This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think this statement: "In Ireland, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Loyalist Volunteer Force have assisted the British government in their conflict with the Provisional Irish Republican Army." requires a reference to a newspaper story etc.
Also, perhaps "Ireland" should read "Northern Ireland" or possibly "The North of Ireland".
Since people ignored what I wrote in the section below, I will make it clearer: "And I will now remove KKK from this page. It is not right-wing, it is just racist. I will not deny that David Duke is conservative (a disgrace at that), but what I will deny is that the organization as a whole, including Robert Byrd (take a look, he has defended it at different times, though also condemning it, what a flip-flopper), is right-wing."
In the first paragraph alone, there are tons of liberal biases! Just read it for yourself! OneGyT
First of all, what does Nazi mean? It's the freaking Socialist party. The Neo-Nazis formal party name is the National Socialist Party. What's Right Wing about that?
It's also worth remembering that laissez-faire capitalism was seen as a dead duck by many on the left and right following the 1929 stock-market crash and socialist ideas were, at the time, seen as a way forward. Hitler knew socialism was popular even among the conservative German working-class and his party reflected that.
The Nazis are considered extreme-rightwing because they were racist, nationalistic, aggressive, rejected values of mercy and humanitarianism and embraced the amoral ideas of "the will" over previous humanistic european values. It should be noted that they are little to do with the modern mainstream "right" which is has increasingly embraced centre-right and liberal-right values and increasingly rejects far-right ideas. -- Zagrebo 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, there is no evidence, nor has it EVER been alleged that Operation Rescue engaged in terrorist acts. Obstructing access to an abortion clinic with protests is not terrorism or ever protest that has ever taken place could be construed as terrorism. That should be removed because it is obviously false unless someone wants to produce something that indicates otherwise. There has never been criminal charged, and the RICO suit doesn't allege terrorism. Jbamb 14:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And I will now remove KKK from this page. It is not right-wing, it is just racist. I will not deny that David Duke is conservative (a disgrace at that), but what I will deny is that the organization as a whole, including Robert Byrd (take a look, he has defended it at different times, though also condemning it, what a flip-flopper), is right-wing. OneGyT 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please justify ProtestWarrior as a terrorist group? Using free speech is terrorism? Please.
jdh24
The reason for the rewrite is in response to the vague writing on the left-wing terrorists page. It shows clear bias against so-called "right wing terrorism," and yet left-wing terrorism of the same kind is dismissed as non-violent or not terrorism at all.
Just compare this article to the one on Left-wing terrorism! Both articles, taken together, constitute a blatant political statement about the nature of right- and left-wing; the former demonized, the latter even flattered. Come on. Either article will have to conform to the pattern of the other, that is, either we change this one making it similar to the soft condemnation of Left-Wing terrorrism or we'll have to make that other article as tough as this one on any forms of violence and on tacit condonement towards it. There has to be a real debate here so that we don't apply double standards, ever. E.Cogoy 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I reworded some parts on the Left-Wing Terrorism article in order to lessen some bias there. But the difference is still large. Please send suggestions concerning what to do here... E.Cogoy 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
just proposed this article and Left-wing terrorism for deletion. Drop a comment explaining why you agree with this or not, if you can. Xemoi 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, read the concerns of the other editors above.
Secondly, as I said, the best solution is to merge some of the less disputable content in both articles into a single, expanded Political terrorism article. As for that article being biased, there's no possible doubt that it is subreptitiously supportive of some far-leftist goals. I don't think you're the best person to independently indentify or qualify bias here, since you're an avowed Marxist. It's nothing personal, really. But we should avoid unnecessary conflict with these provocative pages, for god's sake. Besides, the very nature of the distinction of "left" and "right" is ridiculous and severely outdated in political science. Only by a political activist perversion could we really think of adding this kind of fishy stuff into an encyclopedia entry. Both pages are clearly designed to push for an agenda, and, as such, are clearly in violation of wikipedia rules. Let's make a more balanced and general description of Political Terrorism, that's it. Xemoi 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |