text:
Talk:Resistance movement

NZ
I'm not sure if you'd add it, but in new Zealand there was recently a Maori Resistance Movement that was disabled before any action. They feel that Europeans are an occupying force in New Zealand left from the Maori wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi "reistance movement"
I agree. In order to try to be politically neutral to those who (incorrectly) believe the Iraqi insurgency is a Palestinian or Afghan-Mijahideen like resistance, I've added the Iraqi Insurgency in a note at the bottom of the list. It is not a resistance movement in any sense of the term. The Iraqi Government was legally elected by its people in January 2005. The multinational forces in Iraq were recognized by the United Nations security council as the (first governing and later) peace keeping authority by Note resolutions 1483 and 1546. They further more do not have the popular support of a large portion of the Iraqi population - indeed, they kill far more Iraqi civilians than peacekeepers.

So stop changing it back whoever it doing it. It is factual forgery, nothing more.

The otherside may claim the government was installed just as the Germans installed governments. Certainly given it had the support of an invading army it's more factually accurate than the Sons of Liberty, Joan of Arc or the IRA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I presume this is a response to my message left at User talk:24.34.48.193, which means you (User:StrifeZ) are the same as User:24.34.48.193. Did you not look at the policy page I directed you to? What you're doing here is POV; Wikipedia should not attempt to define which resistance movements are "legitimate". Read this article yourself; the generally accepted definition fits the Iraqi insurgency very well. Whether or not you think they're working towards the best interests of the populace is irrelevent. They're resisting the government; it does not matter who says that government is "legal". I can tell from your edits to the insurgency article that you wish to discredit the movement. Do you not see that you're editorializing the article? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should also be aware of the Three revert rule, which you are close to breaking. -- Hadal 02:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If resisting the government is the sole grounds for defining a "resistance movement", then the post World War II list is pathetically short, and would likley have to include the hundreds of "resistance movements" that have sprung up in Western Nations since then. How can there be a "movement" unless it is supported by a substantial portion of the population (as in, more than just a few thousand people)? The truth is that this article seems to be confusing "resistance movement" with ongoing insurgencies and guerilla wars. It includes the ANC, but what about Ghandi and India after World War II? That is practically the text book definition of resistance movement. My efforts are not to editorialize. It is to try to present an intellectually honest assement of "what is a resistance movement". It seems here, that the list presented are are largley violent in nature, when those are likley the minority of all the resistance movements since World War II. The Iraqi insurgency is an example of a unconventional fight, but being made up of only 5000-20,000 members, with perhaps as many as 300,000 sympathizers out of a country of 24 million, it is very difficult to be intellectually honest in calling this a "resistance movement" in the way the ANC was in South Africa or Solidarity was in Poland. Regardless, this article presents very sloppy handling of something that is very complex. I mean, how can someone have "Resistance movement" and not have Solidarity as exhibit A? I'll refrain on changing it until I hear some more thoughts, but this article needs _lots_ of work to be more than simply a pamphlet-like reference on any disgruntled group that decided to change their government by picking up a gun. There is more to resistance movements than simply that narrow definition. -- StrifeZ 23:27, 26 Jun 2005 (EST)

Anyone who actually pays attention knows that besides Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq the insurgency is comprised of many different groups with competing ideologies from secular nationalistic forces to Islamist groups. The "Iraqi Resistance Movement" is a series of competing movements not a singular monolith. Angrynight 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a resistance movement pre-elections as the U.S (Coalition) was really a foreign invader. Post-elections it could be seen as an insurgency though. Kytok 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-WW2 resistance
None of the post-WW2 resistance movements qualify, except ANC and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Hezbollah? Chechen separatists? Yeah right. I propose removing the section and linking instead to a list of insurgencies (I haven't found a really good one, but perhaps List of civil wars?) with a note that all of these have been claimed to be resistance movements by their proponents. ObsidianOrder 23:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please expand on your logic a little? Why don't they qualify? They resist the external forces and therefore are "resistance movements". The term exists and if you don't like it don't use it, but you can't try to change it to fit your political perspective, and expect for everyone to just submit to your opinion. Beta m (talk)
 * You said it, "resist external forces" except that many of these don't, they are internal fights in which an external force helps one side (and other external forces help the other side, to be sure). PLO/Hamas - mostly carries out attacks against civilians in Israeli territory.  Iraqi insurgents - attack Iraqi government forces and civilians far more often than US or MNF troops.  Chechen separatists - lost election, tried to seize power anyway, have support of no more than 30% of the population.  FLN - maybe, but consider they killed 21,000 French and 70,000 Algerians (out of 240,000 Algerians fighting on the French side).  Mujahideen in Afghanistan - yes, until they started fighting each other. ObsidianOrder 10:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can "qualify" resistance movements; there's no agreed definition of same. Rebel, insurgent, guerilla, partisan, irregular, resistance fighter, freedom-fighter and terrorist all look pretty much the same in the field.  These labels are mostly POV.  If they're commonly referred to as resistance fighters, they can be listed.  -- A D Monroe III 13:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And can you show some evidence that any of these are "commonly referred" as resistance fighters? I don't know about "agreed definition" but there is a pretty good definition right in the article, which many of the listed post-WW2 groups do not objectively meet.  Also: if these belong, why not the Viet Cong?  Or the North Koreans?  Or the various Somali factions?  The IRA?  The Islamic rebels in the Philippines?  The Colombian FARC? What about the AUC, would you list them too right after FARC?  This is why I suggested what I did, that we should link to a list of insurgencies/rebellions/civil wars and say all of these were probably called "resistance" by their supporters.  ObsidianOrder 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Wikipedia should list them as resistance movements if they were called such, even if they don't fit the common definition, the same way as the American Civil War should be listed as a civil war, even if it isn't one according to the typical definition.  This would apply to all of them, however, not just the post-WWII ones.  "Probably" called resistance doesn't qualify.  Someone must first come up with a reference that lists resistance movements.  I'll see what I can find.  -- A D Monroe III 18:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the expression resistance movement became a common term during WWII, and that these movements are the blueprint, if you like, for the term. Subsequently earlier or later movements have since been described by the same expression. The two characteristic features of almost all the world war two movements was that At the very least, fighting against an external oppressor has got to be a feature of anything we label as a resistance movement. Naturally there's a grey area because there was often a puppet regime made up of locals (notable exceptions: WWII Poland, and occupied regions of the Soviet Union), and it depends on how "puppety" this regime is. So e.g.:
 * 1) they were against an external oppressor.
 * 2) The country, or at least region, had already been occupied by their foe.
 * Palestinian Intifada (before Palestinian Autonomy), East Timorese before independence: almost certainly
 * North Vietnamese fighting against the French, Chechnya, Iraq 2003: probably
 * Viet Cong, Iraq 2005: not so sure
 * Iraq 2006, Various rebels around the place: probably not

Also, let's not get too emotionally hung up about the issue. Saying that some movement is not a "resistance" movement doesn't suddenly imply that we think it's less worthy, just that it's of a different kind. Maybe its a "liberation" movement, etc. Deuar 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Deuar - I agree completely with your reasoning and the characteristic features you describe, although I might argue about the way you classify some specific examples ;) ObsidianOrder 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that some time has to elapse from the end of the conflict before the majority of opinion agrees on the majority of cases ;-) The best solution for now is probably to leave the post WWII list out of the actual article - as has been suggested repeatedly here I think! I'm interested to know which examples you would classify differently, though. Deuar 13:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "time has to elapse from the end of the conflict" - indeed, I couldn't agree with you more ;)  "which examples you would classify differently" - I guess I would say Intifada: not so sure, and Viet Cong and Chechya: probably not; I agree with the rest.  I'm using a combination of criteria 2 and 3 from my post "post-ww2, standards" post below - I think the main thing that makes it different from your classification is the condition that the movement should be less oppressive than the people they're fighting against.  ObsidianOrder 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's quite a lot of ambiguity about them that's for sure e.g. if I saw your classification, i'd say "that's about right" as well. (although I still marginally prefer mine ;) ). I'm of two minds about Chechnya (see "Situation in Chechnya" below), that is  i'd place their current behaviour in the "not so sure" or "probably not", but their early year or so as "probably". I tend to agree with the condition that the movement be less oppressive than the people the're fighting against -- that's the condition that always causes the most disagreement, too. Lastly, a digression: how is this related to stochastic electrodynamics??? ;) Deuar 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're both kinds of stochastic dynamics? ;) ObsidianOrder 11:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Resisters or terrorists ?
The name "terrorist" was use by german authority to describe people from the "french resistance".

What is a resistant ? What is a terrorist ? Is it relative ?

A french guy who destroy a railway consider himself as a "resistant" and is considered as a "terrorist"... so it's not possible to make a difference between this french guy a a islamist who kill people in the London's tube ? Come on !!!
 * Hey Einstein, is it possible to make a difference between an islamist who kill people in London's tube, and an anglo-saxon who killes people in dresden, hiroshima and nagazaki? Come on !!!

 * AK (Polish home army) who attacked strictly military goals (with except of few minor incidents caused by local commanders), acting under direct orders of legal Polish government, were clearly resisters, not terrorists. In French the case is tricky, since legal French government recognised German occupation. Szopen 10:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it fair to compare the US army in Irak today and the German army in Belgium in 1942 ? Ask the question is an answer. AtiN 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Both are occupiers, and both are fighting a legitimate national resistance.

 * What exactly is your point, and why have you put an NPOV flag on the page? Could you provide a summary of your difficulties with the present text, please? Palmiro 16:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My point is that this article must distinguish resistants vs criminals. Make a confusion as you do is not neutral.

 * If you make a confusion so Oussama Bin Laden must be considered as a resistant. Staline, Hilter, Musolini : a lot of people saw them as great resistants.

 * I'm sorry but IRA and al Qaeda can not be considered as resistance movement in a encyclopedic article. They are/were terrorist organisations. AtiN 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The article explains this problem in detail. I still don;t see how you fit Mother Teresa in.Palmiro 18:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This article should not only explain this problem. If this article does not restrict the sens of "resistance", I do not see why mother Teresa, Staline and bin Laden would not be considered as authentic and great "resistants" ? AtiN 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean restrict the "sens of resistance" to only include those you approve of and exclude those you don't like?

 * I agree with user AtiN's point, but not his edits which seem to be essentially trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the opposite view (somewhat successfully, I might add). That's a WP:POINT.  Let's get back to a sane article, please.  I will delete all of the entries which are there just to make a point, as well as all the entries which I think could conceivably be objectionable in AtiN's view.  Perhaps we can go from there?  AtiN: please, let's talk about what should be included first.  ObsidianOrder 02:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your help in english and for your clean up of this page.
 * My edits just confirmed the non-sens of a relative definition of "resistance". A relative definition is not a definition that fit for an encyclopedic article.
 * I agree : some people consider Hamas as a resistance organisation. Some people consider that FLN and IRA were resistance organisations. Some people consider bin Laden as a great resistant. That's true. That's the reality and I have no problem to accept it. But if bin Laden, Hamas, FLN are resistants, Aldof Hitler is a great resistant too. That's my point.
 * I agree to talk first.
 * About Tito I would have to study, and talk about, his methods during german occupation. If, as the FLN, his politic towards civilians was "your are with us or you die" I won't agree to consider he was a resistant. The probleme with Tito is that he became a dictator. The question is : was already a tyran during the german occupation ? Personnaly I don't think so. If Tito have decided, as deGaulle or Churchill to resign after the war he probably would be a great resistant. Because he became a dictator I would not say that he remains a resistant. I would say he was... In France the tomb of Pétain was still honored by de Gaulle. Not because of his collaboration with the nazi but in reason of what he did during the first world war.
 * About bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbhollah and other islamist organisations : sorry, I won't accept to say that they are resisting. They are terrorist organisations and there is no relationship between their actions, targuets, aims and the actions, targuets, aims of what I consider as "resistance movements" in a strict definition. Sorry for my level in english, I'm trying to improve. Thank you for your comprehension. AtiN 16:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are they "terrorist" organizations? Because you don't like them? Because you're in love with the people illegally occupying their land? This is a neutral encyclopedia. If you don't like it, go back to whatever neo-con shithole website you came from. anonymous contributor 69.158.138.166

 * You ask a very good question anonymous contributor 69.158.138.166. The difference between terrorists and resistants do not depend of who I like or not. It's a fact that I like American people, even if I did not approve the decision of President Bush to invade Iraq.

 * For your information I'm not a neocon and I don't what "shithole" website you refer.

 * If you seriously want to think about difference between terrorists and resistants please let me know.AtiN 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not particularly interested in this article. I came to it, as far as I can recall, because I was trying to work out where to link a mention of Italian partisans in another article I was working on, and I saw that the stuff about Lebanese resistance was lacking some info so I changed it. Then, loking closer, I saw that it had been the object of some vandalism, and that some of it was written in very bad English, so I fixed all the obvious problems. I hadn't looked at the edit history and wasn't particularly aware that there was a low-level edit war going on.

 * I'm not interested in getting involved in a row about what goes in here. I think, though, that a possible common-sense approach would be to include movements generally accepted as fighting against colonialism or foreign occupation: thus the Lebanese resistance, the Algerian FLN, the PLO, and leaving out more contentious groups such as ETA, the IRA and al-Qa'ida. Also, try to keep the question of who are terrorists and who aren't out of the question of deciding who should be listed and who shouldn't, let alone talking about legitimacy, which is a dangerous word which immediately brings POV issues on board. Hope that's helpful.

