Talk:Religious war/Archive 1

Surely
Surely the term "religious war" did not originate from the hacker subculture?!? --romanm (talk) 19:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. "Religious war" is a much broader concept, including but certainly not limited to the crusades&mdash;and it's quite often used in contemporary settings.


 * Hackers typically call these things Holy Wars (complete with (admittedly optional) capitals), not religious wars. Holy war is a popular term for religious war in general, but the hacker phrase has a specific meaning, hence the capitals.


 * This is an exponent of Bias. I'll see if I can get people to care&mdash;I suck at history. JRM 14:16, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I would redirect the hacker section to flame war, then expand the stub.Pookleblinky 09:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I will the former, and hope I don't get pinned as a vandal.

shouldnt there be a section for the term crusade?
just saying there should be a section more on the term crusade like there is for jihad, thats not specificly about the historical crusades
 * agreed, I'm going to copy/paste the intro to the crusades article in for now, if the Sabres win tonight I should have some time to fix it up a little more later--T-rex

Religous War
i really think that it is rather plain that a religious war is a war over and or caused by a religion. why this is being debated baffles me. This artical needs to be relaid out with perhaps independent sections on Northeren Ireland, Jihad, crusades and the like
 * Problem is that just about every war has religius justifications "God is with us", or priests blessing battleships, stuff like that. And just about any war have other interests than the purely religios, making it difficult to extract religious war as a subcategory of war.
 * The French article seem to attempt to solve this by discussion the term religious war instead of the wars themself. Who have used the term, and why?--Per Abrahamsen 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Others?

Are there other religious wars that you can point us to besides the crusades, inquisition?NRICH

just wondering, in the eyes of the insurgents and such in Afghan,Iraq etc, are they just      trying to boot the invaders out, or wage absolute war on Christianity, Judaism, themselves ect. Just wondering in non trolling flambait way... seriously, forgive the dumb question D: n00ber
 * I think that everyone fights for their own reasons, some because of religion, but I doubt all --T-rex 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me it has already been deleted... --PaxEquilibrium 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

what vs. what
"Is it Muslims vs. Christianity? Or is it the Middle East vs. The West? Many people have different views, definitions and opinions upon this subject." It's an inapropriate sentence, even saying that opinions may differ (kinda trying to wash its hands) still shouldn't be there. the muslims mostly fight the jews, and those who they dislike in the west don't practice christianism, are the liberals ateist bi/homosexuals drug addicteds "jew driven" parents-haters people (soon the vast majority of west's population). besides, these people are considered sinners in every religion. the 'muslim vs. christianity' basically means 'arabs vs euro/whites' you know.

-I agree. That paragraph looks pretty rough and is pretty bias. Someone should really clean it up or delete it all together. It sounds very informal too.--Zombiema7 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Inauthentic saying?
My Iraqi-American friend says that this is incorrect:


 * however, this report has received much criticism as being an inauthentic saying, i.e. it is a saying of someone after the death of Muhammad and was not the words of Muhammad himself.

Only enemies of Islam or militants within the Islamic sphere cast doubt upon the Muhammedan saying quoted in the article about lesser and greater jihad. Uncle Ed 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I recently completed a level 3 (Grade 12) World Religions class, and we were told that a Jihad is only an inner struggle, using it to describe a war, as it is often done, is incorrect. --DotDarkCloud 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

sir T.YASSEH SAYS:

last year acheaved a level diaper in world religion studies, we learnt that religious wars can start as just a small dissagreament and then local goverments get involved with the dissagreament, which causes it escalate and thats when it may cause wars to break out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.199.59 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more that can be added in, right?
Like combine all of Europe's 16th century conflict under a title of the Reformation. The conflicts might be blamed for starting on more political than religious reasons, but blood was spilled in the name of God.

"Wars of the Three Kingdoms" started when the Irish resisted against England's enforcement of Protestantism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

"Wars of Kappel" -- Zwingli, the Protestant leader, died in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Kappel

"Peasants' War" was religiously motivated to an extent -- "Without Luther's backing for the uprising, many rebels laid down their weapons; others felt betrayed". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_War

---

If those suggestions were to be rejected, then earlier forms of Catholic dissent surely can be seen as some type of religious conflict, though, not necessary a "war".

Hussite Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

Persecution of the Lollards or even "Oldcastle's revolt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollard#History

---

How about incorporating "religious terrorism", since that can be seen as a type of warfare. The guerilla forces declare war at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism

Losershoes 00:47, 21 October 2007


 * I'm for including all wars that are fought in the name of God, whatever their motives are. There're simply too much gray areas. Aran|heru|nar 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any war where the casus belli was religion should be considered a religious war. I think that would include the Hussite wars. Just a blessing by a religious authority, does not make it a religious one. Perhaps there are several types. Wars fought over a religious issue, wars between two religious groups, and wars where warfare is an act of devotion or worship Rds865 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?
This article seems to me inherently POV, citing religion as a possible cause of any war. War is by nature a political act, not a religious one. Frequently religion is claimed to be a cause of war by those in favor of it or against it, but one can always find a political reason for a war. The closest one can get in the hist. of Western Civ. to religious wars are the first 2-3 crusades. Before I do anything official to move this toward deletion, I'd like to hear what others think. Josh (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is needed is sources for each claimed example of a war caused by religious differences to show that religious differences did indeed cause the war. Some of it otherwise smacks of POV and / or OR Tameamseo (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What defines a religious war?
Here's the criteria I suggest

1) Was there any religious motivation? If converting to the persecutors' religion does nothing to save the victims, then the motivation is probably not religious. During the Holocaust, Jews were killed regardless of whether they had converted to Christianity, making this an ethnic rather than a religious persecution. On the other hand, many of the Armenians attacked by the Turks were forcibly converted to Islam rather than killed, making this more likely a religious persecution

2) Did the participants make any religious claims? If the persecutors confess to religious motives, we should at least consider the possibility that they're telling the truth. When the Crusaders declared their intent to free their holy places from the unbelievers, then we might want to take them at their word rather than finagling a way to blame economic forces for it

3) Where they fighting a group with a different religion? If the only difference between the two conflicting groups is religion, then my guess is that we've got a religious conflict. Serbs and Croats are basically the same thing except for religion, Ditto for Hindi and Urdu. On the other hand, if there are multiple differences between the two sides in a conflict, then it's a lot trickier determining whether religion, race, economics or ethnicity is the prime motive. Considering that the Roma (Gypsies) differed from the average European in just about everything - including religion - should we really count their annihilation as a martyrdom?

The Mongol Conquests can't be considered a religious wars. Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, the Mongols had it all, so they weren't fighting a particular religious group. Even if Genghis Khan made the claim that he was ordered by heaven to conquer the world, if there isn't any religious motive then it clearly isn't a religious war

On the other hand, the Second Sino-Japanese war should qualify. Shintoism is restricted only to Japan, the rest of the world wasn't a Shintoist, they had several religious causes. When Hiriohito's face appeared on the front cover of an American magazine the Japanese government fired an official protest against the American state department. They also made religious claims, they had a doctrine based on the divine command that Jimmu, the first God-Emperor, was supposed to have given his people twenty six centuries years ago: "Let us extend the capitol and cover the eight corners of the world under one roof." This divine command is called Hakko Ichiu and became the national ambition of Japan in WW2. So why do you keep deleting it?

Likewise the Reconquista should be put as a religious war and provided with an explanation, the article itself admits that the Reconquista is a religious war so why remove it when someone tries to elaborate on it?

