Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. An initial headcount gives this result: delete 13½, redirect 1, merge 1½, keep 8 (discounting the opinions of Pontiff Greg Bard and Josh Keen for making no policy-based argument). This means we have prima facie a no consensus situation, so I have to examine the "delete" arguments advanced to determine whether any of them mandates deletion without respect to consensus or outweighs all "keep" arguments. I find that this is not the case. The arguments advanced for deletion are principally WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH, but many people who want to keep the article argue that it can be rewritten to address these concerns. The discussion is therefore closed with a result of "no consensus to delete", but may be renominated in a few months if the article is not rewritten and/or renamed to address any SYNTH/COAT concerns.  Sandstein  06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian violence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A classic coatrack. Yes, let's throw in the Lebanese Civil War with Guy Fawkes with the Klan and with Ugandan rebels, and voilà, "Christian violence". No doubt, plenty of violence has been committed by Christians over the last 2 millennia, some of it in the name of the Christian religion. But it seems preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic, rather than linking them all where no one else has done so. Biruitorul Talk 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentThere are no Wikipedia rule violations here. WP:COATRACK is an essay; it is not required to be a guideline, as content that is contrary to its recommendations may be altered without removal of the article in order that the article adhere to the real rule behind it, WP:NPOV. Secondly, why is it "preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic"? And, is not objecting to "linking them all where no one else has done so" invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Neither of these latter considerations are WP rules; inclusion as essays would be required for them to be even considered as modifiers of content in an article, let alone reason for deletion of an entire article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, apparently there is an actual policy against PoV forking: WP:POVFORK. But in fact, the essay WP:COAT, the nomination itself, seconds of the nomination, and more nominations and seconding of nominations in more AfDs than I really care to think about, all violate WP:POVFORK thusly: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll address one of your points, since I made it rather poorly the first time and you raise a valid objection. About the "linking them all where no one else has done so": the policy violation I meant to point out was WP:SYNTH. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") If a scholarly work actually addressed Ian Paisley, the Albigensian Crusade, Eric Robert Rudolph and Cromwell together under the heading of "Christian violence", or "violence by Christians", or some such, then this would be a valid topic. But what's actually happened is that User:Robert Tyson has taken those, put them all together, and manufactured this "topic" without a scholarly framework to support his contentions, and to support linking them. (Which is also why treating these separately is preferable: precisely because no one has covered them at once.) That violates policy, and is what I meant to write earlier. - Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hits on Google Scholar, with only the results for the -exact phrase- All results of each word occurring separately in the sources omitted:
 * 78 "Christian terrorism"
 * 661 "Christian violence"
 * Control groups:
 * 7 "Buddhist terrorism"
 * 28 "Buddhist violence"
 * 368 "Muslim terrorism"
 * 1,270 "Muslim violence"
 * 1,590 "Religious terrorism"
 * 5,710 "Religious violence"
 * 1,960 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Christian" in the work
 * 2,770 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Muslim" in the work
 * 4,820 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Buddhism" in the work
 * A large number of scholarly works, evidence of which is shown above, discuss Christian violence and list examples of Christian violence together. They may term it "Christian violence" specifically, or use other terms, and either discuss Christian violence within the larger context of religious violence, or specifically. The inclusion of this focus in WP is not an original synthesis, but reflects scholarly discourse on the subject. Neither "Christian violence" nor "Religious violence" are Synth. They are widely used terms. "Terrorism" is not a substitute, as the wide range of types of violence in the article, and the lower number of hits on Scholar, indicate. Anarchangel (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great observations, Anarchangel. Thank you for that. I really think that takes the wind out of most of the arguments for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the words are used together in a sentence doesn't resolve the WP:SYNTH issue; what is needed is a clear framing of the issue of Christian violence by third party sources that provides an idea of what does and doesn't belong in the article. Realistically, I think you're unlikely to find an academic source that says "this is what Christian violence is" because it's way too broad a topic for a single definition.  The objection is not that no reliable source uses the phrase 'Christian violence', it's that no responsible academic source is going to discuss two dozen ethnic, political, and religious conflicts spread out over several centuries and geographies as though they were a single subject.  Putting Eric Rudolph and the Crusades in the same article asserts that there is a connection between these two; what source has actually asserted such a connection?  What is the nature of the connection?  --Clay Collier (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points: First, a large part of the objections you raise can be solved by renaming the page as "Christianity and violence," as several editors opposing page deletion suggest. Second, it is a false framing of the issue to say that Eric Rudolph and the Crusades have to be connected to each other. Rather, they need only to be connected to Christianity. Given the large number of hits, and the books cited lower on this talk, your doubts that none of them would contain enough analysis to reference a revised version of the page are too speculative to support deletion over revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it would. This article is a mess. It tries to incorporate too much into it. The other danger here that nobody likes to speak about is the above merely counts hits and extrapolates a level of interest without knowing exactly how it's used, in what context or for that matter if it is even dismissing the idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would because the synth arguments go down the drain. No one is claiming that every hit is a noteworthy cite, but even if some of the hits are criticizing the idea, that information would be appropriate for a rewritten article. The arguments that the page is a mess and contains too much are arguments for revision, never arguments for deletion. With the addition of this new information, it seems to me that no one in this discussion has put forth a valid, in-policy, reason for page deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, my reasonong for deletion wasn't WP:SYNTH, although I believe that is also an issue. While some other scholar may have written a paper on "christian violence", that doesn't give license to start throwing everything but the kitchen sink into an article and claiming WP:SYNTH can't be a problem. Do any of these articles combine Gay Fawkes, Eric Rudolph and the Lebenese Civil War with the Klan? Just because someone wrote about the topic doesn't mean synth can no longer be an issue. As I've said from the start, the article is really a coatrack to push a POV. Nothing I've heard here changes that opinion for me. I think the info in this article would be much better presented in a couple of smaller, more neutrally presented articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You deny it now (sort of), but a review of this discussion does show that most editors who argue for deletion do so on the grounds that it was synth to place the content of the page within the title the page was given; that argument has now been disproved. You say the page was created with the intention of pushing a POV. There's no reason for you to change that opinion. In fact, I largely agree. But deletion policy indicates that that's a reason to edit the page to correct the POV, not to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree. My primary objection is coatrack, but I also do believe there is a WP:SYNTH issue and no matter how many papers use the term, synth can still occur and I believe it has occurred here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine, we agree to disagree. Obviously, editors on both sides feel strongly and sincerely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Absolutely a WP:COATRACK. Stinks of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User is a self-declared American conservative. Questioning their WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question it all you want. A POV is allowed in an AfD discussion, not in articles. Owned. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete being a coatrack really isn't much of a reason to delete, but removing the coatrack would leave nothing and the sourcing is pretty vague as well. Tavix | Talk  16:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Extremism KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? The redirected target makes no mention of Christian violence, just extremism in general with regards to religion. Tavix | Talk  16:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Religious violence or Christian terrorism would be more appropriate. Algebraist 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Split Out This is a bunch of different articles which belong in a category, masquerading as an article. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted outright--there are lots of good references there--but the coatrack issue should be best dealt with by splitting the content out: Merging what can be merged into existing articles, creating new articles if those don't exist, and deleting content that is unsourced and unsalvageable. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Niteshift36. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom is a self-declared Eastern Orthodox (see his users page), hence we have a WP:COI. Also, the page is plenty referenced, and contains useful systematized information. -- Dandv (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I take great umbrage at the insinuation that my own religious beliefs have any bearing on the nomination - I didn't say so, and you are not to read into my motivations. Please assume good faith, and withdraw your attack on me (and on Niteshift36).
 * Also, see WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Isn't this doing just that - combining multiple POVs to advance the notion that disparate events are all symptomatic of "Christian terrorism"? - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ok Biruitorul, his attacks just push it closer to looking like WP:ADVOCATE on his part. As I pointed out above, it is perfectly acceptable to have a POV in an AfD, as long as you support it with policy. His petty attacks do nothing to change the fact that the article, which is not allowed to be POV, does nothing but push a POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that religious people should not contribute to articles/discussions on religious subject? Sure, non-religious people are so much more neutral in this... :D Your comment also violates AGF, NPA and some other policies. Please discuss content, not editors. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment We could do with an article on views of violence in Christian theology (other than Christian pacifism, which covers only one strand of thought). Could this become such a thing, once the grab-bag of examples is removed? Algebraist 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the nominator's sentiment that "it seems preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic, rather than linking them all where no one else has done so", but at a minimum, we should have a list of Wikipedia articles about such instances. We have a category called "Christian terrorism", as well as "Islamic terrorism" and "Jewish terrorism".  A well-sourced article is something to be encouraged on Wikipedia, while POV problems can be fixed-- without scrapping the article.  I'm a Christian, and although Jesus would not have condoned violence, there's no denying that there are people who invoke His name as an excuse for murder and mayhem.  Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do have an article called Christian terrorism (much of which this replicates) - surely the two concepts are close enough that we can delete one of them? I actually wouldn't mind keeping that article, provided someone has discussed that topic as such and we do the same, and it didn't turn into a grab-bag like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to Christianity and violence. Much of this article can be split out or merged elsewhere. A comprehensive list of specific events and people related to Christian violence is too large to be maintainable, and belongs in Category:Christianity-related controversies or a subcategory instead. This article should be more like Christian pacifism, which does not list all pacifist acts by Christians in history but instead focuses on the debate within the Christian community. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - could I also point out that much, if not all, of this is a likely copyvio? Search for any bit of text within it, and you'll find it elsewhere on the Internet. Eg:, , , . Based on what sites this stuff is on, my theory is that it used to be on Wikipedia under another title, but was subsequently deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- This article is excellent. I can't believe it is being nominated for deletion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:ILIKEIT - you need an actual reason for keeping. - Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about articles critical of Christianity are in special need of protection because some religious believers can't handle even the least amount of criticism. Preserving it is the scholarly, and intellectual position to take. Your stated reason:Coatrack is actually not a reason to delete it there Bir. Please! This article could also be the basis of several supporting articles. Deleting it is insane. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that response sounds reasoned and unbiased? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll bite. WHAT about my response does not "sound reasoned and unbiased?" I am pretty sure my reasoning is unbiased, and reasonable and yours is the biased one. Say listen, I mainly concentrate on articles in the logic department, so you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.
 * Do you want to avoid an article about Christian violence? There is a simple way to do it! DON'T have a two thousand year history of violence! The only nation which became Christian without bloodshed is Iceland. With such a history, I would say that the absence of an account of Christian violence could only be the work of Christian apologists (i.e. you are the one POV pushing).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, let me start by saying that your "resume" about concentrating on articles in the logic department doesn't impress or intimidate me. In fact, the only reason I can see for you to even mention it is an attempt to try to intimidate. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll clarify it, but I really don't see how and whether you intended it or not, that's how it came across. Now, on to your question. What part sounds biased and unreasonable? That's simple..... your broad stereotyping that implies that people who oppose the keep are weak and think there needs to have "special protection". That smacks of bias and arrogance, which contributed to my reading your completely uncalled for CV recitation about editing logic dept. articles as an arrogant attempt to intimidate. Again, I may be wrong and feel free to clarify it if I am. To continue, you set your position up as the only correct one, while implying that those who disagree are inferior. For example, you said "Preserving it is the scholarly, and intellectual position to take" The unspoken inference then is that anyone who disagrees must be lacking in intellect. In effect, you set yourself up as being the arbitor of what is scholarly and intellectual and decided that anyone who doesn't see it your way is lacking in those areas. You also said "Deleting it is insane", this implying that anyone who disagrees with your keep must be mentally ill or deficient. Afterwards, you said "With such a history, I would say that the absence of an account of Christian violence could only be the work of Christian apologists (i.e. you are the one POV pushing)". This statement again implies that people who oppose you are "apologists" and POV pushing. However, it completely ignores that fact that not only do a number of articles about the topic already exist, but have been mentioned here by the people you claim are trying to cover it up. Despite your false premise, nobody here has suggested the suppression of information about violence committed in the name of Christianity. Nobody is trying to delete those more focused articles. What HAS been suggested it that this article is a hodge-podge of different events thrown into a mix and attempting to make this article that attempts to be all encompassing and ends up being WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, while WP:COATRACK is indeed an essay, WP:SYNTH is an official policy; in case you missed my argument around that policy, see here. Second, we get it that you have an unfavourable view of Christianity. But we need actual sources discussing "Christian violence" as such, and covering all the supposed instances of this phenomenon that the article gives, in order to conform to policy. We can't just make up topics, and at this point, the topic itself is still fictitious. - Biruitorul Talk 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has 153 references including CNN, New York Times, Federation of American Scientists and many many other reliable sources. The facts are objective. What claim of "original research" do you have at all? Give examples of claims which you believe are OR, and deal with the article's claims case by case. Your proposal is not justified AT ALL. You're claim that the topic is fictitious is ridiculous, and an abject denial of plain reality. This article is a wonderful foundation for the evolution of other articles as well (See:WikiProject Integration).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's walk through this more slowly. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Now, no one here is disputing the reliability of the Times or CNN or the Telegraph. No one is disputing the notability or the verifiability of Eric Robert Rudolph, Russian National Unity or the Nagaland Rebels. No one is disputing that every phenomenon described in the article has some link, weak or strong, to Christianity. What is being disputed is the linking of some two dozen often totally disparate phenomena occurring across some 17 centuries under the heading of "Christian violence" - a linking that no reliable, peer-reviewed source has actually done. That is the policy violation - bits of information, covered in entirely adequate form in their own articles (as they should be), are strung together in order to advance the position that they all are reflective of a phenomenon called "Christian violence" - when no one else has done so. - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this article as a whole does not make conclusions. It states which religious groups have used violence, and where and when this occurred. Any of the sources may have any number of conclusions, but they all show that there is at least one religious group that has used violence. Is there another conclusion that you suggest this article is making, or do you feel any of the sources do not reach this conclusion? Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a surmountable POV problem; it's not like there aren't any better sources the article could use. I just ran a Google search and found a few good sources on the topic in general - this one in particular covers the topic in the same way this article should. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth pointing out that the sources might bear closer scrutiny. The first one, for example, is about Christian Faith and Violence. Nowhere does it say it is about Christian violence. When I see that title, I think of a book about how Christianity views violence. I might be wrong, but I might not be. Trying to use it as evidence of anything without knowing what it says doesn't fly. The second source seems like it might be balanced on first glance. The contents look like it addresses not just violence committed by Christians, but against Christians as well. The third one has a chapter titled Christian Realism in the Face of Violence. Without reading it, we have no clue whether that will be relevent or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish that was the first time I'd seen a citation with no internet link. Here's a tool that may help: Google Books (of course, if the book is not previewable, it won't help much unless you're really good at guessing text or have endless time on your hands). Whenever possible, I try and make my citations web-accessible. Note that violence against Christians by Christians falls under the purview of this article; also the opposition to violence by Christians. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the review for that last one, that gives a better synopsis of the book. I don't see an issue with covering the Christian faith and violence with the first source; I think an article about Christian views on violence (as lightly addressed at the start of the article) would be preferable to the indiscriminate list of Christian-related events/people we've got right now. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read the review and it gives us an idea, but we can't be sure what it actually says or how in depth it covers it, so using it as a source wouldn't be prudent. I do agree with you that an article like you suggested would be preferable. That would make much more sense and be easier to keep NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete and userfy or merge with more notable, better documented and researched topics. Violence committed in the name of Christian relgion is notable, but the article currently is a synthesis of articles like Abortion-related violence. In other words, it looks like an attack article on Christianity, instead of a neutral and encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Until this is addressed, this should be, at best, userfied or merged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. And how about Hindusim violence and Muslim violence? Should we create such articles? Even Pat Robertson has been described as a terrorist here. Looks like WP:SOAP classic.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the extent to which violence is justifiable is an important part of those religions, then I think covering that would be appropriate. There's already a decent Islam and domestic violence article; this one should have similarly encyclopedic coverage and ditch the POV-pushing list of aggressors. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This appears to be a grab-bag WP:SYN article, and I don't see it improving from that status.  There is an underlying assumption here that any act of violence committed by a self-described Christian group is 'Christian violence'- in a lot of these cases, we are talking about widely divergent political, ethnic, and religious conflicts that have in common the involvement of a Christian group, but which may otherwise have little in common.  There are more narrowly focused articles about the relationship between Christianity and violence that would be appropriate under a different title, but I don't see this article getting out of OR/SYN territory.  --Clay Collier (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but truncate heavily and rewrite. Despite the article creator's clear POV intent (see the edit summary for the initial edit), the topic has encyclopedic potential and the first section definitely has potential.  There is a valid point that there is a contradiction between "turn the other cheek" and the willingness of some Christians to be violent for religious purposes.  This should be presented in an encyclopedic, NPOV way.  The laundry list of examples of Christian violence is, however, just a POV COATRACK and has to go.  Moving it to Christianity and violence is a good idea, too.  --Richard (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. How do you define Christian violence? Also can Jesus being crucified be added to the list? --71.59.18.236 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - While there is potentially a reasonable topic regarding how violence can be and sometimes is justified and acceptable within Christianity, much of that material is already included in Just war and related articles. Changing the content to a List of episodes of violence related to Christianity would quickly spiral out of control, and be of at best dubious use anyway. Also, at least to my eyes, the topic is so poorly defined as to make determining what should and should not be included at best problematic. Deletion of the existing article, and if so desired later creation of one or more articles with a slightly more reasonable scope, would probably be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is also some ambiguity in the criteria here. Just because someone calls themselves a "Christian" or subscribes to a particular tenent of Christianity doesn't make them a Christian, nor does it mean that it is the consensus view of other Christians. Even within Christianity, there are groups that are considered by most Christians to be WP:FRINGE groups. If someone goes in an massacres a grade school and says that God told him to do it, the author might list it here, but does it get mentioned that Christians roundly denounced it or that the psychiatrists said that the guy was a schizo? There is a lack of balance here that eliminate the NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of these comments are good ones. Without neutral criteria established by outside scholarly sources on what constitutes "Christian violence", a broad swath of Western criminals over the past 2000 years could be considered perpetrators of "Christian violence" - they were (nominally) Christians, they committed acts of violence, ergo they belong under "Christian violence". Shall we include Karla Faye Tucker? Ruth Ellis? Jean Bastien-Thiry? Why? Why not? In the absence of outside sources linking anyone to a broad notion of "Christian violence", neither "why?" nor "why not?" has a tenable answer. - Biruitorul Talk 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (but revise, and rename as "Christianity and violence"). The solution here is not to delete the page. Certainly, it is reasonable to edit it for NPOV, so as not to be an attack page. Although I understand the coatrack reasoning, I think that there is a danger that splitting into multiple pages may actually end up just being deletion of validly-sourced material -- we need to be just as careful of "I don't like it [the page]" as of "I like it." But merging into Christian terrorism, as described above, may be a good solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (Title change and strikethrough added subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep two question to answer... is the topic notable... yes... are there enough verifiable sources to support it in the world... yes.   last question that carries for most articles on wikipedia... does it need some sort of repair or cleanup?  yes....  but that's not a reason for deletion.--Buridan (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The big problem is the term itself, and the minimal definition of the lede which seemingly makes this article the coatrack that it is. The question is whether there is any way to create a better definition or not, and, given the nature of this term, I sincerely doubt that there is, and, if true, I doubt there is any way to keep this article from being, basically, an almost random mishmash of often unrelated events. Turning it into a dab page, perhaps to articles relating to the history of violence of and against various Christian groups, related philosophical concepts, and similar related concepts, might be a workable option, if such articles exist, I don't know. But the term, and its definition, basically to my eyes make it seemingly impossible to create a reasonable single article. The term could be transwikied to wiktionary, but I can't see any way to define the term which could create anything like a reasonable encyclopedia article. A group of articles, maybe, but not a single article. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to reply to the first sentence of that comment, while keeping in mind my own comment above. I recognize that the title of the page is, indeed, central to what some editors here find problematic. I'm concerned, however, that what that really means is that some editors just don't like the subject, and would rather not see it covered, and are raising objections (such as coatrack) that only marginally apply to the page, and elevating those objection to fatal flaws that cannot be fixed by a conventional edit for NPOV. The fact is that much of the page is well-sourced according to policy here, and we need to be careful that we are not censoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, I have nothing against the subject. One or more articles on how Christians have used the Bible and quotes from it to justify violence might work. I'm here assuming that most of the arguments are in some way biblically based. Similar articles for Judaism, Islam and the Koran, etc., etc., would probably work as well. But the title/current definition of the article isn't something I can ever see a reasonable article arising from. Wouldn't object to including relevant material in the Christian terrorism article or other articles as appropriate. Wouldn't object to seeing a dab or category or whatever relating to Christian violence. But "Christian" and "violence" are both such broad terms that, without some sort of attempt to limit the scope of the article, I can't see how there could be a real article of any useful kind. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I should clarify, myself, that I didn't mean my comment to be directed personally to you; sorry it came out that way. But, thinking about the possible Christian terrorism merge, is "violence" really a problem in a way that "terrorism" is not? If an act of violence does not rise to the legal (or dictionary) definition of terrorism, does that make it unencylcopedic? Is it really not possible to appropriately limit the scope of this article? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it personally, don't worry about that. Regarding the question, though, I really can't see how it could be limited. Rape, Child abuse, Mortification of the flesh, Domestic violence, assault, torture, suicide, are all forms of violence, and the list goes on. As long as the term "violence" is included in the definition, I can't see how there would be any way to reasonably keep any of these things out. If there were a specific definition which could be reliably sourced which itself limited the scope of the article, maybe then it could be limited, but without it I can't see how. Terrorism has a much more specific current definition which delimits its scope in a way that "violence" does not. Changing the article to Christian interpersonal violence or any number of other options would help limit it, but without a more specific sourced definition I can't see how we could fairly exclude any of the things I mentioned above, or any number of other subjects. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I reject the premise of your statement. We already have article on Christian Identity, on the Army of God, on Aryan Nations, on the Christian Patriot movement, on the Ku Klux Klan, on The Lambs of Christ... shall I go on? We have Category:Christian terrorism, Christian terrorism, Category:Religiously motivated violence by country, and so on. So talk of "censorship" is misplaced. We already do cover extensively the violence committed by Christian groups - as well we should. The crux of the matter, the fatal flaw (so to speak) is that the sourcing is for particular phenomena (in themselves notable) - but does not describe the phenomenon which the article supposedly is about, "Christian terrorism". - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to reply to both of you here. To Biruitorul, I think the fact that those other pages exist does not really answer the question. (One could actually argue that deletion of this page in deference to the existence of those other pages is forking.) The first section of this page, about the theoretical justification, does provide sourced reasons for treating the subject as a phenomenon (although it still needs fixing for NPOV). Where you commented to another editor, higher up on this talk, that there is no sourcing for tying together the components of the page, there actually is such sourcing in that section. There is no logical need for every instance cited in the page to have arisen from exactly the same motivation (and, again, I'm not disputing the need to fix the present version of the page). To John Carter, I think it is clear that the page is not (or should not be) about the kind of violence involved in mortification of (one's own) flesh, nor should it claim that suicide by a Christian falls within the scope of the page, since that kind of violence is obviously not an outgrowth of Christian thought or belief. One doesn't need to limit the name of the page (interpersonal, etc.) to make possible this common sense understanding of what the subject of the page is. I agree with you that there is a need for writing the page better, to base the definition on sources (as well as to make clearer that violence is not an automatic or constant characteristic of the religion), but the first section of the page does have the basis for doing that. Shorten the page, yes, but delete it all, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a very strong tendency in Christianity toward mortification of the flesh, including some people in I think New Mexico who have gone so far as to crucify people. I'm not sure whether they used nails or not at this point. See Penitentes (New Mexico). And I agree it shouldn't have to include such information, but I have trouble seeing how, with the existing title and definition, it really could be excluded without someone possibly successfully challenging it down the line. And, like I said, turning it into a disambiguation page or similar for "Violence in Foo" (Foo being a period or Christian history, or Christian denomination, or whatever) wouldn't be objectionable, and include material in various subarticles, but I do have to think that the only part of the title or definition which can be limited is the "Christian" part, although other terms could be added to create for instance Biblical quotes used to justify violence in Christianity, and that maybe that might be the way we have to go. I wouldn't approve of any loss of information either, but that's a different matter. The material could be userfy'ed or otherwise temporarily stored until its transferred into a relevant article which might be linkable through a dab page. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very strong tendency towards "mortification of the flesh" in human nature, although that particular phrase/description of the phenomenon is particular to Catholicism. But any comparative cross cultural study shows that the same thing is present in many non-Christian societies. The fact that some crazies in New Mexico crucified some people is pretty much irrelevant here - if you take a large enough sample of the human species (and Christians do constitute such a sample), you will wind up, through probability alone, picking up some crazies. There've been Buddhists who've "gone so far as to crucify people". Or any other group that is defined in broad enough terms to include a substantial number of people, have done similar things. I don't see the reason for the argument, and for the article. Sure, there is a reason for some other articles based on subsections of this one (that don't duplicate other ones). But there's no reason for a coatrack.radek (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that there isn't a tendency towards mortification, but, rather, that it is obviously not the kind of violence that this page is (or should be) about. And, while it is pretty much built into the wiki way of editing that eventually someone will challenge a reasonable demarcation of subject matter and try to introduce something that does not belong, it is also built in that their challenge can be replied to, and need not be successful. With respect to temporarily storing the material, I'm concerned that there really isn't a plan for what "relevant article" it would eventually go into. It could just as well be "temporarily stored" right here on this page, pending editing the page to improve NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I agree with your last comment to me, but only in part. Let me start with the disagreement. The laundry-list items (Rexism, etc) are all or almost all notable phenomena about which much has been written, including books. So not mentioning them here (other than maybe in passing) but leaving them to their own articles is not a case of forking. We have, for instance, an article on North America that says rather little about the United States, Canada and Mexico; those too are covered independently and are not forks.
 * On the other hand, yes, there is scholarly literature (plenty of it, in fact) about Christianity and violence - war, mayhem, modern, ancient, Catholic, Protestant, pacifism, militarism. E.g., , , . Can a coherent article be constructed around a theoretical (and, for reasons enumerated before, it should be largely theoretical) discussion of this topic? Could be. If we retitle this, possibly merge with Christian terrorism and cut off any revamped version prior to "Acts of violence by Christians", then we may have the seeds of something worth salvaging. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some observations: (1) The editor who started this article did so with the note: "New article like Anti-Christian violence in India, Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka, September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore, 2005 Indonesian beheadings of Christian girls."  There is, however, a significant difference between Christian violence and the articles Mr. Tyson refers to.  Christian violence contains a collect of information including biographies, accounts of specific events, and descriptions of organizations among other things; in contrast, each of the articles listed by Mr. Tyson treat situations or events limited by geography or time or both.  (2) As  another editor noted above, many of the topics treated in Christian violence already have their own article on Wikipedia.  Some topics ( Army of God (USA) for instance) are treated at greater length in this article then they are in their own articles.  Other sections cover topics (those on Billy Wright and Eric Robert Rudolph  for instance) that are already covered by major articles on Wikipedia.  There are some topics that are not covered by independent articles  (e.g. the 1988 Paris theatre burning and "Theological justifications of Christian violence") which seem to be significant enough to merit an independent article.  (3) It is not clear which source or sources cited in this article is/are supposed to support the grouping of these topics into one article.Fixer1234 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a pov coatrack, it's synth, it's a copyvio. Whatever's good in it is already in Christian terrorism. I actually can't believe that some editors are using the fact that the nominator is of some particular religion as a reason to vote against deletion! While they themselves proudly display "Atheist" and similar info boxes on their user pages. Well, I've got neither a "this user is of religion X" nor a "this user is an atheist with a serious insecurity complex" infobox on mine which means that I don't have a "conflict of interest" (apparently CoI doesn't apply to atheists) here. I'm actually not religious. But the article should be deleted simply because it violates several Wikipedia policies - coatrack, synth, copyvio, pov - without adding any benefit to the overall project. It should be deleted because it sucks, not because somebody somewhere is of some religion or is not of some non-religion religion.radek (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite as Biruitorul suggests. The current article is   unacceptable: greatly over-emphasizes Catholic violence against Protestants in Ireland. The secondary emphasis seems to be the KKK,  probably not an example of specificially christian violence. DGG (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on the grounds that the topic is overbroad, and that, therefore, any actual article content is going to be selective, incomplete, and probably POV. Christianity is a movement spanning 2000 years, hundreds of countries, and billions of people.  For approximately 1000 years of European history, both sides of any conflict routinely proclaimed themselves the defenders of Christianity.  Where do we stop with what we define as "Christian violence"?  I don't see any particularly good way.  E.g. was World War II an example of "Christian violence"?  From the Allied side, arguably yes: all of the major denominations in the US and the UK supported it, they sent chaplains to accompany armies into battle, etc.  (And yet, the article, in its current form, cites the Aryan Nation as an example of "Christian violence" - if we accept the fact that "Christian violence" exists, why would we possibly say that the Aryan Nation is a better representative of "Christian violence" than the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II?  I think this illustrates the impossibility of addressing this topic in a POV way, which is why I think the article shouldn't exist.)  My general impression is that someone recently read Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and felt to need to push the "Christianity = violence" meme on Wikipedia.  And, as I think almost everyone would agree, even if Wikipedia were to have a page on "Christian violence", the article in its current form is awful.  Heck, I doubt even the Hitchens-Dawkins crowd would be happy with an article that neglected the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the European wars of religion.  And the article as is is riddled with some of the most NPOV crap I can imagine: e.g. that the Ku Klux Klan was "strongly influenced" by Christian Reconstructionism, a minor movement within American Reformed theology in the 1970s, which didn't exist until decades after the heyday of the Klan. Adam_sk (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sacagawea! No one here, and nothing in the article, is suggesting that perpetrators of violence who are Christian are 'representative' of Christianity, merely that they perpetrate violence, and that they are Christian. See my reply to Niteshift: I welcome the addition of a section that introduces Christians who oppose violence such as "the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II". Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that "the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II" opposed violence - quite the opposite, they pretty much all supported armed opposition to fascism. My point is rather that "Christian violence" is an overly broad topic and that any treatment of the topic that encompasses less than the vast majority of western civilization over the past 1500-2000 years is going to be POV insofar as it singles out specific examples of "Christian violence" while passing over others.  Adam_sk (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but split. There is a lot of referenced information in the article.  Deletion risks giving the impression of systemic bias against "christian negative" articles within WP, and would mean throwing away a lot of referenced information.  Far better to have an overview article about the concept and have all of the substantive content on specific events and places arranged into a series of suitable articles.  Obviously, many of these articles already exist, so much of the content here needs to be sorted and moved, with duplication being deleted.  --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very few of the sources actually cover Christian violence as such, but rather cover instances in which Christians have been violent. The bulk of this article violates WP:SYNTH. There could plausibly be a neutral, encyclopedic article written on this subject, but it needs to be much better defined than in the present article, and its core material must be based on sources that cover Christian violence as such. If such an article were to be created, Christianity and violence would be a better, less POVish title. Nick Graves (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who favors keeping, I want to agree, in part, that renaming to "Christianity and violence" would be a big improvement over the present title. Good point! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is a classic example of original research via synthesis. If it's kept, I look forward to similar articles on Muslim violence, Jewish violence, Atheist violence, and so on. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.
 * As pointed out above, Wikipedia already has Islam and domestic violence - so there is no prohibition (coatrack or otherwise) on writing about a particular religion and violence. It is a valid topic.
 * No Merge with Christian Terrorism - because violence is not the same thing as terrorism. Josh Keen (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:SYN, although some of the content of this article may be useful in other articles. Majoreditor (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The story thus far:
 * Biruitorul: "no one has connected these topics before"
 * (-A-): that's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
 * Biruitorul: I meant WP:SYNTH
 * (-A-): evidence it isn't synth
 * Clay Collier: (inverting the argument again) "what source has actually asserted such a connection?"
 * I offer the following book as an example of how such examples are connected in scholarly works: Terror in the Mind of God By Mark Juergensmeyer. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the consideration of violence that uses a Judeo-Christian perspective to discuss multiple cases of Christian and other religions' violence, and possible solutions: Between Eden and Armageddon, by Marc Gopin. Anarchangel (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you ignore that fact that just because someone has written about the topic, trying to combine all the possible angles to show a POV is SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Textbook projection. You may peddle your conspiracy theories as you please, Shifty, but I ain't buyin'. You only get about four chances with me to keep credibility, and you have entirely blown your allowance. We won't be conversing again. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, thank you for throwing AGF out the window. That last response had zero to do with the discussion about the article and was solely a commentary on me. Second, I don't have a conspiracy theory to peddle. Since you appear to be intelligent enough to read, I will have to presume that you just didn't bother. I've said, more than once, that this one article would be better suited by a couple of more focused articles. What sane person would think that suggestion is somehow a conspiracy theory or an attempt to supress the information? I've made no attempt to supress the info or claimed any conspiracy. I've simply stated, all along, that this article tries to cover too many things at once and that it has a POV issue. Even some of those voting keep recognize the POV issue. But where you arrive at this "conspiracy theory" bull is beyond me. And don't think I'm going to lose a seconds sleep over the fact that you have conjured up some weird allegation in your head and no longer find me credible. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes- I'm not denying that authors have analyzed the connection between religion (and specifically Christianity) and violence, or that they may select specific examples in the course of doing so. I want to know what the criteria is for inclusion/exclusion in this particular article.  Something like the Juergensmeyer book lined above selects specific incidents from the history of religious violence in order to support the author's thesis.  There's an analytic perspective that determines what is included, and how the evidence is discussed.  What is the connection among the various topics that are being discussed in this article?  Is there any unambiguous definition from a reliable source that tells us what is or isn't 'Christian Violence' and what should be included under that topic?  Does it include intra-religious violence?  Should it only include violence that is aimed at forcing compliance with an interpretation of Christian doctrine (such as anti-abortion violence)?  Is any notable act of violence committed by someone professing Christianity to be included?  Is a geopolitical conflict always Christian violence if one side in the conflict identifies itself with as Christian, or is historically Christian?  I don't think there is a single standard that will settle all of these questions; thus I think the article would be better suited to being the title of a category that included specialized articles such as 'Intra-Christian Violence', 'Justifications for Violence in Christianity', etc.  --Clay Collier (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the question marks from top to bottom: Christians who commit violence. Common sense should suffice. Yes. No. Yes. Only if there is a notable influence on the course of the conflict by a notable element that is Christian in nature (if a political leader were to use a line from a religious text as an argument for war, it might be worth a line. The leader's denomination wouldn't be, nor that of any number of troops.) Ideally I would like to see the article shift away from examples and into prose, but that entirely depends on the availability of cites. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The extent of this discussion should make it clear that 'common sense' doesn't suffice. To me, it defies common sense that someone would think that the Karen Army of God has something to do with Eric Rudolph and the Albigensian Crusade because they were all nominally Christian.  It's like saying that we should discuss Johnny Rotten and King John I in the same article because they are both named John and from England.  I'm sure they're both listed in an article on 'British Bad boys' together somewhere.  There are a lot of perfectly valid articles about the relationship between specific forms of Christianity and specific forms of violence that could be written.  This topic is just too broadly construed to provide meaningful insight.  