 * In any case, there is no earthly way that dictators such as Hitler, controlling regular armies, can be considered members of resistance movements. Mao and Castro may have been members of resistance movements when they were fighting guerilla warfare, they weren't by any common definition once they took power. Palmiro | Talk 16:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, I've just noticed that my name was signed (in my absence!) under the original rather childish comments in this section. My surprise was extreme. I have not encountered that before! It was probably an honest mistake, though. Anyway, I have taken the liberty to remove references to my name and nationality from your later replies since they do not apply. :-) Deuar 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my fault Deuar. Sorry about that. AtiN 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries - glad it was an honest mistake! ;-) Deuar 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't France and the Soviet Union each have a hero that killed German civilians? U have to cope with reality, even though u don't like Hezbollah and Hamas, they r still resistance movement since they r fighting foreign occupation. Robin Hood 1212 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of such Soviet, French, or allied "heroes", so they don't seem to be particularly prominent if they exist at all. Soviet, Polish, French resistance fighters in WWII went after the occupying soldiers and administration and took great care not to kill innocent civillians. They didn't go after random civillians because they actually had a plan and weren't just venting personal frustration like all these islamic terrorists. For example if the Iraqi terrorists were a real resistance they'd be killing americans instead of their own countrymen. Palestinian resistance would be killing israeli soldiers or ministers not busses of women and children. Chechen resistance would be killing Russian soldiers or Vladimir Putin, not schoolchildren. Deuar 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah didn't kill Israeli civilians. Hamas consider Israel illegimate becuz it was built on land inhabited by Arabs. Don't forget that Tel Aviv kills civilians uses state terrorism. Robin Hood 1212 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Both phrases -- resistance movement and freedom fighters -- can become contentious terms for what other observers might describe as terrorists." - articile... Just my two cents worth. I would define a terrorist whose purpose is to instill fear, and a resistance movement as those repelling invaders, and freefighters those who fight for freedom. The term "terrorists" does not seem to apply here to me, it is possiable that a group can be viewed as more then just one label above, but I also wonder if this is the legal defination.

According to | Dr. Tom O'Connor Program Manager of CJ and Homeland Security, Austin Peay State University at Ft. Campbell, KY ...

"...In contrast to other countries, the United States has no legal definition of terrorism. There is no organized body of legislation one might call the law of terrorism, and there is no inherent crime of terrorism (terrorists are charged with other offenses).  There is a long-standing legal code called Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 which is entitled "Terrorism" and attempts to define it, but it is essentially all about international terrorism and represents America's version of outlawing internecine conflict on its soil... " - Dr. Tom O'Connor (yeah improper cite I know)

Therefore there are other defination of the word, just not within the USofA, can we use a compostite from other legal sources to define this? -Wolfe 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the USA's definition of terrorism is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website...which means it should pay fair observance to every national definition of terrorism if it was to the United States. I don't think the statement of some people considering them to be terroists is unfair, as it is true that many short-sighted people who cannot see past the last 10 days do consider all freedom fighters as terroists. It has been cited as unneutral, because somebody disagrees with this point...but the point does not say "all freedom fighters are terroists", it remarks that some people consider them to be.

However, it is henceforth only fair to include that some people also believe Freedom Fighters in general to be a perfectly legitimate force (which of course, they are...as any reasonable person can see). Let's not let this topic suffer because of blind-american nationalism and pride over differing points of view.

The "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" arguement should not be dependant on whether a government supports them, after all Kosovoans do not have a government but kosovoans fighting against serbian oppression are without a doubt freedom fighters.Pfbray 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

post-ww2, standards
I've deleted the post-WW2 list. My reasons: I do not believe that there is any consistent standard under which all of those can be included. In any case, this article needs an established policy about what belongs, since almost all of the post-WW2 examples are inherently totally disputed. Possible policies include: I vote for number 3, mostly because "resistance" has a strong positive connotation, and this is the only thing that can possibly exclude some really nasty people from being on this list (to name at random - Al-Qaeda, Chechens, Taliban, ZANU, FARC, ...). In any case, please don't just revert the list, let's decide on a policy first, and then we can go through and debate items on the list one by one. ObsidianOrder 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) any self-described resistance movement (in which case we need a sourced citation for each one, and the list should be prefaced with "describe themselves as...")
 * 2) any movement which fights against an invader (in which case all domestic fights would be excluded, unless there was a significant foreign intervention on one side but not the other)
 * 3) any movement which fights against an oppressor (with the obvious corrolary that the movement itself should be considerably less oppressive in its goals and methods)

 * I think no. 2 is the easiest clear definition, and corresponds to most people's understanding of the term. The third definition, without the element in brackets, would appear to include all the ones you mention except al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and anyway what constitutes an oppressor is very difficult to nail down. The element in brackets opens up a whoel new can of worms (and by the way the Chechens would make it through all the same - what's going on in Chechnya is little reported in the English-language media but is truly horrific).
 * However, some version of the first may be the only version really feasible.
 * Do we really need any lists of resistance movements in this article, anyway? Palmiro | Talk 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I only included #2 because of completeness, I don't think it corresponds to the common usage of the term. First, it excludes a whole class of people fighting against ("resisting") internal oppression.  Second, in many cases an invader is a whole lot less oppressive than the established local power and/or has the support of a large number (possibly majority) of the local population - in which case a better description of the "resistance" is... ?  I'm not gonna cite any examples, I think you can readily come up with your own.  To use the second definition is in effect to decide everything on a technicality, namely where the bad guys come from.  Bad guys don't become less bad because they are local, and invaders are not necessarily evil and oppressive.  Also, to use the third definition without the brackets also goes completely against the spirit, since in a fight between two would-be oppressors they can both claim to be "the resistance", which is completely ridiculous.  I think any definition has to pass the "Nazi test" i.e. Nazis should absolutely and unambigously not fit under it.  Under #2 you might say that the Nazis were a "resistance movement" after the Allies invaded.  Under #3 without the brackets you might say that the Nazis were a "resistance movement" since Germany post WW1 was "oppressed".  ObsidianOrder 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Chechnya: yes, it is horrible, on both sides, but you might note that the federalists outnumber the separatists quite considerably. Are the separatists a "resistance"?  I would say hell no.  I think none of the guys I mention would make it through #3 with the brackets.  Actually, not many post-WW2 movements would - which sort of leads me to think that is the right track ;)  ObsidianOrder 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Do we need a list? I would say definitely yes, although it does not have to even try to be complete.  I would rather have only a couple of examples about which there is no doubt whatever.   You may be right in that some version of #1 may be the only thing that is unambiguous enought that it will not cause a big ongoing fight, but I would personally rather have nothing since I would find such a list both uninformative and objectionable - we should not simply propagate the unfounded claims of various thugs.  ObsidianOrder 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV list of post-WW2 "resistance" movements has reared its head again. Deleted, for the same reasons as last time - see above. The only response from before was that we should not have a list. I for one would prefer to have a list, but only if there is a policy clearly stating objective criteria for inclusion. If we have no such policy, we should not have a list either, the only result would be edit-warring and back-and-forth acusations of bias. ObsidianOrder 04:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This article sucks. It seems pretty poor of Wikipedia to have a "could not achieve consensus" notice because we can't decide if Chechens or Iraqis are resistance fighters. It seems pretty clear to me that they are; the POV way would be to list them and then remark that some people see them as insurgents or terrorists. BTW, why isn't the Viet Cong here? Andran 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not seem clear at all, actually. Please read up the entire discussion on this page, including my proposed criteria and Deuar's comments.  Chechens and Iraqis both are insurgencies against the elected governments of their countries.  If you think they fit the definition of resistance, you have to (at a minimum) start by explaining why you believe the government was not properly elected, and/or why the government is a proxy for a foreign power, and/or why the government is oppressive and the insurgents are not/would not be.  If that is not very clearly and incontrovertibly the case (as in: the Vichy French government) then these entries do not belong.  ObsidianOrder 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it must seem clear to you, just that it seems clear to me -- that's why I commented here instead of adding to the list. Insurgency is a form of resistance. A high number of people outside the US think the current Iraqi government is a puppet of the US. In the case of puppet governments, nothing is incontrovertible. The validity of Iraqi elections will be forever clouded and uncertain, I'm afraid. As it is, the current article reeks of self-censorship: we are afraid that listing Iraqi insurgents here will upset US readers. That's the only real reason why we can't reach a consensus, and it diminishes the usefulness of Wikipedia. It looks unprofessional.

 * Also, why isn't the Viet Cong here? Even by your standards, it IS incontrovertible that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of the US. I also notice in your comments above that you list FARC as a "nasty". It's not clear to the outside world that they are. I think some of you won't reach a consensus because you don't want groups you don't like being listed as "resistance movements". Andran 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you second-guess too much. For example I'm from Europe, and it never occured to me that that kind of bizzare self-censorship would occur here. Maybe on the chinese pages, or somewhere. What proportion in the english wikipedians are from the US. Maybe 60%? People who want to get upset can go read a conservative newspaper instead. Back to the topic - the recent movements sections seems to be a constant bone of contention. We could just permanently place a POV tag in that section, but i'm not sure if that's better (not sure it's worse, either). Deuar 20:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A bone of contention? You bet. But does that mean they shouldn't be mentioned? From here (Argentina, not Europe :-P) it looks as if some Wikipedians are trying very hard to find a definition of resistance movement that excludes uncomfortable modern examples. If Wikipedia had a Conservative United States Point Of View (CUSPOV?), I would understand it, but it's meant to be more universal than that... Andran 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of the US" - yes, indeed, just like the North Vietnamese was a puppet of USSR - which is actually typical for all of the supposed examples of "resistance movements" during the Cold War. To take the criteria one at a time, "the government was not properly elected" - true, "the government is a proxy for a foreign power" - partly true (there was plenty of popular support in parts of the country), and "the government is oppressive and the insurgents are not/would not be" - well, that's the catch here, since the North Vietnamese government killed close to a half-million people post-war, plus probably another half-million during their occupation of Laos and Cambodia  (although there is plenty of disagreement about the actual number, it was a lot, and certainly a hell of a lot more than the South and the US killed).  Regarding FARC - to quote from the wikipedia page, "FARC has financed itself through kidnapping ransoms, extortion, drug trafficking ... Many of their fronts have also overrun and massacred small communities in order to silence and intimidate those who do not support their activities, enlist new and underaged recruits by force ..." - yes, I'd describe that as nasty.  I don't know how you would describe that?  By the way I'm not taking sides here, I'd say the AUC is approximately equally nasty - the point is that neither of the two can reasonably be described as a resistance movement.  ObsidianOrder 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, to try to get this back on track: Andran, what is your proposed standard for inclusion? Can you please state that clearly?  ObsidianOrder 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My proposal for inclusion would be: "any group acting against a more powerful group in control of a country, with the purpose of overthrowing it." I'd even agree to restrict it to violent groups (not sure about Ghandi... was that a resistance movement?). Note that it's irrelevant whether these groups are perceived as good; even if the North Vietnamese murdered thousands of people once in power, the Viet Cong were still conducting an act of resistance against outside intervention. Then again, I'm not sure I agree with Western propaganda about the North Vietnam ;-) As for the FARC, I never said they were a resistance movement, just that you are repeating the standard line about their alleged nastiness and drug-trafficking. The Colombian government claims they do -- they claim they don't. Who do you believe? (They do smell fishy to me, if you ask me, but probably for different reasons than yours) Andran 05:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your definition looks like it includes both most "armed movements" and many "political movements". The problem is it's too broad - it fails to distinguish a resistance movement from other varieties like ye olde "rebel movement", "independence movement", and even "political movement" or "revolutionary movement". Well, "terrorist movement" doesn't make the cut at least, since the're not usually actually aiming to overthrow the guys in power. In particular there should be something that distinguishes resistance from rebels and independence fighters, since in popular usage they're usually referred to by those other names (barring supporters, of course:). Deuar 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As an additional proposal, I support the idea that we could just list every controversial post-ww2 resistance movement and stick a POV tag there (or a "disputed" tag, whatever is suitable). It would still be more professional than the current notice. Andran 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

quick detour to the dictionary
Here are the definitions for "resistance" (the relevant meaning) in a couple of dictionaries:

military or totalitarian occupation.
 * (American Heritage) resistance, n. 3. often Resistance An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under

 * (Merriam-Webster) resistance, n. 5 often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators

They differ a lot from the one in the article: "A resistance movement is a non-military group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country. The term can also refer to any organized effort by supporters of a common goal against a constituted authority. ". The specific points of difference are:
 * 1) per MW it has to be a "conquered" country, not merely occupied
 * 2) per AH it has to have "liberation" as the goal, and not (for example) imposing a different totalitarian rule
 * 3) it doesn't have to be "non-military", merely "underground" i.e. clandestine
 * 4) the term cannot refer to "any organized effort ... against a constituted authority", only against "totalitarian"

Does anyone have different definitions? If not, can we please change the definition to be closer to the dictionary version(s)? ObsidianOrder 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberation is relative. Freedom from occupation by another nation is a kind of liberty whether or not it is replaced by totalitarian home rule. Totalitarians are idealists, ask them if they are "liberating". The fact is all the dictionaries in the world will not change the fact that history is written by the victors. To try and separate "liberators" from "totalitarians" is opinion and POV at best without the benefit of hindsight. If Hitler succeeded in his mission we wouldn't be calling him a totalitarian now would we? I think any definition for "resistance movement" should be ideologically secular (i.e. should not include vague concepts such as "liberation"). The MW def. is too exclusive, we do not see separatist movements, and come on, not all resistance movements are "underground", Ghandi's movement was certainly above-ground. I see no reason for us to seek out a dictionary definition. As a language student one finds out that dictionaries give close approximations to what words mean at best and their only credibility is simply the fact that they have the word "dictionary" slapped across the front. Not to say they are useless or unscholarly, but the meanings and connotations of words change frequently. Some definitions are best left to historians not language scholars. I see nothing wrong with a unique definition. Angrynight 18:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Angrynight - that's a fine explanation indeed for why we should just make up whatever random crap we feel like. Dictionaries are authoritative sources: you can propose a different definition based on a another authoritative source such as a scholarly publication, monograph or entry in another encyclopedia, but most certainly not just because you feel the dictionary is in error. ObsidianOrder 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Obsidian and agree with Angrynight. Dictionaries aren't the best sources of support for this kind of debates. Some people (like me) believe a resistance movement is any kind of political/social movement against those in power, regardless of its tactics (violent or peaceful), its legitimacy (most people support it or few do) or visibility (underground or open confrontation). There can be resistance movements against legitimate democratic governments; you don't have to accept that, say, Iraq's government is illegitimate in order to grant Iraqi insurgence a resistance status. In fact, there are some dictionaries that come close of my definition: WordNet from Princeton University gives us "Resistance: 10: group action in opposition to those in power". If you add a political context to it (because I'd agree that bank robbers resisting a police raid isn't a resistance movement), then that is what I and many others believe. Andran 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Andran - wordnet is not a dictionary ;) If you read the project description [] it was only ever intended as a tool for  research into linguistics, and it is a lot closer to a thesaurus, and not a particularly accurate one at that.  It certainly doesn't claim to be an authoritative source of definitions.  You say "Some people (like me) believe a resistance movement is any kind of political/social movement against those in power" - you may believe that, but that is simply not what the words mean to everyone else.  I think you'll find almost everyone who uses the term is using it to describe what they consider to be a liberation movement, specifically one against a foreign invader, and not just "any movement against those in power".  I don't think this is true only in English, either - for example Spanish wikipedia says quite specifically "acción de oponerse, en los países invadidos, los naturales del lugar a las fuerzas de ocupación." and German and French wikipedias say essentially the exact same thing.    All the real dictionaries say so as well in some form (although I'd certainly like more examples than just MW and AH).  Actually I'd be pretty interested to see what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about this, I have usually found it to be among the best.  I don't have a copy handy, but I'll look it up next time I'm at the library ;)  ObsidianOrder 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about the WordNet thingy! I thought it was a traditional dictionary; in any case, Wikipedia considers WordNet a dictionary, and the definition I found lies beyond the guidelines you are proposing. I wouldn't assume everyone agrees with you on "what the words mean", otherwise this wouldn't be a "bone of contention" as it turned out to be, would it? ;-) The problem here is that it is sometimes difficult to demarcate what exactly is to be "fighting against a foreign power". To me, fighting against a puppet government is *really* fighting against a foreign power, and mine isn't just a fringe opinion. This would qualify both the Viet Cong guerrillas and the Iraqi insurgents as resistance movements. Note that I agree this is a difficult issue, likely to offend political sensibilities, but including the list and mentioning that it is a highly debated issue would be in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV. Can't you see that leaving the list out is, in itself, a POV? Andran 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, look at Merriam-Webster's definition, which we can all agree IS a real dictionary: "an underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation." Now, it is still problematic because we are likely to disagree about what exactly is a "military occupation". For example, since the US invaded Iraq, the country is still under military occupation and the insurgents claim they seek to liberate the country, how does this situation not fit M-W's definition? Andran 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I hate to flog a dead horse, but even Wikipedia's current article on Iraqi insurgency (which I have not edited in any way) claims that "A portion of the Iraqi population, especially among the Sunni Arab minority, sees military attacks on Coalition forces as legitimate opposition to a colonial occupying power." It then goes on to claim other parts of the population do not support the insurgency, but if at least some do, it seems enough for me. Andran 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Andran - first let me say that nothing is ever pure black and white, and reasonable people may disagree in their interpretation of the facts even when they agree about what the facts are. What I was trying to get people to do is to state clear criteria first, applying them in a specific case comes after that.  Still, if you want to talk about Iraq in particular: one, the degree to which it is self-governing has increased progressively, to the point that the US military is minimally involved with governing or administering the country, and primarily acts as a security force to help respond to attacks against the democratically elected government of Iraq - which does in fact enjoy the support of a large, I would say overwhelming, majority of the population, and which is right now responsible for making most decisions in the country.  So while it is true that Iraq was "under military occupation" in 2003 for example, it is mostly not true today (but - again - not black and white).  Second, and this is a very big issue, what exactly are the people who are attacking the government and US forces actually fighting for?  I think it would be extremely difficult to support describing that as "national liberation": by all evidence, half of them would like to impose a religious dictatorship, and the other half would like to restore the rule by a small ethnic minority (or both actually - they're not mutually exclusive).  And - yes, it is true that many in the Sunni minority may see this as legitimate opposition, but let's not forget that Saddam's dictatorship was a government almost exclusively by the Sunni minority, and that it gave many of them considerable priviledges - let's just say they would like to see their old priviledges restored.  In short, it is pretty hard to liberate a country which has a fairly elected representative government already, wouldn't you say?  Anyway, as I said earlier, I would put the insurgents from circa 2003 in the category of maybe a resistance movement (because some of them probably did believe they were fighting to liberate the country, and because the country was in fact under a foreign military government), but the insurgents from early 2006 are in the category of almost certainly not a resistance movement (because they are fighting against a legitimate local government, and because their goal is to institute a dictatorship of one kind or another in its place).   ObsidianOrder 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with ObsidianOrder on this one - we have to stand back a bit and try to asses the movement, otherwise there'll always be some people who claim any movement is a resistance (i.e. its sympathisers), even for much more blatant examples than Iraq - e.g. the IRA or Basque separatists. Iraq 2003 may be ambiguous, but Iraq 2006 doesn't look like much of a resistance at all. Deuar 13:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Situation in Chechnya
Chechen terrorist organisations are not resisting to Russian army. And the presence of russian army in a part of russian federation can not be considered as "occupation". AtiN 13:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nowadays it's pretty debatable whether they can be considered a resistance movement, I agree. I think the location of political borders is irrelevant (the attitude of the inhabbitants is what matters), but repeated attacks on civillians would disqualify a movement from the "resistance" tag. However, in the first year or two after the Russian occupation (or re-occupation, if you like) of Grozny the Chechen rebels attacked almost purely military targets. So they would have been a resistance movement up to say about 2001-2002, but maybe not anymore. Deuar 13:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you when you say that "the location of political borders is irrelevant". For exemple Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom : the presence of british troops there should not be considered as "occupation". There is still terrorists in Chechenia. Like Shamil Basayev who organised, if not approved, the Beslan school siege. In both case (Northern Ireland and Chechenia the fair way to obtain independance is the political way. During the 60's and 70's people of Quebec contribute to a so call quite revolution. The terrorism of some individual from the FLQ did not decredibilize the whole sovereignist movement. The Parti Québécois win elections and orginize two referundum about this question of the sovereignty. Sovereinist in Quebec are neighter resistant nor terrorists. AtiN 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the comparison between Chechnya on the one hand and Northern Ireland / Quebec on the other is very revealing. So let me give a few comparisons
 * Presence of troops: Chechnya was de-facto independent 1991-1999, and required two full-scale wars for Russian troops to enter. This makes it highly likely that the bulk of the population did not want to rejoin Russia, and was more afraid of the return of their troops than of fighting a war (!). On the other hand, Northern Ireland, Quebec, the Basque region in Spain, etc. never had de-facto independence and did not require military action to place troops (British, Canadian, Spanish etc) there. Apart from a few pretty clear terrorists no-one was fighting those troops. That's why the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland should not be considered an occupation -- the average guy in the street does not feel strongly enough about it to consider fighting them. So again, it's the attitude of the local population that is the deciding factor.
 * Peaceful revolution: The United Kingdom, Canada, Spain are all democratic countries where you can peacefully organise movements to call for independence -- all without worrying that you will be imprisoned, killed, or your sister raped. Not so Chechnya. In that case, the only fair way to obtain independence is by a resistance movement. The same story was in occupied europe in WWII.

