked you at least four times whether (for instance) the Voice of America really falls into this category. At least four times, and probably number five is on the way, you've pretended like I didn't make this inquiry. Could I ask you not to punch that particular rhetorical button again if you don't really want to follow it through? BYT 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the VOA is not a propaganda machine. I'm sure. On point one, unless he states why he's doing this, any comments on his motivation are speculation. On point four, I assume part of the reason for emphasizing his alleged religious motives are as a counterbalance to international readers who see lots of stuff about Islamic extremists but little if any about allegedly Christian extremists. Meanwhile, I'm not editing the article any more, I'm content to let you and the others continue this endless revert and re-revert process. Wahkeenah 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Like the VOA is not a propaganda machine. I'm sure. -- excuse me. You said it was part of a phenemonon of the yellow press and sensationalism. I disagree with that. The propaganda thing is new, let's stick to what we've actually been talking about, okay?
 * I'm not trying to speculate on his motivation. What I asked was, for what other mass murderer do we use his own assessments of the crimes he committed as a tool to write the lead? I'm sorry, that's absurd. We don't do it for Charles Manson and we shouldn't do it here.
 * Finally -- you said, above, that Americans would find the act of citing Christianity as a factor in religious extremism "insulting." What I asked you was, why does that matter, whether or not a particular nationality finds it insulting, and what makes you think we're writing this article for Americans exclusively? Have you even read WP:NOT? BYT 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist
It should be standard policy to communicate the *self-described* ideology behind violent groups & such. If a revolutionary group is communist, nationalist, or even Islamic, we say so. For example, Osama bin Ladin is an Islamist terrorist because "islamist" is how he views himself. Yes, he is also "Islamic" but Islamist is more specific. Here if you've got a more specific word than Christian, please use it, maybe "Chrisitian Identity" or some such, I donno. But the point is you can't just say "religiously inspired terrorist" when you can obviously be more specific. As a comparison, we'd surely still say "communist" even after some revolutionary group had made back room deals with various capitalists, since these deals don't cange how they view themselves. Anyway the first use of the word terrorist in any article should alwasys be preceeded by as specific an ideology identifier as is reasonable.

Let me put it this way, when you start reading an article about, say Charles Manson, the first thing you want to know is "What did he do?" and the second is "What was his reason?" In Mansons' case, one should name whatever specific psychological disorders he has, and likely mention soon after that his dilusions of grandure were racial (although someone who knows more about him should work out the wording). JeffBurdges 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think Osama has ever called himself an "Islamist". He call himself a Muslim, but still we use the word "Islamist" in his article. Anyway, discussions about what is being used and not used in other article's shouldn't be important, as we should focus on this article and nothing else. As for having more specific and more accurate words than just Christian, we already have them in the intro section. We mention that he was a member of the Christian Identity movement, and that is more accurate then simply saying the he is a "Christian". Calling him a "Christian terrorist" is of course even more wrong. It is true that some commentators has theorized that he might have been somehow inspired by religious feelings, but that is of course only a theory. He has never himself mentioned that Christian doctrine inspired him to do what he did, so replacing what he himself mentioned as what motivated him, which is his position on abortion, with these theories doesn't make sense at all. Dubious theories should be kept out of the intro section, and we should stick to the facts: That he committed acts of terrorism, and that his position on abortion was his motivation for doing that. Various theories that has been brought forward by the media should be in their relevant sections, and not in the lead section, which is supposed to be concise and about the facts. -- Karl Meier 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Osama does clearly state his beliefs, which exactly fit our definition of "Islamist", nutt said. Here the religious dimension to Rudolph's motives is quite clear form his own words. For example, the phrase "homosexual agenda" only exists within circles of far right-wing American Christians. I'd say the "Christian terrorist" article needs to be linked since he is one of the major American examples. But I really don't care if this link appears in the intro. Rudolph's motives need to be clearish from reading the *whole* intro. So the current version suffices.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying the Christian Identity connection. Clearly "Christian Identity" is more specific than "Christian". I'll maybe try to rearange it so that Christian Identity appears before Catholic. JeffBurdges 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Square one?
Seems all the discussion above hasn't amounted to squat -- we still have an editor who is committed to inserting the word "Christian" into the first sentence of the lead, even though Rudolph himself has denied the significance of the connection. We had, I thought, consensus on a fuller discussion of his religious identification in the lead, which is appropriate considering the contradictory sources and points of view. That's where it should be discussed, not in the lead sentence where we can't easily explain, for instance, that the Christian Identity movement has rejected him as a representative and he has also separated himself from them. Finally, now we have the supposed support for this word coming from the man's present day website, and it's hanging on the fact that he quotes a Psalm. This is synthesis. Not only is there no evidence that his present-day views explain his past actions, but we have no reliable sources drawing this conclusion.

To reiterate: I have no problem with discussing Rudolph in terms of the broader Christian Identity movement, or even as a [{Christian terrorist]] within the article, but it must be acknowledged that these are interpretations and they must be attributed through proper citation. To place one interpretation in the lead sentence in the "Wikipedia voice" is highly improper. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me. What a mass murderer says about his motives is not and should never be the driving force behind the opening sentence we craft for him here. Why don't we take this to mediation. BYT 12:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct, it seems to me there are enough sources saying that his motivations were religious for it to be included. -- neon white user page talk 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that
[ According to his mother], "She had reared him as a [[pacifist]]." His mother had "once studied to be a nun and joined with activist and pacifist Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers Party in the 1950s". About her sons' motivations, she says that "her son views religion — not spiritually, but as a scholar might - and she thinks that's how he reconciles his actions. Like the Koran to Muslim terrorists, parts of the Bible have been commandeered by her son to justify the unjustifiable, she says. As she explains, "You can find a scripture in there to suit anything."" 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And Furthermore
The alleged Christian Identity affiliation appears to be a canard. All the links I have followed ascribe the allegation of Rudolph's CI links to "federal authorities". No further "proof" is given. I'm sure we all know much we can trust the assertions of "federal authorities". I hold no brief for CI, but everyone has the right to be defended against reckless defamation. If the CI bunch were Marxists everyone would see the point. If you don't see the point read the entry on Sen. Joseph McCarthy with special attention to the criticisms of his tactics.

It should be noted that since he has stated that he prefers Nietzche to the Bible he might best be described as a self-styled Christian. Falange (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist
We simply cannot add this to the lead based on the basis of some sources speculating about possible links to Christian Identity (who are not considered a terrorist group). This is synthesis and inserting a non-neutral POV. However the speculation can and should be mentioned elsewhere in the article but we cannot state that his motivations were religious without unequivocal sources. -- neon white talk 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources (and they are mainstream journalistic sources) in question are not speculating, they are unequivocally reporting based on evidence. To remove this from the lede after it has been present for more than two years is to engage in non-NPOV censorship. Groupthink (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thought: CI are not prima facie terrorists, but they are prima facie Christians, and Rudolph is prima facie a terrorist.  Groupthink (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources dont make any definitive statement referring to this person or his motivations as 'christian' they only make speculative links to "Christian Identity". In fact one of them states that his links to the group were never thought to be a motive which is the prevailing consensus. "Rudolph was a follower of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement, but investigators have never ascribed a motive for the attacks to him." It's synthesis to take the fact he was linked with a christain group and he commited a terrorist act and twist it to fabricate that he was a 'christian terrorist'. It's a great example of synthesis and it is not acceptable. If you have any better sources than the ones provided then present them. The amount of time something has been in an article has no relevance. This is not consorship in any shape or form, no original research, verfiability and NPOV are core wikipedia policies and currently this seriously breaches fails all three. As is clear in the body of the article, his motivations are only speculative opinions, opinions should not be presented as fact expecially when they are clearly given as speculation and the lead of an article should not represent a single POV as if it were fact. -- neon white talk 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also redundant -- Christianity is mentioned in the lead already, and in a more informative manner. IronDuke  23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in the sources referring to him as a 'Christian terrorist', or someone conducting 'Christian terrorism'. Yes, he is mentioned as being associated with the 'Christian' Identity Movement, but if you want to get a summary out of that that will be minimally controversial, then he's a 'white supremacist terrorist'. Of course, that will still be complained about by white supremacists (see Talk:Stormfront). John Nevard (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine to say that he has been linked to Christian Identity because he has and that fact can be cited but what we cannot do it take it upon ourselves to decide that this was his motivation and therefore is a 'Christian terrorist'. There are many theories about his motivation and per policy we have to represent them all neutrally without implying any are 'correct'. -- neon white talk 23:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I could spent a considerable amount of time debunking these arguments, but in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I'll let my editing speak for itself. I believe that you are confusing a neutral point-of-view with no point-of-view, and they are not the same thing. Based on the body of citations, the neutral point-of-view demands that Rudolph be called a Christian terrorist, and it would be non-neutral and equivocal to do otherwise. Groupthink (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your editing is getting disruptive, policy is clear on this, the sources do not in any way cite a religious motivation (thus fails WP:V and WP:NOR). The article clears says the motivations are only alleged. Nobody is confusing anything. I repeat "There are many theories about his motivation and per policy we have to represent them all neutrally without implying any are 'correct'." This is what a neutral POV means, not adding your personal favourite theory to the lead of an article as if it were fact. (fails WP:NPOV There are no citations that back up this view point. None at all. NPOV policy certainly does not say that a biased personal POV has to be included, it means representing all views equally. Be warned that misrepresenting policy is considered disruptive. -- neon white talk 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of misrepresenting policy and attacking me rather than commenting on my arguments is also considered disruptive. Threatening a report to AIN is definitely disruptive.  Watch it. Groupthink (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources used do not match the language used in the lead. Calling him a "Christian terrorist" violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:LEAD, and WP:BLP. Some of these are core policies; I hope people will take a moment before rushing in to violate them again. IronDuke  03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources cited more than adequately support the label "Christian terrorist," and naming every WP policy in the book is not an argument. Groupthink (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very obvious to all editors here that they do not cite the label "Christian terrorist" and this seems to be the consensus. Thank you IronDuke for reminding be about WP:BLP, i was actually under the impression that this guy was deceased, this means that it can be removed without waiting for the outcome of the discussion. "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". -- neon white talk 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we let people respond to the RfC, shall we? Groupthink (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we get two references reinserted that were used outside the deleted area?
editprotected

They need to go in the last sentence of the lead paragraph, in the first and third phrases, as shown below...

Rudolph was connected with the Christian Identity movement;

Rudolph has also called himself a Roman Catholic at war over abortion.

Thank you. &mdash; CJewell (talk to me) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These fact are already in the article. -- neon white talk 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Better yet, since WP:BLP does not apply in this case, how about not letting this "the wrong version" type complaint hold sway and reverting back to the originally protected version? Or if you really think that there's a BLP concern here, remove all pejorative material from the article, including anything pertaining to him being a terrorist or a mass murderer? Groupthink (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies to all articles about a living person. There are no exceptions. The protected version was in violation of the policy, the contentious info was correctly removed until the discussion is finished. The fact that he committed a terrorist attack is not controversial and can be well sourced. -- neon white talk 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason WP:BLP doesn't apply here, and was not violated, is that the information in question was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. The fact that he is a Christian terrorist is also not controversial, except among two editors who insist on generating baseless controversy. Groupthink (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again the policy applies to every single article about a living person. I'm sorry but you do not get to decide that a core policy doesnt apply. The information was contentious that is all that is relevant, regardless it is very clear that there are currently no sources to back up that statement. Your time would be better spent looking for some sources rather than pushing this POV and making incivil accusations against editors following policy. -- neon white talk 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This rests on three issues: sources, sources, and sources. Where are the reliable sources using this term to describe ERR? And it's no good digging up one or two, mind you: the preponderance of sources used in the article must state explicitly that he was a Christian terrorist. So far, our sources don't explicitly suggest that he was. IronDuke  23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course our sources explicitly suggest that ERR was a Christian terrorist! And "the preponderance of sources used in the article must explicitly state that he was a Christian terrorist"?!?  Says you.  Common sense says otherwise.
 * I'll give you a reliable source: Eric Robert Rudolph himself, who explicitly states that he was "a Roman Catholic at war over abortion." End of debate. Groupthink (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He does not appear to refer to himself as a "Christian terrorist" in that quote -- or does he? IronDuke  03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What a load. This guy's all over the Osama bin Laden article insisting that he be called an "Islamist terrorist" but heaven forbid that an editor associate CHRISTIANITY and terrorism! Hypocrisy at its finest.
 * Precisely. Plus he has also denied it at other times. There are really two issues. The first is that currently the claim that his motivations were religious is unsourced and a conclusion not by a reliable source but by an editor of wikipedia, it's synthesis and the second issue which is only relevant if the claims can be sourced is whether representing this single POV in the lead, considering that there is no definitive truth here and there are several different theories that can be sourced, is neutral. -- neon white talk 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe that the wrong version type complaints managed to get a protected page changed. BLP does not apply here, as the material in question is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced: it is well-supported by mainstream, verifiable sources. Rudolph has described himself as a "Roman Catholic warrior." He has been closely associated with an umbrella organization that has promoted and committed acts of violence. As another editor has pointed out, calling Rudolph a Christian Terrorist is obvious. WP:BLP is supposed to preclude unsourced or poorly sourced material, not material supported by cites from CNN, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor among many others. I find it highly disingenuous that two editors would misuse BLP policy to pull an end-around page protection, and I'm alarmed that their spurious complaints were given credence. The made-up arbitrary standards listed above by these same editors are silly semantic games. Rudolph self-identified as a Christian terrorist, an identification also made by the FBI and several major media outlets. There is more than enough evidence from verifiable sources to use that terminology, and to invoke the specters of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and especially WP:BLP is disingenuous and equivocal. Next we'll be having a debate about whether or not water is truly wet because it's not specifically identified as such by a sufficient number of sources. Anything, if overanalyzed and overparsed, can be said to lack definitive truth. Having a neutral point-of-view does not mean having no point-of-view, it means having a point-of-view based on source material rather than bias. In this case, the evidence clearly indicates that ERR was a Christian terrorist. Groupthink (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit declined. The above discussion does not really address (and therefore does not demonstrate consensus for) the requested edit.  Sandstein   13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Grouptthink, you have been asked to provide a direct quote where ERR refers to himself as a "Christian terrorist." Your assertion that he is one is based on your own interpretation of, e.g., "Roman Catholic warrior." Your own interpretation does not supersede BLP. IronDuke 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Groupthink, stop it. It's quite clear that the consensus is not to put this revision in the article, and yet you continue to do so. Page locked while outside opinions can be solicited. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CAn we have a warning for not assuming good faith. His accusations are not proper editor behaviour. The bottom line is that the article shouldn't represent the view that he was motivated by 'christianity' above any other views regardless of whether it can be sourced or not. -- neon white talk 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are you asking for a warning for not assuming good faith? -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing me, but given that this editor is wrongfully accusing me of gaming the system (see below) it's a pretty hypocritical move. Groupthink (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr Syntax prompts a rephrasing of my earlier, malformed question: Who are you, Neon White, asking to issue the warning to Groupthink for Groupthink's alleged failure to assume good faith? -- Hoary (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said, Groupthink. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That position not only defies logic but it defies WP:NPOV as well. A neutral point-of-view is not the same thing as no point-of-view. If every other editor were like the one above and refused to represent any viewpoint, even ones backed by an article's body-of-references, then an article on Lenin could never represent the view that he was motivated by Communism: ditto Gandhi and pacifism, the Dalai Lama and Buddhism, or Mussolini and fascism. Groupthink (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One more point: WP:SYNTH does not apply here. No original synthesis states that editors should not make arguments in the vein of "A & B = C," for example: "Sources establish that Jack was seen fleeing from the scene of the crime.  Sources also establish that Jill was seen fleeing from the scene of the crime.  Therefore, even though sources don't establish this, Jack and Jill were working in cahoots with each other."

However, "Eric Robert Rudolph is a Christian Terrorist" is not an "A & B = C" argument, it's an "A & B = AB" argument, which is perfectly legitimate! Sources have established that ERR is a Christian. Sources have also established that he is a terrorist. Well, that makes him a Christian terrorist, end of story. That's not original synthesis, that's ordinary logic. Groupthink (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop this Gaming the system. All core policies apply to all articles. Making a novel conclusion based on sources is synthesis. What you explained is just about the best example of synthesis as i've seen on wikipedia and it's probably worth using it as an example on the policy page for future reference. The article can cover all POVs in the section 'Alleged motivations'. They are all specualtive, it is impossible to define a correct one. NPOV means we represent them all neutrally without applying any is 'correct', such as putting it in the lead sentence. -- neon white talk 01:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is not novel. Rudolph was a terrorist, he said he was Christian; he was a Christian terrorist. Simple. However, to what extent was his terrorism was motivated by his own or anyone else's Christianity? The latter is a legitimate question. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstand the term, a christian terrorist is not a terrorist who is christian but one who is motivated by christian teachings which we cannot currently verify. -- neon white talk 22:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't this be resolved
Reading over this discussion, it's been argued about for two years. This is a perfect case study about Why Wikipedia Fails. Users getting caught up in their battle of their points of view. It's rather ridiculous, and the end result is that you're giving us outsiders, those of us who don't want to wade in with you people and engage in a knife-fight, something pretty weak to read as a reference. Then we have to descend into these talk pages and sort out the mess that you people infinitely type at each other. Why not get your acts together, resolve the dispute, and treat this article the same way similar articles are treated. It's not rocket science. Call in your high mucky muck to make a final decision. Good god. Two years of endless bickering. Wikipedia is broken and if you people run the show like this, it's your responsibility to fix it. People like me have long been chased away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.231.116 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thank you Mr Encyclopædia Britannica, but does this have anything to do with this article, or are you just knocking Wikipedia at any available point? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