If any Christian who commits violence is to be included, we're talking about adding in James Earl Ray and John Wilkes Booth.  For that matter, both sides in the American Civil War used Biblical language to express their perception of the morality of their cause.  --Clay Collier (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Failing careful summaries of the prevailing distinctions of groups listed in the article, links to their own articles will make it impossible to confuse one of them with another. There's nothing about a religious motivation in the James Earl Ray article; I only know of political motivations for Booth. I agree that they don't belong; I would definitely be patrolling for such inclusions. Anarchangel (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They may seem silly examples, but you stated earlier that 'violence committed by Christians'- not just people motivated to commit violent acts for reasons rooted in Christian belief- should be included in the article. The Army of God, likewise, commits violence not out of some need to champion a theological position, but in response to the ethnic and land policies of the Burmese junta.  Does this mean that you want the article to be something more like 'People or groups who believe that violence is justified by Christianity, and have acted on it?'  I see above you are also open to adding a section about Christian opposition to violence- this seems to make the article less coherent, rather than more.  I'm trying to understand what role you think this article is going to serve.  What does it explain or elucidate?  'Christians sometimes commit acts of violence' is obvious and not really in need of an article, no?  'Some believe that Christianity justifies violence' is a little less obvious, but 'Justification of Violence in Christianity' seems a better title for that than 'Christian Violence'.  It seems like what we really have here is not a single article, but a couple of articles (some of which already exist), and a few categories such as 'Christian Terrorists/Terrorist Groups', 'Christian Ethnic Militias', etc.  Should the passion and the violence of the crucifixion be included here, given their theological significance?  You say that you will patrol and keep out the groaners, but my question is this: if a new editor comes to this page, how are they to reasonably judge what would belong here?  'I'll know it when I see it' doesn't really work.  I would say the same for 'Muslim Violence', 'Buddhist Violence', 'American Violence' or 'Ancient Roman Violence'- none of them are a single article, they are a dozen articles and a category.  --Clay Collier (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to acknowledge that you make an at least partly valid point that the "I'll know it when I see it" argument that some of us on the don't-delete side have made is a weak one. A better argument would be that inclusion requires citation of a secondary source relating the specific violence to Christianity -- and there is abundant evidence that such sources are going to exist. On the other hand, if we apply your argument for deletion, that a page should be deleted if there is a significant risk that future editors will have to argue about what should or should not be included on the page, as broad WP policy, we would have to delete an awful lot of pages. It's not a reason to delete. The fact is, many of the examples you cite are silly, and can be dealt with through normal editing. As for including a section on Christian opposition to violence, particularly if we rename the page to "Christianity and violence," that would improve the page a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the 'what to include' argument- a better way for me to explain my position might be this: there are a half-dozen topics that could be discussed under the heading 'Christian Violence' because they relate the concepts of Christianity and violence in some way.  None of them perfectly fit that specific title, and most would be better served by being the topic of a different article.  If we are going to make 'Christian Violence' a summary article that links off to those more specific articles, my view is that most of the specific information (such as listings of violent Christian individuals, causes, or groups) should be moved out of here and into the appropriate article (such as 'Christian Terrorism', 'Christian Ethnic Militias', and 'Justification of Violence in Christianity') and the name changed to 'Christianity and Violence'.  At that point, I don't see what is gained by having an article rather than a category with an appropriate category page.  If we are proposing that every one of those half-dozen topics should be discussed in detail in a single article, I would say that we're steering into original synthesis by discussing what are several very loosely connected topics as though they were aspects of a single underlying phenomena, and also that such an article can't possible abide by WP:Summary Style.  The topic sentence of this article currently gives a definition of what "Christian Violence" is, without offering any justification for that definition.  Where does that definition come from?  Are there not a lot of other perfectly valid and referenced definitions for what Christian violence constitutes?  If we pick a single one or attempt to combine them, we're engaging in synthesis; if we pick all of them, we've just dumped together the contents of several articles without any rhyme or reason, and are going to run afoul of other policies as well.  --Clay Collier (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are helpful comments, thank you. I guess a big part of my concern is that deleting this page in deference to setting up a lot of smaller pages may just end up as deleting valid, sourced material, without subsequently restoring it elsewhere. We all agree, I think, that the current first sentence is inadequate. However, the section that follows it is better (not great, but better), and I think that there is no longer any factual basis for assuming that there will not be any reliable sources for organizing the page. Some are cited on the page now; more have been identified in this talk. Although editors keep raising the synthesis issue, I think that it has already been refuted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating my argument from above... the problem isn't that the topic isn't encyclopedic. The sources offered by Anarchangel suggest that it is.  The problem is that this article sets out to establish a POV and the COATRACK of examples is both POV and SYNTH.  Unless the POV problem is inherent in the article topic, the fix for NPOV problems is not deletion but rewriting.  If this article is kept, I will undertake to get rid of the COATRACK and to rework the initial section to be more NPOV.  If other editors can mine the sources for encyclopedic treatments of the topic, I think we could wind up with a quality article despite the awful version that we have now.  --Richard (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all the discussion has been about the focus of the article. There are some deletions and substitutions I would like to make to the article already, having read it through once. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for more, but I won't be trying to fix it up just in time for a deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially as *** Crotalus ***. Imo this is POV original research via synthesis.Springnuts (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...And some just blow their credibility allowance in one shot. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL costs nothing and ensures that all voices are heard. Springnuts (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and actually giving a reason for your acronyms costs nothing and ensures that you aren't just making enough noise that your WP:VOTE is counted. Anarchangel (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly not know why he'd mention WP:CIVIL to you? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep What to say that I haven't already? The article fills a much needed gap in our perception of Christianity. In the one article, both sides of Christianity can be shown; those that promote violence, tolerate violence, and lead to violence, and those that oppose it, refuse to accept it, and work for harmony, and peace. This article is about not having to relive the past, by learning from it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What next, Christian Body Odour? Who's going to write Atheist Violence? (I know that's not an argument). It seems to be rather POV; Even the title presupposes that the violence is caused by the people because they are Christians. "Violence by People Who Might be Christians". I like how they get the Evangelical Alliance shoe-horned in because they refuse to rule out "the use of defensive force [as] a necessary and legitimate remedy for Christians" when faced with extreme persecution - so they're including people that might be violent in the future too. Who believes that the Ugandan LRA is Christian? If kept this article is going to have lists of Serial Killers quoted as saying "I follow Jesus" because they once went to an Anglican church in which that was part of the liturgy.
 * Included for example are the "Sons of Freedom" based on a 1966 Time article (which doesn't mention them as anything more than "religious"). Wikipedia on the group the Doukhobor's says that they are "Spiritual Christians" and then goes on to say they rejected all Church ritual, reject the Bible and reject Jesus as God - pretty conclusively not Christian then. Do they just mean "violence by people who come from societal groups with an historically large proportion of Christian confessors"? Not a snappy title.
 * Then there's "God's Army" a guerrila group of Karen people in armed opposition to the Burmese government's attempts to wipe them out. The Karen according to a wikipedia cited article "since the 19th century, combined animist, Buddhist and Christian beliefs with messianic prophets linked with salvation for their followers and reference to a ‘Golden Book’ that contains all wisdom.  The Htoo twins followed this tradition with the ‘God’s Army of the Holy Mountain’ and have an almost mystical origin." The Htoo's being a couple of 9 year olds guerrilla fighters when they started "God's Army" and clearly not Christians even if they were old enough to make a mature confession of their beliefs.
 * These errors are of course fixable, but all these groups already have articles in which the information is presented in a more neutral way that needs less fixing and one that is not attempting to ascribe every war or uprising as Christian Violence simply because the Western name for a group involved includes the word God. The whole Northern Ireland troubles, that has about as much to do with religious dispute as football hooligan's rioting has to do with disagreements over the interpretation of the offside rule - why add this poor attempt at covering the highly complex issues under a title that supposes the conclusions.
 * Apologies if I've breached w-etiquette by posting this here. Pbhj (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No etiquette problems, although it's hard to take seriously the suggestion that those of us who favor revision over deletion would want a page on body odor. As you yourself admit, most of what you list is fixable by revision, which is a clear reason under policy not to delete the page. As for the POV issues of the phrase "Christian violence," please keep in mind the alternative of renaming the page "Christianity and violence." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The only way in which I can personally see this article being a reasonable addition to the encyclopedia is if it were essentially a collection of quotations or other material going into detail specifically how given Christians have in the past attempted to justify actions of that specific type accompanied with perhaps links to other articles going into greater detail regarding that point, and a few sections regarding the few times when Christians specifically as Christians have been engaged in violence. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be clear... we would, of course, want to mention Just war theory but only in summary since there is already an article on that. The value of having this article is really to talk about (1) Christian theology regarding violence ("thou shalt not murder" BUT thou art not required to lay down and let an aggressor roll over you and thus "just war" theory") followed by (2) the fact that Christians have committed violence against both Christians and non-Christians in the name of religion.  Some have even argued that Christians are a more violent lot than non-Christians.  The question then is who makes such assertions and what theories are put forth to explain this, if it is in fact true.  We would mention the Crusades and European wars of religion, once again in summary since there are article on those topics also.  Now, some may argue that there are often secular reasons (socioeconomic and political) for wars waged purportedly in the name of religion.  That's fine.  Just source the arguments and we'll have a fine NPOV article.  --Richard (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of discussion......would you differentiate between wars fought because of actual religious reasons and ones that had a bigger underlying reasons (like gain of land or wealth) and were given a religious "cover" or facade to placate those who might not otherwise buy into the war? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Richardshusr: While I can understand your statement, I think if the article were to reflect what you have said it would have to be renamed or have the qualifiers placed in the lead. I would also have to say that I myself might object to such a delimiting. I can also see how actions which are not of the broader type you seem to be thinking of might reasonably be included in the article. My own view of the article might be something along the lines of several sections formatting along these lines:
 * "Rape - Sexual activity outside of marriage is of course a violation of the ten commandments, and thus, according to Christianity, a sin. What some might call rape, and what others might call nonconsentual intercourse, within a marriage has at times been justified by Christians [if it has] on the basis of such activity being required for reproduction, because one partner, in violation of perceived views of the meaning of the marriage vows, believes that consentual intercourse has been arbitrarily limited or eliminated by the other party, in violation of those vows, or to ensure that the unwilling spouse be behaving in accord with the Biblical demand that wives do as their husbands order. Such actions have [if true] generally been considered poorly justified, although there have been rare times [specified] when they have been viewed as acceptable. [What follows is at this point pure speculation] Rape outside of marriage has at times been argued as being defensible on the basis of getting the wive of a dead sibling with child, so she has a child to support her in her old age, to prolong the life of a woman condemned to death who would otherwise be killed earlier, or, rarely, other reasons. These reasons have rarely received much support in the Christian community, [detail when they have]."
 * Other sections, similarly constructed to indicate the specific Christian beliefs and arguments to defend or condemn the main "types" of violence, however they are finally named, would be included as well. Links to other articles on the subject, as appropriate, would also be included. This would allow the article to more accurately describe the apparent subject, while at the same time probably being on of the few ways to ensure it adheres to policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that John makes some valid points about how to organize the page while revising it, which may point to some useful strategies for keeping the page in revised form. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No original research  --Poeticbent  talk  05:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.