Having said all that, recourse to terrorism (as is the case for a variety of Chechen factions) is completely unacceptable for a respectable movement, is not the fair way to achieve independence, and in fact does the cause more harm than good. As is plainly seen. Deuar 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "This makes it highly likely that the bulk of the population did not want to rejoin Russia" - There are some salient facts about Chechnya which you may be missing, Deuar: the 1991 election resulting in Dudayev's presidency was heavily manipulated and probably had a real turnout of less than 20%; before and during the election a number of official buildings were being occupied by armed men under Dudayev's personal command; after he was "elected" and declared independence, the Chechen supreme court ruled his declaration of independence illegal; and that is what lead to the first Chechen war (well, and also Yeltsin wanting to improve his own re-election prospects with a "short victorious war"). The federalists have won by a significant margin over the separatists in every election since then, and while those elections may have had their share of problems as well, they were certainly a hell of a lot more representative.  (see also: History of Chechnya). ObsidianOrder 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is certainly true, and Dudayev was no champion of democracy, and the independent Chechnya was plagued by serious internal problems --- as pointed out in the Chechnya article. While i'm aware of this, it's also clear that tens of thousands of Chechnyans (at least) died fighting against the Russian army, but not against Dudayev or his successors. So, clearly, taking the actions of Chechnyans as a measure of what they wanted and were convinvced about (seems fairly reasonable), many more seem to have wanted independence. I'm not sure what you mean by "every election since then", since I count only the "steered" democracy pseudo-election organised recently by the Russians. This was manipulated no less than the 1991 one.Deuar 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "tens of thousands of Chechnyans died fighting against the Russian army, but not against Dudayev or his successors" - the guys who are willing to engage in guerilla war or terrorism are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population, and you can't assume anything about the wishes of the population from the fact that the guerillas seem to all be from one side (for one, there's a certain connection with religious fanaticism there). Tens of thousands have died in the fighting if you include uninvolved civilians, but I rather doubt there has ever been as much as ten thousand Chechen separatists under arms.  I submit to you that if this was truly a popular movement, the Russians wouldn't have the ghost of a chance of against it (see: Afghanistan).  "manipulated no less than the 1991 one" - there are certainly plenty of allegations, but I don't think we'll ever know that, at least until the next elections - most likely there was a number of behind the scenes deals between people in the running and the Russian government that caused some people to withdraw, but I just don't know what level of fraud there was beyond that.  Even if it was an equally manipulated election, the guys so "elected" have an equally good claim (i.e.: none) but that still doesn't make the other guys a "resistance".   Anyway, for the purposes of the list the question is "is this a good, clear-cut example of something we can call a resistance movement" and the answer in this case, I think you'd agree, is no. ObsidianOrder 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I should make it clear what I mean again. I don't think the rebels in Chechnya unambiguously qualify as a resistance movement now - they appear to have debased their cause by engaging in terrorism. However, in the year or so between the occupation of their country, and the start of Shamil Basayev's terrorist campaign they seemed to me to be a pretty clear resistance movement. Much clearer than FARC or the Viet Cong (who never had a big following in e.g. the cities of South Vietnam, I think), for example. Not anymore. I'm sure resisters are never a representative sample - e.g. there is always some part of the population that supports puppet governments etc. Comparing to Afghanistan, the Russian army controlled the major cities, but not the mountains - a similar situation to Chechnya now, with perhaps some difference in degree. I have the impression that when we're not talking about an invasion of an internationally recognised country, a movement only has a chance to be clearly assessed after the conflict has finished, and the dust has settled.
 * Briefly changing topic - what do you think about the idea of putting a permanent POV tag on the disputed sections, and letting some entries in. I do tend to think that having an empty section is incomplete, although the recent self-censorship allegation is ludicrous. Deuar 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we should add recent movements, and I think it could be done in a fashion that doesn't require POV tags (the bane of Wikipedia), but if the POV tag is required, so be it. As for the rest of your comment, I feel it is addressed to me: why is my allegation "ludicrous"? There is a form of self-censorship here because a) it's conducted by us Wikipedians and not by outside sources, thus being "self"-censorship, and b) it's censorship because we are removing the mention of many movements that are widely believed to be resistance movements. Of course there is no consensus: one man's terrorist is the next man's resistance fighter ;-) Andran 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sure it's "self-", but I think it's been more about keeping to things on which there is some kind of consensus, rather than keeping out any particular opinion. We'd be joyfully listing some movements, but blocking others if it was censorship. There is something to be said, though, for writing "There's no consensus, but here's some opinions:" Deuar 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people here have talked about there being a peaceful option for achieving or seeking independence. However that ignores the point that this is not always possible on the ground. For example in 1918, in the last All-Ireland UK General Election, the Old SF won 75% of the seats. The British then banned SF leading to fighting breaking out in January 1919. What is to be done in situations like this? Also what does this say about the US War of Independence? I would not call Washington a terrorist but if you start saying that taking up arms against your government is terrorism, then you are in danger of criminalising anyone who ever did this, including the founders of the US, the Republic of Ireland, and the South American countries that fought the Spanish, which I find grossly unfair. I think the Chechen situation has degenerated into terrorism over the years, but at the same time, I don't think we should assume that the Chechen rebels are a monolith and that actions by some of them equate to the general attitudes of the wider independence-movement. In a context of the backsliding on democracy in Russia, how available though is the constitutional option in seeking Chechen independence? I don't think the Russians would leave even if the Chechens voted for it, and international observers from democratic countries don't seem to have much faith in the 'elections' and 'referendum' held in Chechnya so far e.g. more soldiers than voters. For me, what separates a resistance movement from a terrorist group is the targeting of civilians. However, sometimes a government can lower itself to the same level if it also targets civilians, meaning that there is no high moral ground on either side. (Irishman)

Suggestion
A suggested resolution for the endless writing and smiting over at the Current/Post WWI section:

The classification of recent or present-day movements as resistance is ususally hotly debated. Reasons include uncertainty about the facts such as the extent of involvement of foreign powers, the support of the population, or the aims of the movement. Also, because the label resistance movement carries some nobilitation in popular usage (compared to e.g. rebel movement, underground movement, terrorist movement), opinion is often influenced by either support or disapproval of the group, its goals, methods or ideals.
 * clear resistance movement 1
 * clear resistance movement 2
 * clear resistance movement N
 * debated movement 1
 * debated movement 2
 * debated movement M

I'll put this up on the page in a day or two if there isn't major opposition :) Deuar 19:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I strongly support this! It gives the idea that this is a contested issue without withholding information. Andran 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree, let me explain why: I was in favor of having a list of recent movements if (a) we could work a clear set of criteria on talk and (b) come up with a few unambigous, non-disputed examples based on this.  Yes, I know, unreasonably optimistic, but one can hope ;)  If we can't do that, it is better to have no list at all, since clearly just about any organized fight against a local government or foreign power would like to claim the title, and thus the mantle of legitimacy that it brings (if one side is La Resistance, the other side must be the Nazis, right?).  I don't think Wikipedia should be giving space to unfounded, self-serving claims like that which are often made by people who are in fact just garden-variety thugs.  Getting back to my hopes for a non-disputed list: Tibet rebellion 1954-65, ANC in South Africa, East Timorese rebels, SPLA in Sudan?  Plus one "maybe/probably": FLN in Algeria?  Other entries from the old list like Mujahideen, Hizbollah, Contras, Viet Cong etc are very much a gray area for various reasons so I would propose not including them, and yet others are in a "probably not" category like the IRA, FARC, Baader Meinhoff, FLQ in Canada, etc etc.  However I can see that even items on my supposedly non-disputed list can be regarded as controversial by some, and so perhaps it is better to have nothing.  That said, I like Deuar's introductory text, perhaps we can have that but no list?  ObsidianOrder 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty doable. Let's have a few pretty certain movements before the POV tag, and then how about lower down the disputed ones (like in the now changed proposal above). I'm pretty sure we can come up with a few that are clearly resistance. e.g. I agree with the suggested list (what about you, Andran?), apart from not being failiar with the SPLA and FLN. There's was probably a few more pretty certain resistance movements around as well. Of course nationalists from the country that was being resisted will always be found to object to any of the above, but they can usually be easily spotted. We could also have a separate section with a list of candidate movements on this talk page, where factual comments can be made about the situation for each movement. (see below) Deuar 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if different movements are to be included, there is no excuse for not including the Lebanese resistance, which is in fact one of the few indubitably successful ones in recent decades - and let's note (because Hizbullah as much as anyone else try to obscure this) was composed not just of Hizbullah, although it was indeed Hizbullah that finally forced the departure of the occupying forces, but indeed was originally launched by the Lebanese Communist Party under George Hawi and the Communist Action Organization under Mohsen Ibrahim. I think there is no real doubt about this case. Palmiro | Talk 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Palmiro - a bit confused about which Lebanese resistance you're refering to - there are so many ;) If you mean the 2005 Cedar Revolution, or more generally Lebanon in the last decade or so, I wholeheartedly agree.  If you mean the last part of the Lebanese Civil War, 1984-90, I'm not so sure - perhaps you can expand on that a bit?  ObsidianOrder 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am quite familiar with the position in Lebanon and so tend to use the common terminology there. I mean the resistance to the Israeli occupation from 1982 til 2000, which is what the term is generally used to mean, without any ambiguity, in Lebanon. Palmiro | Talk 15:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested resistance movements
In the interest of avoiding edit wars in the list of Post-WWII resistance movements in the article, and making sense of the above discussion that's getting pretty long let's put forward arguments for and against including any particular group as resistance here. Some suggested criteria (based on the "blueprint" resistance movements from World War II) are: The last two criteria apear to not be universally accepted, and can also be hard to verify. Deuar 14:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) They were resisting an external foe (i.e. they weren't just a rebel group fighting against the government)
 * 2) The foe had conquered/dominated their country or the area in which they were resisting (i.e. they're not invading anyone else)
 * 3) They were tyring to regain independence lost, rather than gain it for the first time (i.e. not your standard separatists).
 * 4) They had the support of most, or at least a large part of, the population in the whole area where they acted (i.e. again, they're not just any old rebels).
 * 5) They were less repressive than the people they were trying to overthrow. (Well, I guess that follows from the last point)

List: (please expand and comment)
 * ANC in South Africa
 * East Timor 1974-1998
 * Tibet rebellion 1959-1965
 * Southern Sudan 1956-2005
 * FLN in Algeria 1954-1962
 * Lebanon
 * Iraqi rebels 2003
 * Chechen rebels

It is certainly not usual to call obvious terrorist organisations "resistance movements". It is a term usually used with praise, and it makes an ugly fit on people who kidnap and kill schoolchildren. Deuar, you are taking the definition to literally. Ie, Chechen terrorists are a movement, and they are resisting, but then so is the Ku Klux Klan - resisting the sell-out of the white race by the Zionist Occupation Goverment. An organisation must have very legitimate claims to justify presenting it as a resistence movement. -- H eptor  talk 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deuar - I would say the first 4 items on your list are non-controversial, the next three are somewhat iffy, and the last is just completely wrong. I agree with the stated criteria though. Even though we agree on the applicable criteria and (most of) the facts, I guess we just make a different judgement call. This is unfortunate, and I guess illustrates why people fight all the time ;) Therefore... I've changed my mind, I'd rather have no post-WW2 list.  I thought we could have a very limited list that consisted entirely of definitive examples, but I guess that is just not possible, and it would be perpetually under attack even if it was possible.  No list.  Thanks for hashing out the criteria with me though.  ObsidianOrder 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, you know I actually agree with your comments on the movements. I mostly put the movements that are further down the list in because they had been "suggested" by various people during our discussion. I mustn't have been very clear! I certainly don't agree that the Iraqi terrorists are a resistance movement (see my post higher up on the talk page). I used to think that the Chechens were a resistance for a while, but I'm more and more doubtful of this. Lebanon and FLN I don't know anything about. No list is good with me. Such a list is an edit war attractor, and bound to be unbalanced. Deuar 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support to have no post-WW2 list. Any attempt to create such list is bound to be extremely political and end up in extensive edit warring; value of information it will provide will at best be questionable. This is just not worth it. -- H eptor  talk 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with having no list of current movements, for the excellent reasons already given. -Will Beback 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Resistance and terrorist shouldn't be mutually exclusive, someone can call resistance terrorists if they are in their POV, but that shouldn't stop them from being listed as resistance, eg. Iraqi Rebels may fit definitions of both resistance and terrorist and could be listed here as resistance. "Terrorist" confuses the issue and often has some bias behind it. raptor 12:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I will add current movements to the list
Robin Hood 1212 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't. See discussion above. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It really should have a post-war list, someone just leaving it out is just appeasing the idiots who cripple wikipedia's usefulness with their political bias. - Elmo

