Talk:Army of God (terrorist organization)

message: This article seems to have a definite POV to me.It refers several times to the organisation as terrorists and extremists.It seems to put forth the view that they are all evil and violent and has next to nothing on what the organisation actually does.While I am not affiliated with them (nor do I condone killing)it definitely seems one-sided.Serenaacw 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a long time since the AOG people have killed anyone, and even when they did their activities definitely did not fit the dictionary definition of the word "terrorist."  But they certainly are "extremist."  I doubt that even they would argue with that.  NCdave (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: * Can someone explain how it can be a lawful organization and also a terrorist organization at the same time. It would appear that it would be one or the other. Or perhaps a lawful organization which is accused of being a terrorist. Tiggerjay 07:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They find their position lawful (taking the life of a murderer before they have the chance to murder), but the law sees them as terrorists. They would never describe themselves as terrorists. - 74.136.218.239 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Most people don't consider themselves terrorists, but they doesn't make their actions any less those of a terrorist, even if some people might happen to agree with them. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Good question.  But they did, indeed, hold a "White Rose Banquet" at least as recently as 2003; see http://www.armyofgod.com/wrbmikebray.html  NCdave (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Any practical definition of the word will refer to the AoG as terrorist. They are capable of holding such a banquet because the powers that be did not contradict them. They are terrorist, they just happen to have a government mandate. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawful terrorist??? 

message: What are the most common denominations of this religious group? Fulcher (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  denomination? 

message: There isn't one.  Why not?   I find it appalling that Christians, or anyone would find it acceptable to murder anyone regardless of their reasons.  Ok, and please do not respond with , 'how about war?'  I am not intersted in a discussion about war.  I am, in my opinion, not capable of writing a decent section on any controversy about this subject.Mylittlezach (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that it needs one, the whole article shows it is controversial. The first sentence calls it terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps some sort of mention of the many, many pro-life groups that condemn them would make clear how isolated these people are from the vast majority of the pro-life movement? The AoG apparently lists a number of them on their own site. Or would it be better to call the section "pro-life condemnations"? Not including those condemnations leaves the wrong impression that these terrorist methods are on the edge of acceptability in the pro-life movement. They are not. TMLutas (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth mentioning, but also that we should strive to keep such criticism to that mentioned in reliable secondary sources, ie. an anti-abortion group posting a criticism on their website is not enough. That way, we can do a better job of ensuring due weight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I appreciate the recent effort to expand the article by Ds466438, but I had to revert it for these reasons:
# Overreliance on unreliable or otherwise improper sources. Among them: Altum's article, which is cited for a number of statements, is an undergraduate work, which we do not accept. First Monday, which is likewise cited multiple times, claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, but a look at their website doesn't substantiate this claim. History Commons is user-generated. (You may be able to look at the sources these writers used; if those sources are reliable, you could read those and use them instead.)
# Copyvio. The entire "Key Players" section appeared to be lifted wholesale from the cited source. Do not do this.
There were also other issues (mostly poor organization/wikification), but these are the ones that really required a revert. If you can find reliable sources and use your own words, the article could benefit from the expansion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of recent expansion 

message: Shelley Shannon is not an assassin. Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons. Yes, Shelley Shannon did attempt to murder George Tiller by shooting his both arms. Abortion is a extremelly controversial subject and articles related to abortion such as this one should be written with extra care not to convey emotions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, articles should be factual. This article betrays the author's pro-abortion position when it should be totally neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.10.218 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassin 

message: I thought I'd watch this documentary and put some info about it in here? Anyone object? Cap020570 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that'd be great. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Soldiers in the Army of God' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Army of God (United States). 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:
*Added  tag to https://thetribonline.net/news/print_story.php?story_id=2757
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116215628/http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted the recent edit because I was able to add a citation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert