Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenth Crusade/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth Crusade

The usage is wrong when we number the Crusades. There were two more crusades. It is used only in an highly PoV journal/blog and not too many other places. It seems pretty un-encylopediac to register every made up rhetorical device that fails to catch on to common use. Dominick 14:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (EDITED) Dominick 14:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


The idea of The Tenth Crusade is excellent because it is true. And whether it is called 'The Tenth' or 'The Final' or 'The Final Solution' (that is, to the Christian Conquest) doesn't really matter. What matters is what Christianity, now at a cross-roads in its final phases of world-domination, needs to do to develop or decline. The Christian instinct -- indeed, its policy -- is to attack! And this it is doing in a call to militancy everywhere across the Christian world.

If proof were needed for this phenomenon, one might consider the following rather coincidental matters:

1. WW11 and the role played by Christianity in the Holocaust, not just the attitude of the Papacy and other Christian countries, but the role of Christian values in Hitler's scheme of things , his early development, and that of his nearest and dearest allies;

2. The events since Hiroshima and Nagasacki and the escape of the 'culpritis' with the help of the Catholic Church;

3. The phenomena of European involvement in Vietnam;

4. The collaboration of Christian/America in Vietnam and thereafter South America -- all aggressive measures defining Christianity and OTHERS;

5. The recent involvement and instigation of the Papacy of an assault on East Timor (ostensibly to establish democracy, but also to gain entry for operative Jesuits);

6. The War on Terrorism, the scarcity of oil, the penetration of the Arabaic basin,and the re:organisation of World surveillance;

7. The spurios reasons given by the alligned Bush/Blair axis for the assault on Iraque and the accepted dogma that the Big Gun is only for Christians -- hence the tensions with Iran, Korea, and any other heretic dissidents;

8. The recent interference by the Pope in the American and German elections: in America to punish Massachussets for its treatemt of clerical paedophiles by declaring their political preference against the liberal Cathholic candidate , Kerry O Donnell , in favour of the war-monger Bush; and in Germany, by appearing during the final stages of the German election and making it known that the Turks were not welcome into Christian Europe -- thereby favouring the Christian Democrats and , incidentally, paralysing German politics. So, on the one hand the RC church directly affects matters in Germany and facilitates, at the same time, the American Crusade. That the Austrian Foreign Minister follows the Pope's lead is nothing new; for ever since the debate about Professor Buttigleone, the Pope's friend, who dislikes gays, the Vatican has used Poland, Ireland, Spain, Germany and Italy to plot the Christian front against Islam, and through the use of Opus Dei to foster greater Anglo-American connections, to facilitate the new definition of the Tenth Crusade. In this respect Tony Blair has reminded the IRA that they are , after all, Christians and not Muslims, even in their terrorism, the differential treatment, therefore, by Bush, Blair and Bertie Ahern, the Irish Taoiseach, when compared with any other world terrorists is obvious.

The above considerations , as well as the present military engagements around the world, are enough to demonstrate the growing contours of an enduring crusade. The internal logic of Christianity -- the 'teach all nations' imprimatur -- directs both the so-called and new-found desire for ecumeninism , as well as the outer desire for confrontation. Whether one calls this inevitable process the 'Tenth' or the 'Final' is a matter of indifference, except, of course, to those who deny its reality or wish to deflect from it.


Seamus Breathnach, Former Director of Criminology, DIT , DUBLIN

WWW.IRISHCRIMINOLOGY.COM (User:213.202.179.224)

    • You should read the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and shorten your comments. We can infer you vote as a keep, but mostly your comments are not contained in the original article. Thanks for your comments. Dominick 21:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore Anon above, Redirect into Alexander Cockburn and put a little blurb in there about this neologism. Karmafist 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I cannot find any evidence that Cockburn's usage of this term has spread to the general dialogue pertaining to this topic. It features on a few blogs... but that is about it. I could also support Karmafist's suggestion if there is general consensus behind it.--Isotope23 19:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per Isotope23. Oh, and someone please wake me up! Two lines into all that waffle I nodded off.... Marcus22 19:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. The current War Against Terrorism is quite different from the medieval crusades. Capitalistroadster 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. Carioca 22:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We are not commenting on the appropriateness of the term, but just document its history and usage. It may not be the most important term, but it caused a reasonable stir at the time, and I see no benefit of deletion. --Stephan Schulz 23:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism not in wide use, inherently POV article, and despite attempt of proponent above to bludgeon us into voting otherwise. MCB 06:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well written and the term is obviously in use. // Liftarn 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Cockburn as above. Xoloz 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete* as a Point of View article Anarchyforever 18:23, 30 October 2006 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.