Why remove wars like the Mulism Conquest of India and the Afghan Civil war? They were well-sourced yet they keep getting removed, why aren't they considered a religious war if muslims claimed jihads against non-muslims? If a Jihad doesn't qualify as a religious war then what does? Their opponents weren't muslims and they certainly confessed to religious motives so why keep deleting it?

And what's the problem with the "Prehistoric religious war" essay? Surely everyone agrees that religion existed way before we had any historical records, the Sati was practiced from time immemorial so we can't tell how many were killed by it because of a lack of historical record. I gave examples and gave several references so what was wrong with it? And what am I supposed to discuss before I add the religious wars on my list?


 * Hi, Kim-Zhang-Hong, please don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes. I'm glad to see you are now prepared to discuss your edits on the page.  Essentially, we need to follow the policies of Wikipedia and so it is not up to us to decide what is and is not a religious war: that would violate No original research (we also need to avoid violating Synthesis).  As the first sentence of the article indicates, the definition used here is "A religious war is a war caused by religious differences".  What we need to do when we are deciding whether to list something as a religious war is to cite sources that describe it as a religious war / a war caused by religious differences.  These sources must meet the criteria set down at the page Reliable sources (Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, for instance).


 * Let's look at some examples of the material which you added that I and other editors have reverted. This was used as a citation, but it does not appear to meet the criteria given at Reliable sources.  The Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution had reliable sources for having happened, but there was no indication that it was even a war, let alone a religious one!  The Reconquista was added with no reliable sources at all.


 * By contrast, take a look at the section on the second Sudanese civil war that's on the page at the moment. The claim that it can be seen as a religious war is supported using the quotation "It was the second Sudanese civil war which began in 1983 which was more clearly provoked by new religious policy of Islamization from Khartoum" which is sourced to this page.  So we have a source meeting the Wikipedia criteria to support our claim.  The claim thus qualifies for inclusion.
 * Tameamseo (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree -- we need reliable sources to call something a religious war, and personally I think those sources need to call it a religious war. These sources would have to be more than government statements, as clearly a country could claim religious reasons that in fact were just an excuse for the war. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug, just to clarify are you saying that you feel the source should actually use the term religious war? Are you saying for instance that the quote re. Sudanese civil war
 * ("the second Sudanese civil war which began in 1983 which was more clearly provoked by new religious policy of Islamization from Khartoum")
 * that I quoted above as an example of proper sourcing wouldn't suffice as it doesn't actually directly call it a religious war? Tameamseo (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at that page is useful. The context there is vital. And possibly multiple sources (which should be easy to find if it clearly was a religious war). Your source does deal with one thing that concerns me when it talks about playing the religious card -- which is why I said that simply a government statement wouldn't suffice. That page gives examples of armed struggles labelled as religious wars which were basically ethnic conflicts. I'd say that 'religious war', 'religious confrontation', or some such clear statement is required and perhaps that it be found in multiple sources. And there's another issue - even where religion plays some part, does that make it a religious war? Again, we need to look carefully at sources and probably take it case by case. I note that the source for the Saxon wars seems gone, but I've found this (which needs to be in the main article also perhaps). Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks like a good reference for the Saxon wars. I put it in.  Are you saying we should remove the Second Sudanese Civil War then? Tameamseo (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes"

I'll try and see

"the definition used here is "A religious war is a war caused by religious differences""

Which by the way, isn't cited either. And yet it's such a vital concept here. A religious war is one that the conflicting participants were of a different religion, made religious claims, and had some religious doctrines which led them to war, this is much more constructive than saying a "war that was caused by religious differences", what does that even mean anyway? I don't think Zoroastrian wars were even caused by religious differences at all, maybe they made religious claims and of course they were from a different religion. But can we really call the Graeco-Persian Wars a "religious war" under your definition? Can we really blame it on Zoroastrianism under your definition? Btw, the Muslim Conquest of India definitely was caused by religious differences, religion was pretty much the only substantive difference between the two groups and the stated cause of the killing, my sources also show that many hindus were persecuted by muslims and therefore should be put as a religious war, yet it keeps getting deleted

"What we need to do when we are deciding whether to list something as a religious war is to cite sources that describe it as a religious war / a war caused by religious differences"

I did so for the Afghan civil war but it was still deleted, so this actually isn't the problem here. And if this isn't the problem, then what is it?

"This was used as a citation"

"This" was also used several times as a citiation in the article "list of wars and disasters bvy death toll", "this" is actually used by so many articles that I don't know why would anyone pick just my article to get rid of "this" source. But I get it, you want a more reliable source right? How about this one: http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&hl=iw&q=Civil+The+bloodiest+civil+war+in+history+was+the+Taiping+rebellion%2C+a+revolt++against+the+Chinese+Qing+Dynasty+between+1851+and+1864 The very first book that appears is the Guinness Book of World Records, which agrees in accordance with my original source that it was the bloodiest civil war As I said "This" is a pretty reliable source

"The Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution had reliable sources for having happened, but there was no indication that it was even a war, let alone a religious one! The Reconquista was added with no reliable sources at all."

What is a war? A war is a state of conflict between two sides. Are you saying there was no conflict between the Taoists and any other religious group? But granted, let's assume it wasn't a war, why did you say it was much less a religious one? Are you denying it was caused by religious differences? If so why weren't Taoists persecuted as much as Buddhists? Why did I even bother to mention the emperor was a zealous Taoist or that he believed Buddhism was a foreign religion that was harmful to Chinese society? Why did he support Taoism? Can't you see the "religious difference" and the special priveliges he gave to other religions(Taoism)? Wasn't that your original definition of a religious war? Just look at the wikipedia article "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution", even the economic and social reasons were tied with anti-Buddhism, of course religion was a very important element here, emperor Wuzong was famous for his ereligious persecutions and my sources clearly pointed this out yet it was deleted yet again for no reason

"Agree -- we need reliable sources to call something a religious war, and personally I think those sources need to call it a religious war. These sources would have to be more than government statements, as clearly a country could claim religious reasons that in fact were just an excuse for the war"

I predicted someone would say something like that, again, this is why I said we shouldn't just look at what they claimed, this is why I gave you Genghis Khan as an example. He claimed he was commanded by heaven to conquer the world, but I didn't include this as a religious war because there wasn't any specific religious group that the mongols wre against and there was no religious motive for the mongols, read my article again and get back to me

"even where religion plays some part, does that make it a religious war?"

Granted, no war was caused entirely by religion(or by entirely anything at that), however; did it have a religious cause? Look at my three critereas again and get back to me

"Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, for instance"

I'm talking about THIS specific article, so if the Reconquista doesn't meet the standard of wikipedia it should be deleted from THIS article, remember, I'm not even talking about some wikipedia article away from this article. I'm talking about this article that we have right here, and yet my Reconquista citiation was deleted instead of being properly evaluated

There, is that all you got to say? If not then throw everything at me all at once and let me get on to adding material to this article. Why shouldn't we include the Muslim conquest of India? Zhang who thought he had a holy mission or emperor Wuzong the anti-Buddhist emperor? Why not the Afghan civil war? And why didn't you mention anything about my prehistoric religious wars? Why not the second Sino-Japanese War? Let me stop you before you tell me that it wasn't caused by religious difference, remember what I mentioned in my previous post, it was clearly motivated by Shinto and the Americans clearly didn't respect the Japanese Emperor as much as the Japanese. The Japanese thought their Emperor was god-like, they thought you can't look directly at his face just like you can't look at the sun, they thought you must'nt look down on the emperor from a higher place etc etc etc and yet the americans didn't think so, they published his face onm the front cover of an American magazine; the Japanese saw this as heretical and the Japanese government fired an official protest against the American state department. I could go on and on but just give me the main issue here and let me figure out what am I doing wrong

Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"I did so for the Afghan civil war but it was still deleted, so this actually isn't the problem here. And if this isn't the problem, then what is it?"

Your source for the Afghan civil war seems to be page 119 of "The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan" here. Where on that page does it say that the Afghan civil war was a religious war?

'''"This" was also used several times as a citiation in the article "list of wars and disasters bvy death toll", "this" is actually used by so many articles that I don't know why would anyone pick just my article to get rid of "this" source. But I get it, you want a more reliable source right? How about this one: http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&hl=iw&q=Civil+The+bloodiest+civil+war+in+history+was+the+Taiping+rebellion%2C+a+revolt++against+the+Chinese+Qing+Dynasty+between+1851+and+1864 The very first book that appears is the Guinness Book of World Records, which agrees in accordance with my original source that it was the bloodiest civil war As I said "This" is a pretty reliable source'''

Great, you found a RS for the assertion. I've put it in. That really is all you have to do - find an RS. As for http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/, if it is used as a source on other articles, it needs to be removed there as well as it doesn't meet WP:V and WP:RS criteria. I've posted a message on Talk:List of wars and disasters by death toll with regard to it. By the way, you shouldn't refer to articles as "my article" etc: see WP:OWN.

'''What is a war? A war is a state of conflict between two sides. Are you saying there was no conflict between the Taoists and any other religious group?''' '''But granted, let's assume it wasn't a war, why did you say it was much less a religious one? Are you denying it was caused by religious differences? If so why weren't Taoists persecuted as much as Buddhists? Why did I even bother to mention the emperor was a zealous Taoist or that he believed Buddhism was a foreign religion that was harmful to Chinese society? Why did he support Taoism? Can't you see the "religious difference" and the special priveliges he gave to other religions(Taoism)? Wasn't that your original definition of a religious war?''' Just look at the wikipedia article "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution", even the economic and social reasons were tied with anti-Buddhism, of course religion was a very important element here, emperor Wuzong was famous for his ereligious persecutions and my sources clearly pointed this out yet it was deleted yet again for no reason

To clarify, all I meant by "no indication that it was even a war, let alone a religious one!" was that it didn't appear to have been a war of any kind at all, so therefore obviously not a religious war. I wasn't making any statement at all as to whether it was caused by religious differences. In any case, it's not the important point here. The important point is that all you need is to provide sources meeting the Reliable sources criteria that say it was a religious war.

'''I'm talking about THIS specific article, so if the Reconquista doesn't meet the standard of wikipedia it should be deleted from THIS article, remember, I'm not even talking about some wikipedia article away from this article. I'm talking about this article that we have right here, and yet my Reconquista citiation was deleted instead of being properly evaluated'''

'''There, is that all you got to say? If not then throw everything at me all at once and let me get on to adding material to this article. Why shouldn't we include the Muslim conquest of India? Zhang who thought he had a holy mission or emperor Wuzong the anti-Buddhist emperor? Why not the Afghan civil war? And why didn't you mention anything about my prehistoric religious wars? Why not the second Sino-Japanese War?''' '''Let me stop you before you tell me that it wasn't caused by religious difference, remember what I mentioned in my previous post, it was clearly motivated by Shinto and the Americans clearly didn't respect the Japanese Emperor as much as the Japanese. The Japanese thought their Emperor was god-like, they thought you can't look directly at his face just like you can't look at the sun, they thought you must'nt look down on the emperor from a higher place etc etc etc and yet the americans didn't think so, they published his face onm the front cover of an American magazine; the Japanese saw this as heretical and the Japanese government fired an official protest against the American state department. I could go on and on but just give me the main issue here and let me figure out what am I doing wrong'''

Yet again, all you need for X to be included in the article is to show a source meeting the wp:rs criteria which says that X was a religious war. Tameamseo (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re. sers.erol.com, the result of the discussion there was that it is not an RS. However, it does cite reliable sources and it is those RS that are being used.  It was agreed that those citations which appear to cite it directly should instead make it clear that it's the RS that's being used as the actual support for the claims not the non-RS.  So on this article, don't use the website itself as a source.  But if you can provide the RS behind non-RS users.erol.com's assertioon, we'll be able to use that as a cite.  Tameamseo (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Where on that page does it say that the Afghan civil war was a religious war?"

Didn't you notice words like "mujahideen". What is a Mujahid? Its plural, mujahideen, come from the same Arabic root as jihad. If Jihad isn't an islamic religious war then what is? You talk as if the source must say the words "religious war" for us to understand it's a religious war, if the people fighting the war declare Jihad, if the opposite group is not muslim, and if there is some religious doctrine that caused them to go to war then it's obviously a religious war. The source must'nt necessarily say the words "religious war" for us to get the point

"you shouldn't refer to articles as "my article""

Alright, sorry. But you get the point, by "my article" i meant the articles that were edited by me and later reverted to the previous article without all of my editing

"The important point is that all you need is to provide sources meeting the criteria that say it was a religious war"

It was obviously a conflict between two different groups, and that's what a war is. And sense you agree it was caused by religious differences then why isn't it a religious war?

"Yet again, all you need for X to be included in the article is to show a source..."

The article itself agrees the Reconquista is a religious war, no need to delete it Anyway I showed quite a couple of sources in the Muslim Conquest of India and other wars which too were deleted Alright, is that all? You didn't critisize me for the Second Sino-Japanese Civil war, the Muslim Conquest of India, Zhang, prehistoric religious wars and other religious wars I added. So I assume you don't have anymore objections to them being called religious wars right? If so then I'm going to add them again, if you have any objections say right here Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you notice words like "mujahideen". What is a Mujahid? Its plural, mujahideen, come from the same Arabic root as jihad. If Jihad isn't an islamic religious war then what is?
 * I'm afraid that won't do. On Wikipedia, the source needs to actually say X for it to be used to support X.  You're drawing inferences from the source that aren't actually set down in the source.  That's a form of WP:Original research as it's unpublished analysis of published material to draw conclusions that aren't directly supported by the source.


 * Alright, sorry. But you get the point, by "my article" i meant the articles that were edited by me and later reverted to the previous article without all of my editing
 * OK, no problem.


 * The article itself agrees the Reconquista is a religious war, no need to delete it
 * As I said before, a Wikipedia article is not an RS. Have you got an RS?  If the other article does make that assertion and backs it up with a WP:RS, then that source could be used here.


 * Anyway I showed quite a couple of sources in the Muslim Conquest of India and other wars which too were deleted
 * Show us the RS that says they were religious wars and there'll be no problem.


 * Alright, is that all? You didn't critisize me for the Second Sino-Japanese Civil war, the Muslim Conquest of India, Zhang, prehistoric religious wars and other religious wars I added. So I assume you don't have anymore objections to them being called religious wars right? If so then I'm going to add them again, if you have any objections say right here
 * No objections to the addition of any war as long as you cite sources meeting wp:rs criteria showing that it was a religious war. Show us the RS, and there'll be no problem.Tameamseo (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
There is no source for the section on Zoroastrianism. Can someone please provide a source? Warrior4321talkContribs 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious differences can be exploited
Rev. Sun Myung Moon wrote in his autobiography,


 * Religious wars continue to occur because many politicians use the enmity between religions to satisfy their selfish designs. (page 5)

I wonder if this man of peace is a notable enough source to be quoted on the subject. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No Ed, this is you pushing your Unification POV. I warned you about this. You have a COI and I will AGF that you do not realize when you acting in concord with your intrinsic bias and are pushing your POV. But Moon is a religious leader, not an academic noted for his studies of religious disputes and hostilities. There is a huge, fundamental difference. Moon is notable; but so is Groucho Marx and I wouldn't quote him here either. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I started as a Unitarian. I don't think I have a COI, any more that William Connelley does. He and I both have years of experience writing neutrally at Wikipedia. Declaring what our positions are ought to improve trust. It certainly hasn't made a difference during any of my first seven years here.


 * As for the quote, I thought it would be refreshing to have a religious leader's perspective. But if you prefer sociologists or other sources, that is your editorial opinion. I'm not going to go against consensus.


 * "Pushing" would be struggling against consensus to put in material that makes the article biased. If you see me doing so, please revert me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using the term generically, and have stated that I am willing to AGF that you are not intentionally POV pushing, but rather that your internal bias is affecting your edits/suggested edits. You are not neutral. We don't have a term for "accidental POV pushing" - that is why we advise people not to edit where they have a COI, as I have repeatedly advised you. Rest assured, I have taken you at your word and as you've requested will watch your contributions and advise you when I think you are straying from neutral territory. Dont' count on me for that, though, as I may well miss a great deal - I cannot check on you all the time - so act with restraint, and utilize RSN and other noticeboards, and other editors. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's cool. And tell you what, I'll pledge here and now to zero R R. In other words, if someone reverts one of my edits in areas you feel I could have an internal bias, I'll simply assume that they are right and - sorry, can't resist the metaphor - roll over and play dead! :-) Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, my role model is User:Mav, who accepted the consensus that he could not write neutrally about homosexuality. But it was his own acceptance - not peer pressure - that prompted him to withdraw. I have refrained from time to time on certain subjects voluntarily - notably global warming - but until last month I can't recall a single time anyone thought I couldn't balance my pro-Moon sentiments with the NPOV policy. I really do like hearing about the "negative" views, and I do not only want to have pro-Moon views. I'm like Larry Sanger: I think if both sides are described fairly - so that each side feels it's being described accurately - then the reader has a golden opportunity to make up their own mind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Conquests
In the Christian Crusades section it is stated that "The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries in response to the Muslim Conquests." and in the Hinduism section "From the 11th to the 17th century Hindus fought against the Muslim invasions.". A section summarizing the Muslim Conquests themselves (or perhaps the initial general expansion of Islam through Arabia and beyond into Asia, Europe, and Africa) needs to be included under Islam. 70.162.119.140 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Article is greatly unbalanced. See new section below. Klopek007 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Highly biased, unbalanced.
This article only addresses the "big 3" Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There have been plenty of religious wars from polytheistic religions too, from ancient times to modern times. If they are not included, then at the very least this article should be re-titled "Religious war in Abrahamic religions."

The most obvious unbalance, however, is how much is said for Christianity and how little is said for the other two. The Christianity section has sub-sections for specific wars, and links to articles for those. At times, the tone sounds critical in a passive-aggressive sort of way. And then there's this sentence: "These blessed warriors pursued opposing armies and the invention has failed the heretic religions and cults of the time, and were highly admired by the Church and the State." Grammatically speaking, this is a mess, it makes no sense at all. The middle of the sentence is a confused jumble of words. The beginning and end of the sentence are clear enough, but appear to have an agenda, and are written in a tone that's non-encyclopedic. I'm going to remove it.

Meanwhile, the sections for Islam and Judaism merely define "holy war" and do not mention any specific ones. In particular, the Islam section looks highly defensive. To paraphrase, it basically says "Everyone thinks that Jihad means holy war, but it really just means being a good person." There is no mention of the vast conquests of Muhammad and his followers, nor modern day Islamic terrorism, nor the bloody history in between (see Islam and violence). There should also be mention of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, which is highly relevant to the topic of religious war.

The section on the Crusades is under the Christianity heading. As mentioned in the talk page section above this one, there should be a sub-section for the Crusades under the Islam heading as well, or perhaps under neither and make it a whole new heading. There were countless factors from both sides that led to the Crusades, but some people will delude themselves into thinking it was all one side or the other.

The subject of this article is an important topic. Perhaps it needs a re-structuring? Perhaps focus on the concept in general, and then give a few examples, rather that just primarily listing examples. If not, then at least equal attention should be given to three religions currently in the article, and more should be added. Either the examples from the Christianity section should be removed, or examples should be added to the other sections.

I'm going to add a tag for NPOV, and add some more relevant internal links to the section on Islam. I do not feel qualified to expand the section myself, due to a POV concern. I am not knowledgable enough to add sections for other religions.

Klopek007 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Worldview
I think we can find examples from India especially like the Sikh wars where it was labelled religious wars because of elements of "Religion" the burning of the Sikh temple by Indira Gandhi. Religious wars seems (in this article]] to be limited to Abrahamic. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine and Israel is it even a religious war?
Is this a religious war or an ethnic conflict? I think we should review that because when i read it it seems like the classic "this is my land- no -this is my land" (as if that is something new) where does religion factor in that? It is like the point made in the lead, the demographic make up of Palestine just happens to be Islamic, but that is not a factor in the conflict. When Europeans came to America they conflicted with the Native Americans, they said they had some right to that land. On one side were Christians and on the other side Animist. But that in its self doesnt make it a religious war. I am just asking - because if it is not a religious war, then we dont need it here - suggestions please...--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is religious, ethnic and ideological. It needs a page of its own. Relgiously, Yahweh promised the land to the jews in Torah. Muslims had "ummah" there, and are supposed to have it for the entire world, in the koran. It also says to fight, and that their god curses Jews. Ethnically, Jews are from Judah. Paletinians, which is a state created after Israel, are arabs, which did not get along well with Jews, what with the grand moufkti of Jerusalem providing soldiers to Hitler and whatnot (I have pictures galore, if you want one). Ideologically, Isreal is a democracy with Western values of freedom of speech and thought, rights for women, homosexuals (not including pedophile homosexuals), rights for minorities (non-muslim), and everything North America values politically. Palestine is an Islamic fundamentalist hell, with virtually none of these, and will never accept to live in a state not governed by sharia. For these three main reasons, as well as a basic military premise that they attacked holocaust survivors, and continue to lanunch rockets in Irsael during the many peace talks Israel has been dedicated to, the will fight until one looses. 174.88.67.5 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also the Chinese Muslim clash could also come under ethnic issues it just so happens the Hui are Muslim. Not too sure about Nigeria, but again ethnicity is probably the reason.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Halaqah, the analogy with Native Americans doesn't quite fit here, since Jewish ethnic and religious identity are intertwined, as described in Who is a Jew?, Law of Return, Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, Religious Zionism, etc. etc. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is therefore in significant part a religious conflict, and so deserves to be mentioned here. Ethnic considerations are also worth mentioning in the same context, if they have significant bearing on religious identity. I'm open to suggestions on where to draw a boundary on that. Filing Flunky (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as Jewish religious war. Islam religious war I can understand but not Jewish.  This anti Jewish nonsense must stop.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.73.121 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Things to do (as I see it)

 * NPOV and R.S critical
 * Standardize the tone (since much of the material is copied in)
 * Add appropriate talk page templates (be civil, this is not a forum, correct wiki project)- I can see it getting hot.
 * Reduce info as much as possible to deal with the areas where religion and war or conflict meet., so we must avoid wandering off. and getting into too much detail.
 * Expand the table of religious conflicts.
 * There is an ongoing ideological war Islam v the West, so lets keep NPOV and make sure wiki doesnt get caught up in it.
 * Add examples where non-religious groups conflict with religious people (China and Russia).

Due the nature of religion and war, POV will fly in left right and center. (unfortunately people rarely see NPOV in these cases), thus we need to hold a pretty high standard with references. And they must be balanced. Any reference from Iloveallah.net Jewishhistory, zionist.com or Islamicity or Jesuslovesme.com automatically need to be rushed out the door. Thats how i see it after the recent modifications. I am going back to my African history wiki work--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

number of palestinians
Every time I delete something, someone gets mad, while my posts have been deleted over ten times with nobody saying anything. The UN is a reliable source. I quote "The number of Palestine refugees registered with UNRWA is now more than 4.3 million... Only one-third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. Most of the other two-thirds live in cities, towns and villages throughout UNRWA’s area of operations, and some have moved outside the area and are living in other countries." 4.3 x 3 = 12.9, a conservative estimate.174.88.67.5 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the source say it 12.9 or your own calculations, so lets leave the math for the references? To avoid edit war bring things here 1st (esp things which are likely to cause edit war)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody's getting mad about the deletions, but deletions of referenced content will continue to be reverted unless there is consensus for their deletion. The UN is indeed a reliable source, but we seem to differ on the interpretation of the reference. Here's a full quote from page 6, with the bolding mine for emphasis:

''"The number of Palestine refugees registered with UNRWA is now more than 4.3 million. UNRWA has also been encouraged by the General Assembly to provide humanitarian assistance on an emergency basis to persons in the area who do not meet UNRWA’s definition of a Palestine refugee but who have been displaced as a result of the June 1967 war and subsequent hostilities. Only one-third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. Most of the other two-thirds live in cities, towns and villages throughout UNRWA’s area of operations, and some have moved outside the area and are living in other countries. UNRWA services are available to all registered refugees present in its area of operations whether they live in camps or not." ''
 * So it's saying that the number registered with UNRWA is 4.3 million; one-third of the registered 4.3 million live in camps; the other two-thirds of the 4.3 million live elsewhere. You're saying that the registered total of 4.3 million is one-third of the real total of 12.9. That assertion might be true, but the UN reference isn't saying that, so another reference is needed to WP:Verify it, and since none has been given yet, the assertion has been deleted. From a quick search online, the UNHCR supported 9.9 million refugees worldwide in 2006, and 12.9 million internally displaced persons worldwide.. It seems unlikely that the number of Palestinian refugees has risen to 12.9 million since 2006, but if you can find sources to verify it, I'm happy to admit my error. Filing Flunky (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose getting a muislim to admit takina (incorrectly spelled holy lying/deception/being a goat ****er) is like cutting steel with silk, but let your own states do the talking. Still under exaggerated, (12.9 is total with places like America and Canada, where magical palestinians are created with the UN wand that all want "their land back") in 2010 there were 10.9 palestinians, according the the palestinian government statistics http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3828545,00.html quoting http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Default.aspx?tabID=1&lang=en
 * That accounts for, even by your highly questionable stat of 700k, a 1557.14% increase in population, in 60 years. I suppose they didn't have too many farm animals, as terrorism can be costly. 174.88.67.5 (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by a "stat of 700k". The Palestine govt link given only displays the front page of their site. The stat in Ynetnews cites an unnamed Palestine govt estimate of total numbers of Palestinians abroad, including emigrants and not only refugees. Plenty of Israelis also emigrate for reasons apart from war: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=201477 Filing Flunky (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

claims
I've made all my reasons very clear in the history, namely that saying there are types of claims is WP:obscure and says WP:nothing at all. Noone has brought forth any reason why they should be removed, so I consider the deletion of information without cause to be destructiuve, and as such my edit should be correct until prooven false, because it is clearly prooven correct. My expertise is not in what the Palestininas claim the reason is why this is their land, so I won't put back what was said my another, namely that the land was "always theirs", ill just put the Israeli side, and if you want to change something, add their side, but don't go around making deletions without face. In addition, fact may be as gloriously controversial as it pleases, but it is fact which must reign sumpreme on wikipedia.174.88.67.5 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear ip user. The people who are in Palestine did not come from space, their DNA proves that them and the Arab-Jews (Mizrahi) are natives of that region. They have a DNA connection to the ancient people of that region. There is no dispute over this DNA. Palestine are Arabized, they did not come from Saudi Arabia (for example) into the region. They have the same claim (we were always here). Now as for the new immigrants who ALSO wear the name Jew.(and thats really all they do) they are European people with some distant connection, just like some Italians have a distant connection to North Africa. We know Russian Jews are converts Khazars and also have a European heritage. Just because everyone is called a Muslim (for example) doesnt mean they come from Saudi, similarly, They are Jews from Uganda, Nigeria, Russia, Germany who all share the religion, that does not auto give them direct ancestry to Israel per indigenous claims. If every white American got up and said I am going back to Europe and claiming the land what would happen (and they have direct ancestry). If every African-American decided to go back to Nigeria they would actually have a real claim, but see history of Liberia (and the consequences of claims).1000s of years before the Jews, someone else lived there. So this is all to show, arguments can swing both ways. Only Mizrahi Jews can use that "My land claim" in my opinion. The point is well made by this author also Shlomo Sand--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that "my edit should be correct until prooven false, because it is clearly prooven correct.", but on Wikipedia the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Our strongest beliefs and personal experience count for nothing here: you need to cite sources to verify contentious additions. This is equally true for any pro-Palestinian claims made without reliable sources. If you'd like help with adding sources, just ask: there are many editors here willing to help you with this. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with the Ip user above. Deletion of information is destructive especially if it is sourced from reliable sources. If others want to put in the Palestinian side, they should do so with sources, but the Israeli side should not be removed.  As for the editor talking about DNA, do they have any sources to support their claims or are they merely expressing  opinions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.73.121 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All the references are in the article, We do not need opinions when we have R.S. See Palestinian people the DNA section for more detail and R.S/. And for the info and more detail, thank God for DNA, So now you understand the statement "the Palestinians were always there" claim because DNA doesnt have a POV.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I read your retarded source, and you got the same logic as the koran: hyper-logical analysis on a retarded, illogical assumption/opinion/blasphemy. Your source decided what types of genes people living in the area have, and if they compare to Arabs, bingo they live there. Maybe you forget that all the original inhabitants of the areas there [Antonalina, Egypt, Assyria, etc.] were all killed by satanic muhajeen forces, who raped and forcibly converted everyone left. Now because they are there, that must be the gene of the area (with some bullshit insult to science as to how climate affects genes, that scientists understand about as much as picking up girls (without rape)) and because the "Palestinians" are there, which are mostly Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian right now anyways, they must be connected. The Jews in the area got raped a lot as dhimmis, so some have a little Arab in them, and this is how you find your connection. Any human with an actual sense of morality or science or logic would see how retarded what you're quoting is. The people of Israel are the ones god made a covenant with. These are the Jews. People that become Jews have the same duties, and the same thing happens to those that do good/bad to them. See natural and economic disasters that occurs on the same day any American president tries to mess with Israel, which Yahweh clearly states is for the Jews and that the area is "the apple of his eye". Instead of looking for common genes in Jews, the tin-foil turban scientist talks about Arab genes a lot, and says some crap connection to other arab genes he can find, with the whole assumption that this is the "gene of the land" and points to European genes as proof Jews really were always from Europe (in a couple years though, I can see muslims showing how that was always theirs too, but I'm not discussing Europe, because its never wise to speak of the dead). This is offensive, it is quackery, and by any of Christianity or Judaism's religion, it is blasphemy to say there are some secret true Jews in the Jews, Jews are Jews because the mother is Jewish, and the covenant was clearly made with the nation of Israel. Some nations get a bit intermingled, but they kept their nation for 5000 years, even without a home, and they're still Jews. The Palestinians can be determined to be the true inhabitants by genetic comparative analysis (koran logic, again) but the problem is that it has to mean something in the first place.174.88.67.5 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're hoping to gain consensus on whether certain referenced content should be included, please refrain from using unhelpful language like "retarded", "crap", "tin-foil turban", "satanic", etc. Arguing that referenced content is "blasphemy" will also carry little weight here, since WP:Wikipedia is not censored for things that offend people's religious beliefs: images offensive to Muslims are on display in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, an image offensive to Christians is included in Piss Christ, etc., so a cited reference from a genetic study that contradicts one interpretation of one set of scriptures really has zero chance of getting censored. Filing Flunky (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War
Should reference be made to the Lebanese Civil War, since the political and military factions involved have mainly divided on religious lines? It can't be neatly categorized under any single religious section heading. Filing Flunky (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah that was def religious looking. So i will leave it for you to add. we should also condense each section as much. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Others are welcome to try and stub and condense the Liban section as it is so complex I am struggling to sum it up.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish ethnic heritage
Any articles you wish to make on where the Jewish people are from can go in another article. They have nothing to do with religious war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.67.5 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please gain consensus here before making further deletions: please also see The three-revert rule. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only me and you. Ethnicity has nothing to do with this religious confilct. Even if the tin-foil around these researchers turbans really was blocking evil aliens rays, it would still not matter that Jews are really palestinians and palestinians are really Jews. The poeple that call themselves Jews now follow a religion and are fighting for it. Your edit adds nothing to the article. As stated three times, put this in section: retarted muslim conspricies/ section: things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand/ section: out of place information that alludes to sillyness. Its a four edit rule now, how about I put or fanatic research that says Philistines are palestinians and not Ishmael and are related to the nephilheim, which is why they put the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place? TALK ONLY ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS WAR, or there's gonna be one right here.174.88.67.5 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep WP:Cool, and let's try to discuss this. It's not "only me and you": as the edit history shows, several editors have been reverting your additions. I have no opinion on the subject of Jewish and Palestinian claims, but Wikipedia runs on the basis of WP:Consensus, so please resist the temptation for WP:Edit warring. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now don't ever do the WP: thing to me again and tell me to have a discussion when I and not you is the one saying something. I dont care what your opinion is, say I come from "Evil Zionist Jew Mason Illuminati Alien race" or similar garbage like half the middle-east spews, it would still have no relevance, because this is about the relgious elements in those who identify as Jews and those who identify as muslims in the Jewish peoples' return to Israel, and subequent war for survival by holocaust survivors, and other Jews. Someone might have said he was a Jew and came, and he still counts, as well as Palestinians, who grew 1200%, (thanks to funny numbers by the UN) their ethnicity means nothing. 174.88.67.5 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great it seems I've reached concenus with myself... time to go174.88.67.5 (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it seems the Muslim propogandists have decided to debate about how many palestinians there are, but anyone with an inking of sense does not. There are a set number of palestinins, and those who debate it... well they don't know very much, as nobdoy has ever debated population before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.209.206 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Judaism religious war
it's importent to note that it's not exacly a religious war. the war itself is accordind to the bible is ordered by god and all jews must abide it, but it's not motivated by religous conflicts, but on a national way. they aren't ordered to wage war because they follow another god anything like that. they are ordered to wage war because of 2 reasons: 1.they conquered the homeland. 2.they belong to the amelki people, which according to the bible (and jews) are evil. while the seconed reason could be identified as religious, the first one isn't. just wanted to note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.55.207 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * wow, dear muslim, please unravel the tin-foil around your turban before spouting off nonsense. No Jew is ordered to wage war, EVER, there are wars recorded, based on the actions of the people, like throwing babies inside a stone statue of baal with a fire inside, but unlike the Koran which clearly states to kill all unbelievers, this is historical record. Israel is not a religious war, except for muslims. It was taken from the 350,000, not 750,000 inhabitants (which now have 12,000,000 "palestinian" refugees thanks to the UN organization for palestinian refugees which gets more funding then refugees of the whole planet) who were begged to stay, yet muslims leaders made them leave, or have a (there is one word in arabic for this) holy assassination contract placed on their heads. Many Jews do not go to Israel, and the bible states the messiah will rebuild it, technically, though that is obscure. You also say that these people are evil according to the Jews. I'm glad you've met them all, but how about you take your hate to hell and get out of where people with intellects talk. The only thing evil according to the bible in Israel is not the people, its the abomination of desolation standing [structure] in the holy place. And reason #1 means that the war is over. Muslims in the area say they want ummah (only muslims), and Israel is a threat to that, so they attack (and loose). Jews were motivated to return to their home of many millenia, because all of Europe was generally happy to kill them, as well as Russia, (who illegalized all religion except islam, until they figured it out) and they didn't want to die anymore in the most cruel ways. Though they wanted to practice their religion in peace, it was about not getting killed, rather than religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.67.5 (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All original research, POV, proaganda will be immediately removed, so dont waste your time putting opinions in the article. if there is no reference it will be removed. If it fails NPOV it will be removed. Regarding "moving back home". Everyone comes from Africa, So I guess Colonialism was simply White people Moving "back home" and pushing the people who never left out-- correct? So as long as I have a religious book that tells me my home is wherever, i am allowed execute it. Some said the Bible gave them rights to the New World, hence the Native American Holocaust. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire section sourced nothing when I started. And everyone would technically come from Iraq. The Bible could not have mentionned the Americas because it was not discovered. This is not about the Bible. Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years. That is not subject to debate. They were expelled from Jerusalem by Romans in 135 AD, and later were expelled from all the territories of Isreal when the islamic army came about. Since they were driven out of their land, they are returning to their ancestral home. There was no holocaust of Native Americans, and the term holocaust for genocide applies only to the Jews in germany, for other usues it is only a burnt offering/safrifice. The native Americans survived for 300 years before being completely conquered. The goal was never to kill every last native, as many intermarried. As for colonialism, Europe took a lesson from Islamic countries and began enslaving black people. They identified as Europeans living in Africa, not Africans. The Jewish people have always identified with this place, starting with their very name meaning from Judah. You have a very poor sense of logic and racy discursive abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.67.5 (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * God does a lot of promising. Thanks for your opinion on what is and what isnt a holocaust. Be sure to take it up with the victims. See Belgian Congo, and work of men like Custard in America. God Promises the African Hebrew Israelites Israel was well And some Rastafarian say he promises them Ethiopia.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your or any other god can do whatever they please. That was not an opinion, of holocaust, that was the definition. You have a rotten soul, to tell me to go talk about how to define the holocaust with someone who survived some of the wrost atrocites in man-kind (ill put the worst ones up when I finish the section of Islamic "holy" wars). Once again, even though I'm sure you know the alien space rays pose an immenant threat to your tiny brain, it is best to remove the tin-foil turban around your head, so it can breathe. Ethopian Jews are welcome. A retarted cult believes your obsenities and also believe they will sell Americans as slaves. While under the influence of the Islamic hell I'm sure you live in, this may seem very hard to understand and scary, but If you quote an inebraiated rastopharian's prohesy, you will get nowhere. There is no equality in religion between something that is considered one of the best history books known to man, and what some rasta prophet decided to spurt off in an epileptic fit. Regardless if the newer what you said was, the truer it would have to be, it has nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do that JEWS LIVED THERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Hi-sto-ry. Not con-spir-i-cy. I would rather see they lived there for thousands of years then Yahweh said so. Rastopharians can come to Isreal, but Jews are there because it was always theirs, thats why they're called Jews- Judea. Wudda lump.174.88.67.5 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:No personal attacks, and please don't use abusive language toward other editors. Thank you. Filing Flunky (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * hey sure, and check out WP:insulting holocaust survivors that saw their families butchered while I'm there. Also WP:telling a conspiricy quack that what he is saying is in fact, similar to what a duck would.174.88.67.5 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid having a religious war here on this talkpage. Wasbeer 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as Jewish religious war. Islam religious war, yes, but not Jewish religious war.  This anti Jewish nonesense must stop.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.73.121 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph about the Irgun is irrelevant to this section - at least as it appears now. It should be removed or explicitly linked to the concept under discussion. Amos26 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Nigerian Civil War
I don't believe the Nigerian Civil War was a religious war. It was a war between Nigeria and the Republic of Biafra. It is probably being confused with the Nigerian Sharia Conflict Waqob (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)waqob

Criticism of the very existence of "religious violence"
Much of the article is trying very hard to deconstruct the concept of "religious violence" altogether. Now in my opinion, this would belong in a wider discussion on religious violence in general, and also, it is really a deconstruction of the existence of "religion" itself (if you argue that religion is a kind of mass psychosis which is part of innate human behaviour with the evolutionary sense to instil loyalty to the in-group and hostility towards out-groups, it goes without saying that "religious wars" have social or "secular" causes, but that follows from the fact that you have reduced religion itself to such aspects, and is without explanatory power).

Only the most naive atheists will try the avenue of "religion causes violence". This argument doesn't hold any water. It can be discussed for its notability in articles about such forms of atheism (notably "New Atheism" apparently popular on the internet these days), but this shouldn't take up any space on this page, because it is irrelevant to the topic.

Of course religion can be viewed as just one mode of creating in-groups. "Religious wars" are wars which are justified with this particular form of in-group. That's it. If you replace religion by nationalism, or communism, or what have you, of course there will also be wars, apparently prone to even more unbelievable atrocities, but that's beside the point because the topic of this article is religious wars, which presupposes that you already accept the notion that "religion" is a meaningful category.

In other words, I have the impression that this article was deteriorated by being exposed to the "internet" type of atheism/theism debate. If people must have this discussion, let them have it at religious violence, or better yet at New Atheism (because it gives atheism a bad name if people keep suggesting that "New Atheism" as seen on the internet represents the breadth and depth of actual atheism). --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The restoration of Israel was about bringing the 2nd coming of Jesus. Of course, not everybody involved with it believed that. But it is a part of the narrative.

"Atheism" is a Christian construct. To accuse somebody of being an atheist was to accuse them of being corrupt and immoral (Psalm 14:1). "Atheism" replaced "heresy" as accusations since accusing somebody of heresy largely lost its power after the Reformation. Augustine and Aquinas could say heretics should be put to death because they represented absolute power.

How do you rationalize the absence of holy wars in the name of Buddhism?

If there is a problem with this article it is the use of religious or religion. It's like naming a page "political wars." Political ideologies includes everything from the most tolerant and peaceful ideologies to the most intolerant and militant. Same goes for religion. You cannot compare Christianity to Buddhism any more than you can compare Nazism to social liberalism/social democracy.

The New Atheists is a red herring. I'll bite. The New Atheism is a reaction to religious intolerance, among other things. It also challenges that Christianity is the (unchallenged) measure of good in the Western world. Starting a sentence by, "As a Christian..." you are automatically seen as a good person. An atheist starting with, "As an atheist..." would have lost from the start. So even though Christianity is largely a dead religion (today it's a portmanteau religion, with elements from Buddhism (Karma) and New Age), it still holds absolute sway over the Western civilization. Christianity cannot be challenged. The historicity of Jesus is accepted as "common knowledge," taken on faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Palestine is the name of the whole region (land of israel)
Please fix that to "Palestinian Authority and israel" because it makes confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please just leave that can of worms out of the whole thing and describe the area as the levant or by the current polities, when we're not framing it in terms of competing claims and causes of conflict. — Llywelyn II   04:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish religious war
Apparently there was some kind of edit war earlier over this? In any case, the treatment of this is now minimal to the point of violating and. The Biblical record of G-d's commands to purge Canaan can be put in context and caveated but they were undoubtably influential on Jewish history,  the development of Christian and Muslim doctrines of holy war, and  the very concept of genocide (whether you feel they qualified or not) and must be included. See Judaism and warfare and Judaism and violence for topics, links, and sources. — Llywelyn II   04:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist religious war
Even the treatment at Buddhism and violence (as completely lacking in Chinese history as it is) is better than the less-than-nothing the article currently has: Buddhist violence is not simply a reaction to Catholic overreaching and Japanese violence in World War II was not simply imitation of European misbehavior. Buddhism is, if anything, less doctrinally pacifistic than Christianity but its orientalization and lack of coverage of its failings (as in articles like this one) produces misleading impressions. — Llywelyn II   04:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hindu religious war
Ditto Hinduism, which doesn't have a proper article at all on its violence apart from Hindu–Islamic_relations but one of whose foundational texts is an extended argument in favor of killing your cousins if that's what it's time to do. — Llywelyn II   04:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...
The Bosnian War was pretty much a religious war. --PaxEquilibrium 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I heared that the majority of religios wars have lots of raping, am i correct?

There are a lot of grey areas-IE, the conquest of Latin America, the Turkish siege of Constantinople, and some of the more materially-driven crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the Bosnian War is more an ethnic war than a religious war, and the majority of ethnic wars have lots of raping (which is a bit silly, since they're basically creating half-breeds, and most of the times they didnt treat mixed breeds any better than those of the opposite ethnicity). Religious wars don't necessary have a lot of raping - after all, they're fighting in the name of God, even though they forget that a lot of the times. Aran|heru|nar 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Latin America conquest do not fall under a grey area. Europeans were clearly looking for natural resources (gold). Religion was not the goal, just the way Spaniards use to speed up assimilation of other cultures. 192.223.7.254 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You misspelt silver and the Spanish conquest was undoubtably also influenced by religion. Go read the article you linked. — Llywelyn II   04:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote
Perhaps If there is a God, the phrase that must disgust him is - holy war. -Steve Allen can be included
 * that's silly to put.174.88.67.5 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's not wrong. Fails and, though. We're more of the late 20th century Britannica instead of the 1911 one. —  Llywelyn II   04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Religious war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101222185234/http://www.statpak.gov.pk:80/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110815093633/http://www.war-stories.com:80/aspprotect/dn-poss-vc-nva-pow-camp-1965-1966-2.asp to http://www.war-stories.com/aspprotect/dn-poss-vc-nva-pow-camp-1965-1966-2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Religious war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080927133652/http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39 to http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fighting as a spiritually meritorious act before the 11th century
So User:99.198.34.208 removed the following:

"Before the 11th century, no Christian had developed a doctrine whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act." and "however, warfare was not regarded as a virtuous activity"

saying "Unreliable source, and contradicts other sources on page, namely indication of Roman Empire adopting Christianity and engaging in warfare, along with other early Christian gorups and polities"

However this was reverted by User:Ramos1990 saying "Incorrect".

I'm creating this section as I agree with User:99.198.34.208 and think that some unsourced claim by Edward Peters can't be enough to add this very bold claim here.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Fixuture, appreciate your input. User:99.198.34.208 did not have a solid reason for removal since the source was a reliable academic source and it certainly mentioned that exact point: "One of the strongest links between lay warriors and the reforming clergy was the problem of sin, penance, and salvation. All humans, monks included, were prone to sin by virtue of their shared — and fallen — human nature. The warrior order was considered especially prone to the great sin of pride and its frequent companions, anger and violence. The Christian response to sin was penance. For warriors, penance might be expressed in almsgiving and the endowment of ecclesiastical institutions, fasting, penitential pilgrimage, and retirement to the monastic life for those capable of effecting such a drastic change in their way of living. These acts, however, regularly required a suspension of the warriors' most distinctive function, since they often required the prohibition of the bearing of arms for certain periods of time, expressions of penance after battles, or the design of a lifestyle that was generally incompatible with the life they were required to live. An excellent example of this last problem is found in the life of St. Gerald of Aurillac, written by Abbot Odo of Cluny in the tenth century. But before the late eleventh century no one had worked out a doctrine whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act. Few members of the eleventh-century warrior order even remotely resembled later popular images of the saintly chivalric knight, although they were certainly his ancestors, and the complex process elevating the fighting man into this ideal social type began in their lifetimes and partly during the First Crusade." - p.8 "The First Crusade: "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials (The Middle Ages Series)" by Edward Peters.


 * Also p.15-16 of the same source it notes " "Early Christianity, which had reluctantly accepted St. Augustine's justification for legitimacy of war under certain specified conditions, had rarely regarded warfare in any way virtuous and often expressed concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought. The new perils of the 9th and 10th century invasions, however, the clearly acknowledged duty of the powerful to protect the poor and defenseless, and the new successes of Christian armies in Spain, south Italy, and Sicily all represent a slow process by which Christianity came to terms - but its own distinct terms - with war."


 * Furthermore, David Levine's review (second source in article) also notes similar things around the 10 and 11th centuries: "The ideology of Christian holy war was also abortively proposed by the Byzantine Empire over a century before the first Crusade, failing due to inopportune political changes and the clerical resistance. Remission of sins was a particular focus of pre-crusading ideological patterning. According to Cowdrey, "In the eleventh century...penance was still being imposed under an older system [from] Carolingian times." There was little differentiation between what penances were appropriate for what sins, and often the masses were unsure of the remission of their sins. For the upper classes, there was a choice between endowment of a monastery, becoming a monk, or pilgrimage to holy sites like Rome and Jerusalem. Prior to Gregory VII's reforms, the idea of warfare as penitence was unthinkable; after, armed pilgrimage became an outlet for knightly penitence, channeling the violent life of European knighthood into armies of Christ. This shift in ideology was enabled by the writings of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine sought to rationalize the violence around him, proposing that war could only be just if fought defensively, in the name of the church, and as a last option. With his reforms, Gregory VII successfully formed the ideological basis that would be later used by Urban II in calling the First Crusade: holy war was now a functional theory involving rationalization for just war, spiritual benefits, and legitimacy gained from papal leadership. The Church had developed direct authority over newly sanctioned knights.


 * The Christian concept (or doctrine) of "holy war" was, indeed, a very late development, not an early one. After all, in the earliest centuries Christians were the ones getting persecuted and certainly did not have a concept of war considering that Jesus was not an advocate of war either. That is the point. St. Augustine's earlier concept of "just war" was not about religion at all and was held by non-Christians too. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * These are good points. However, the article used the term "fighting" and not "holy war" - I see that this got largely fixed by now. It still says "whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act" though. Please note that "fighting" here may also include mostly defensive battles and religiously inspired actions by individuals. Also the claim of "no Christian" is a very bold and unlikely-to-be-true claim. It would be better to say that, according to these sources, there was no widely adhered to doctrine that said so instead. Maybe it would also be worth noting in the article that in the earliest centuries Christians were mostly the ones getting persecuted as that's an important factor here.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you have written. What is on the article can be reworded or adjusted as needed. But what is currently on there is what the sources pretty much discuss - almost verbatim. Indeed, the concept of a holy war is a very specific idea with actual criteria, which no one had really formulated let alone adhered to before the 11th century. There is another source on the issue that I have access to which specifies the same point about Holy war in Christendom as a late invention, not as a historical concept. In one sense, talks about holy war, or even religious war, is done retroactively by some historians today and they label historical people with titles and ideas that the people in the past never really had. Reification, in other words. "Fighting" can be broad like you noted and it can conclude defensive and offensive engagement, but for the purposes of the article it relates as a fundamental level. If there was no early "religious" foundation or motivation to engage in fighting (as seen in the sources, the correct way to "be" a Christian was complex and included suspension of warrior activities and contentiousness of fallen allies and enemies) then it sheds light on if much of any historical violence is really has any basis in any specific religion or of we are reifying people in the past with our modern prejudices and biases instead. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Taiping Rebellion
The Taiping Rebellion is missing in this article. I think a rebellion started by a man who was considered to be the brother of Jesus, which ended in approximately 30 million dead Chinese ought to be included here. Is there some consensus to specifically omit it or has it simply not been written down yet? ScienceDawns (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Palestine and Israel
In Religious conflict in the modern period <--Palestine and Israel There is 2 big error 'In 1929, religious tensions between Jews and Muslim Palestinians '// In 1929 there wasn't any muslim palestinians at this time, palestinian was only used to describe jews, muslims refered themselves as arabs but not as palestinian source : The palestine post ( now known as jerusalem post ) 2nd one 'singular religious tradition (Jews) and the other party is an ethnic group which is multi-religious (although most numerously consisting of Muslims, then Christians, then other religious groups up to and including Samaritans and even Jews)' without caring of the nazisme in this sentence. There isn't any palestinian jews because there isn't any synagogue in palestinian. Moreover orthodox and copts are known to support israel. Source : christmas speech from every year. And there is also the case of the negev bedouin, indeed most of them have are israeli. To conclude we could say that we can even add muslim to the first party because bedouins are mostly muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.18.213 (talk)


 * Additions to WP have to reflect what is written in reliable sources. This passage has a citation. You can either check the cited source and verify whether the passage accurately reflects what the source says, or, if you believe that the source does not adequately reflect the views found in RSs on this topic, you can find a reliable source which presents a different perspective and change the text to reflect both sources. Before you do that, I recommend reading WP policy about editorial synthesis. Eperoton (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ego versus ego
To each man, his own god, to each god, it's own offspring.

All wars have a Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Added Archive Bot
I added a an archiving bot to this page. I will move any ones that were missed into the Archive section.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religious war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/477.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709000007/http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_CanerChristianJihad0505.asp to http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_CanerChristianJihad0505.asp
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JCZrrHalPsgJ:www.apcss.org/Publications/APCSS--%2520Uyghur%2520Muslim%2520Separatism%2520in%2520Xinjiang.doc+uyghur+hui&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20090617011421/http://apcss.org/Publications/APCSS--%20Uyghur%20Muslim%20Separatism%20in%20Xinjiang.doc on http://www.apcss.org/Publications/APCSS--%20Uyghur%20Muslim%20Separatism%20in%20Xinjiang.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)