My analysis here is that several available reliable sources debate whether Rudolph is in fact a "Christian terrorist," but that the American MSM hasn't embraced the phrase. My opinion is that there should not be a sentence in the lede that flat-out says "Rudolph is a Christian terrorist," but rather, there should be a sentence or two somewhere after the lede mentioning that Rudolph is often considered an example of Christian terrorism. Reliable sources for that claim abound. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sources that speculate about it but none that i know of that consider it a fact or state it as one. -- neon white talk 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The "American terrorist" tag should just be removed. For Pete's sake, this is idiotic.
People can judge for themselves as they read the article. Are articles about rapists written like this: "So and so is an American rapist who committed rapes"... ? It's just bad style. Say what he did. If the terrorist shoe fits, so what? If some catch-all label really must be applied to the man in the opening sentence (I don't know why it should), then use whatever crimes he was specifically convicted of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He is well sourced as a terrorist and is obviously american. There's no dispute about that. -- neon white talk 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The word terrorist implies a value judgment and thus violates WP:NPOV. In fact, there's even a style guideline that deals with this very issue: WP:TERRORIST. Changing it to something more neutral would be good, but simply removing it would be better since the sentence goes on to describe what he did. Saying he's a bomber who bombed things would be redundant. - Headwes (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right, but lots of words we use have value judgements. For example, from Mother Theresa, in the lead we have her described as "internationally famed as a humanitarian." Christopher Hitchens, and others, might disagree. But the overwhelming consensus is that she was a humanitarian. Overwhelming consensus is that ERR was a terrorist, no? And, FWIW, not all terrorists use bombs. IronDuke  21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with a category, but I do have a bit of a problem with the word "terrorist" in the first sentence. To me, it's an WP:NPOV issue: Roberts may be regarded as terrorist by some journalists.  It may not even be that controversial.  But simply put, Wikipedia should not be using the opinions of unqualified people to label people as terrorists or groups as supporting terrorism.  (See WP:TERRORIST.)  Has any law enforcement agency ever classified Rudolph as a terrorist?  Because an official classification as terrorist is at least not an opinion.  Mango juice talk 16:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "'The fatal bombing in Atlanta was a terrorist attack aimed at thousands of innocent persons gathered at the Olympic Park,' said Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 'Within the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Program, there is no higher priority than the capture of Eric Robert Rudolph.'" IronDuke  16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I had suspected that was the case. So then, we should describe him as a target of the FBI's domestic terrorism program.  That's factual, not opinion.  So I propose we remove the wording from the first sentence, and mention this information a couple of lines later, where we mention the FBI's pursuit of him.  How about: "A top target of the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Program, he spent years as the FBI's most wanted criminal fugitive, but was eventually caught."  Mango juice talk 16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the FBI isn't the end all be all of determining who is and who isn't a terrorist. I think the question to ask is this: does any reliable source, scholar, analyst say ERR isn't a terrorist? If you can find significant dissent, then perhaps we should think about rephrasing. If not, I think the term should stay as is. IronDuke  17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I should even look, because I don't think the article should try to in any way support a claim that he is NOT a terrorist. It's just that whether or not journalists or individuals choose to call him a terrorist or not is not really important.  We should stick to facts.  "Terrorist" is a loaded word.  Rudolph's actions are obviously very extreme and evil, but saying this directly is too much drawing a conclusion: let the facts speak for themselves.  However, his status as a target of the FBI domestic terrorism program is a fact.  Mango juice talk 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, you may well be right... but it doesn't matter if we think it's a value judgment, what matters is if RS's say it's true. A lot of people think that terrorist is a totally definable word and don't feel any hesitation about applying it where it fits. We would only balk at that categorization when multiple RS's disgaree. I don't see that here. IronDuke  23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't balk at the category. I think the FBI statement is plenty to back that up.  I just want to see the "described by the Washington Post and others as a terrorist" bit removed from the first sentence.  It's superfluous.  And it's an artifact of the "Christian terrorist" wording that has been removed.  Mango juice talk 01:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was a compromise off "is a terrorist." We could go back to that, with cites, I suppose. Thoughts? IronDuke  03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with IronDuke, it's clear that all reliable sources consider him a terrorist and we have no contradicting view point so it complies fully with policy and we can consider it a fact. Using an euphemism because you don't like the sourced fact is discouraged. However you personally feel about the word, and yes i agree that it is often grossly misused by governments and media but in this case the word is correctly used to describe him. I removed the text above. We don't need to say who said he was a terrorist that's what citations are for. -- neon white talk 08:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, you're missing the point. It's not just my personal opinion, it's Wikipedia policy.  See WP:WTA, specifically, WP:TERRORIST.  I've reverted your change since it's in direct violation of the policy -- if we use that word we must attribute it explicitly.  Mango juice talk 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WTA isn't actually policy, it's only a style guideline, and one that allows exceptions. FWIW. IronDuke  14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a style guideline only, one which is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not censored and very much disputed Wikipedia_talk:Words to avoid/Archive03 and therefore there is no community concensus that this word should not be used in fact if you look around it is used. It also specifically says that if the term is backed up by several independent sources, which is the case here, then it is acceptable. It does not, and was not written with the intention of banning the use of the term and to suggest it does is misrepresenting the guideline and the aims of it. Please discuss the issue properly before making blanket edits based on your opinion only. -- neon white talk 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this highly objectionable. I have been discussing.  WP:WTA is quite explicit on this point.  Yes, it's a guideline, and the wording of the Terrorism section may have been recently discussed but the idea that "terrorism" is a word to avoid is not, fundamentally, in question.  Frankly, there is a small but sizable dissent from the idea that he is a terrorist and thus it's quite POV to simply be saying that he is one: this dissent is discussed and well-sourced in the article.  That the Wahington Post says so is irrelevant, but that the FBI says so is more relevant.  I'll try a compromise wording.  Mango juice talk 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's clear that Neon and I are both suggesting that terrorist isn't always a word to avoid and again, the guideline admits of exceptions. Merely referring back to it is not in itself an argument for why this shouldn't be one of the exceptions.
 * The above discussion clearly shows that there is no consensus that the word should be avoid, the editor proposed that terrorism is a word with a clear definition in the dictionary that is irreplacable, many agreed and many disagreed. I refer to the line in the discussion written by Str1977 "Though the term "terrorism" can indeed be misused there is no reason to avoid it entirely when it accurately described certain tactics." especially when it can be so well sourced as in this case with little or no sources contradicting. It really is not up to wikipedia editors to decide that some words are negative. It has to be up to the individual reader to infer values in words subjectively. -- neon white talk 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, when you talk about sources that dispute ERR's being a terrorist, can you say which ones you mean? Thanks. IronDuke  22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline ought to apply here. If not, there ought to be a good reason why this article is different from the normal case.  I really don't see that: Rudolph is just like most people who are called terrorists.  So if there's a reason why the guideline is correct but ought to be ignored in this case, it needs to be specified so we can discuss it.  I suspect the reason here is that you simply disagree with the guideline.  (As for the dissent, I just mean what is already discussed in the article: his family's position, those who supported him while he was a fugitive, the "chatter on the Internet", et cetera.  It doesn't deserve mention in the lead.  But keep in mind that yours is not a universal or completely undisputed opinion.)  Mango juice talk 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, in practice the 'normal' case is to use the word in the cases of notorious terrorists, see Carlos the Jackal, Germaine Lindsay, Margrit Schiller, Jason Walters or Timothy McVeigh all use either terrorist or terrorism in the lead and we have categories such as Category:British terrorists. It's certainly not a word to avoid in practice. As pointed out the guideline does say that if sources back up the status it is acceptable. Guidelines are not set in stone or absolute rules to follow. There is no sources that suggests any of the people you mentioned did not consider him a terrorist and even if they were their opinions are neither reliable or represent any more than a WP:FRINGE view considering the prevalent mainstream and official view (which i believe is completely unanimous), therefore we cannot accept their support as evidence that his status as one is disputed. -- neon white talk 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the guideline is just that: a guideline. I trust my own judgment far more than a constantly evolving, no-binding suggestion page. That ERR's relatives/friends may not believe he is a terrorist is not relevant, in WP:LEAD terms. What reliable sources reject that characterization? That's all we can go on. IronDuke  15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can'r find any evidence that his family members specifically denied he was a terrorist, they may have supported him but that doesnt mean they didnt think he was. To add to that the Centennial Olympic Park bombing article refers to the bombing as a terrorist attack. -- neon white talk 08:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit question
