"

WP:SYNTH
An RfC was just closed at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial?, and it is interesting to read the closing statement there, in that it reflects community consensus about some aspects of when to use or not use sources about a topic without violating WP:SYNTH.   
The concluding statement says the term ""climate change denial"" may be used if the source ""implicitly states they fall into the general group.""  It has no relevance to anything discussed here.  It certainly is not a loophole for ""synthesis"".    
I don't think anyone is looking for ""loopholes"". I'm not arguing for any kind of slavish devotion to that discussion here, just for editors to take a look, and to think about it with an open mind. I think that the closing statement makes some good points about common sense.   
There is nothing ""slavish"" about the devotion.  If most sources say the motivation of the terrorism is secular, then we cannot say it is religious and call it Christian terrorism.    
 I was saying that we don't have to follow that other page slavishly. And that other page isn't talking about situations where most sources say something is unrelated. If you are interested in what it does say, then you can read it. If you don't want to read it, then don't. Everything here does not have to be a WP:Battleground.   
As I have noted before, unless reliable sources attribute some religious motivation or aim,  I would not say Wikipedia should attribute such a motivation or aim.  If the sources ascribe motivation to irredentism, economic or other attribute and do not ascribe a religious aim, then it does not belong here.  Note the discussion just closed at Climate*.*  where the result was basically ""no consensus at all"".  Cheers.   
Not sure what you mean, but I linked to a discussion where the closer said there was a consensus. I'm not going beyond what the closing statement said there.   
The issue has come up in articles about terrorism and about ideology.  Different writers may use different terms to mean the same thing or the same terms to mean different things.  Generally, in peer-reviewed literature, the terms used are defined and we can say that one author who defines ""Christian terrorism"" as terrorism motivated by Christian belief and another who uses the term ""Christian religious terrorism"" with the same definition are referring to the same thing.  However, another author who uses the expression ""Christian terrorism"" and defines it as ethnic terrorism where religion is part of ethnic identity means the same thing as authors writing about ""religious communal terrorism"" carried out by Christians, or ""nationalist terrorism"" between different religious groups.
Can you provide a single source that should be included based on the opinion expresses in the climate change denial RfC?
  
I'm so tempted to just reply ""yes"". And I really would rather not get into a wall-of-text over things that we will soon be discussing at the mediation. But let me try to clarify why I linked to that discussion. This isn't about definitions of ""Christian terrorism"" in my view. It's about what the closing statement there said, that just because a particular word is not used explicitly in a source, does not mean that the source does not apply to a page – editors can use common sense to examine the context within the source. Thinking back to the discussions about the Lebanon section (now made somewhat moot by the Schbley source, that examines in detail the Maronite Monks), there was discussion of whether it was SYNTH to consider a United Nations source, because it used the word ""genocide"" instead of the word ""terrorism"". I'm pointing out that there is now some precedent for using common sense in evaluating the language of such sources, in context. If you or another editor sees common sense in that instance as indicating that genocide is not terrorism, that's still a discussion we can have. So that's why I provided that link. I'm not about to rewrite the Lebanon section on t