Talk:Phineas Priesthood

message: I just added the categories which seemed to apply ased on articles of similar nature.  if any editor wishes to delete one or more or add some, please do but state why you did so here.  thanksLisapollison 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: categories for this article

message: "It is not considered an organization, because it is not led by a governing body, there are no gatherings, and there is no membership process. One becomes a Phineas Priest by simply adopting the beliefs of the Priesthood, and acting upon those beliefs. Women are not generally permitted to become members": this seems contradictory: who is "generally not permit"ting women to become members if there is no organisation and no membership process? PamD (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: The article seems to claim the term emerges from a book published in 1990. But assasin Byron De La Beckwith was a member of the group as well. Considering he died in 2001, his infamy half a decade earlier, with his membership being described as being in the 'following years' after 1964 (in the Byron De La Beckwith article). This gives him only 11 years he could have been a phineas priest (1990-2001) which are clearly not 'in the following years' after 1964.  This seems nonsensical, and either this article or the Byron De La Beckwhich article is incorrect 121.44.225.22 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  another possible contradiction 

message: The aforementioned observation that the group lacks any governing body or organizational structure makes the assertion that it was responsible for planning violence; or indeed that it could be responsible for any collective deliberative action dubious. Though I'm not suggesting removing the culpability of 'members' for crimes/violence etc. Perhaps listing connections of the Priesthood to organizations that have been directly involved in the incidents cited would be appropriate. I think the article ought to be rewritten, removing references to the Priesthood as a group, altering content presenting it as an ideology- with adherents, rather than a 'group' - with no members or organization. 
Accwyse (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many people mistakenly believe that there is an actual organization called the Phineas Priesthood, probably because there was a group of four men in the 1990s who called themselves Phineas Priests. The men carried out bank robberies and a series of bombings in the Pacific Northwest before being sent to prison. But there is no evidence that their organization was any larger than those four individuals."
Clearly, the first line of the current article implies that the Phineas Priesthood is a "movement" when in fact it was no more than 4-6 people, all of whom are now either dead or in prison.Cadwallader (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional contradiction 

message: They obviously committed terrorist crimes, why not call them terrorists? --Ser Pouncalot (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: no sources probably. We could say x  describes them as terrorists if x meets RS, maybe. Look up well known terrorists, see how they are described. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why they are not called "terrorists"?