Moved from my talk page IronDuke  22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know why we should violate policies and how adding the word "terrorist" says something that "radical who committed bombings" does not?  Grsz  X  03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What policy are you referring to? Also, terrorist =/= radical. IronDuke  22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP, WP:TERRORIST and words to avoid. The general consensus being that terrorist is thrown around so much that it hardly has a definite meaning anymore and should not be used in describing an individual. In this case the current version seems no more different that if it were "...an American radical who committed bombings..."  Grsz  X  22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, WP:Terrorist and WTTA are the same thing, as you're using them -- one is a subset of the other. They are also not policy, so... no policy is being violated. Also, they do not proscribe use of this term. BLP issues have been discussed at length above. If you have something new to say, I am all ears. As to your last point, if there truly is no difference between the terms, as you suggest, then you won't quibble with us using "terrorist." IronDuke  00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TERRORIST it should read - "...is an American radical who committed bombings that the FBI described as terrorist attacks..."  Grsz  X  00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it that a person could make a terrorist attack and not be a terrorist? IronDuke  00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironduke, its simple, if we call Eric Rudolf a terrorist, its open season on Bill Ayers and the the rest of the Weather Undergound to call them terrorists as well and we couldnt have that now could we. CENSEI (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed are terrorists, but we don't label them as such. I'm not saying these two or Rudolph aren't terrorists, I'm saying that per policy, we shouldn't label them as such and let the fact that they committed these actions for religious purposes speak for itself.  Grsz  X  00:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The word should certainly appear their respective bios. That their bios are deficient doesn't mean this one should be. And it isn't policy, I've shown that, right? IronDuke  02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should appear as it does here, attributed to a source. It's a verified fact that the FBI considers him a terrorist, simple. -- neon white talk 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Since this has been brought up here, I thought there should be some context. There is a concerted effort underway at the Bill Ayers page to get language in that Ayers is a terrorist, primarily for the purpose of smearing Barack Obama. Eric Rudolph was brought up as a comparable individual who had conducted bombings. That WP:TERRORIST is part of a guideline, not a policy, would seem to mean to me that the term should be carefully examined on a case by case basis, but there's been some misunderstanding of that fact. That's why all this is showing up here. Thought regular editors here should know. -- Good Damon 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the comment GoodDamon, and you are entirely correct -- case by case basis, no blanket rules are really helpful. IronDuke  23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between the two articles is that terrorism is key to Eric Robert Rudolph's notability, in fact if it wasnt for his bombing he wouldnt have an article at all and according to the MOS, leads should assert notability. However in the case of Bill Ayers, terrorism is not that key to his notability. -- neon white talk 12:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Army of God
We rely shouldn't be describing a group as a terrorist group. Either we say who considereds them a terrorist group (the FBI) or let the reader decide. I've modified the article accordingly using wording from the AOG article. Note that even the Army of God article doesn't describe them as a terrorist group Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

poor writing in first paragraph
1. If you use quotes, you don't have to also say "what he describes as (in reference to the homosexual agenda).

2. for years (how many?)

3. was eventually caught (when)

4. was identified with blabla religion but denies it:  first, this is a passive construction with the actors not identified. Secondly, if the issue is in debate, it does not belong so prominently in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.12.16 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)