 * It really shouldn't have a post-war list, adding it is just appeasing the thugs who would describe themselves as the resistance for propaganda reasons. But the real reason is, as discussed extensively above, that it is effectively impossible to come up with reasonable criteria that can be applied in a neutral way.  ObsidianOrder 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Resistance vs. Insurgency
I think a lot of confusion and conflict could be resolved by adding a section to the article that describes the military delineation of these two terms. I would suggest the following section be added.

 * Government Definition

 * According to Joint Publication 1-02, The United States Department of Defense defines a resistance movement as: An organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability.

 * In strict military terminology, a resistance is simply that. It resists a government or occupying power's policies. This may be though violent or non-violent means.  It must be noted that a resistance is specifically limited to changing the nature of current power, not to overthow it. The correct military term for removing or overthowing a goverment is an insurgency.

This will assist in catagorizing the groups in Iraq as either resistance or insurgent groups. One seeks the limited objective to change the Iraqi government or U.S. occupation, the other seeks to overthow it.

An Iraqi organization can be labeled as an insurgent (to overthrow the Maliki administration) at the same time be labeled as a resistance organization (to change U.S. policy). However, in strict military terminology, an organization that fights only U.S. forces in Iraq are not insurgents, unless thier ultimate goal is the overthow of the government of the United States here in America. --Uwops 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * These people in this discussion are confusing a lot of terms. They are using resistance as a noun in one sentance, then as an adjetive in another.  There is the same problem with terrorist.  A resistance movement is a noun.  They resist (a verb).  In thier resistance, they could do terrorist (adj) activites.  If they conduct predominately terrorist (adj) activities, they are classified as terrorists (noun).

 * The Iraqi resistance movement is comprised of a large number of separate organizations. This is historically true with almost all resistance movements.  Some of these organizations conduct operations mostly against military targets (insurgents), and some primarily against civilian targets (terrorist).

 * Bottom line, you can have a resistance movement that engages in terroist activites to meet its goals. --Angncon 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Resistance Movement = A Movement That Resists
A resistance movement is a movement that resists. Why is there so much controvery here? This resistance can be legal or illegal. It can be big or small. ALL soverign nations have some sort of resistance movement within their borders; the U.S. included. ALL forms of authority have some type of resistance.

This is not rocket science. The Iraqi resistance movement is just that, a movement that is resisting either the new Iraqi government, the United States or both. Iraq is ALWAYS going to have a resistance movement; everyone does. This article is not about an insurgency, a revolution, a civil war, or a war of movement. It's about a resistance movement, like the weather underground, the Black Panther Party (BPP) or the ACLU. It can use means that are illegal, legal or a combination of both to resist a government.--Angncon 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Restiance Movements?
What about a section for notable fictional restiance movements, for example the Bajoran or Jaffa resistance movements. --Carterhawk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting--or maybe a disambiguation between fictional and real resistance movements...? There are some fictional resistance movements that have inspired the actions of real events, and literary examples of resistance have been used in real world speeches/comparisons. TeamZissou 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "literary examples of resistance have been used in real world speeches/comparisons." <--This brings Reagan's references to the Rebel Alliance of Star Wars to mind. I agree that a "fiction resistance movements" article (with a link-to on this page) would be a good idea.  --DOHC Holiday 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Like the Bajoran one Kira was in? Luna''keet'' (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah a resistance movement?????
+ ==Hezbollah a resistance movement== - : Hezbollah a resistance movement????? You have to be kidding me! They are a terrorist group. The same goes for the Iraqi insurgency.WacoJacko (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC

 * Anon user 78.12.74.62 had replaced my comment with:

"Hezbollah too are a Resistance Movement, against Israeli terror. They're very patriotic and should be put on the list of Freedom Fighters. I like them very much!"

Anon user 78.12.74.62 is a repeat vandal.WacoJacko (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * They are resisting the Israeli occupation, so its a resistance. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest the Underground resistance movement article be merged here. It is only a stub, and not a very informative stub at that, so there is no reason to keep it separate, especially considering how little information this article actually provides. Thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Underground resistance movement has little to no useful information. HaItsNotOver (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I also think that its too little and too alike to this article that it be merged. Cyborg999 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg999 (talk • contribs)
 * Hearing no opposition, and with two votes in support, I think we should proceed with the merge. After all, it has been almost two months. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why no disambiguation page?
Hello,

I´m wondering why there isn´t a disambiguation page for this? It immediately redirects to "Resistance movement" without giving anyone a chance to click to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Resistance". Actually there seem to be two pages with the same url? If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Banks_(musician) and click on "underground resistance" from there, you will get the "underground resistance" I´m talking about. I have no idea how to make such a page, but I´d think it would be a relevant addition... C Harris
 * Hello, while I can appreciate what you are asking, the plain truth is that a dab page for two terms would not be a good use of resources. If someone is looking for "underground resistance" it is less likely that they are looking for the record label than for an article about the armed resistance movement.  If you type in Underground Resistance, with the proper capitalization, you will go to the correct article.  If you do not use the capitals, you come here.  A dab message, or hatnote, at the top of this article would help, though.  I will see about putting one in.  ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Large Scale Resistance in World War II?
I have removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:

 * Fascist governments are largely able to prevent civil revolt through the consistent use of violence, the utilization of paranoia to prevent the formation of enemy groups and the control of citizens by means of restricting their rights as workers. According to Walter Laqueur, “Violence has always played a central part in fascist philosophy” (50). The utilization of paranoia is arguably the most important factor in the continuation of fascist governments. Stories of children being targeted by Nazi- influenced teachers and other authority figures have been widely publicized as anti- fascist propaganda. Fascist governments have used to prevent civil revolt is by means of controlling their citizens through their jobs. This method was put into practice in both Italy and Germany, though Italy was the heavier user of it. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference.” (Common characteristics of fascist movements section paragraph 29).

The tone of this paragraph is very essay-like and POV. And, though there are sources quoted, but not properly cited, this also seems like original research or synthesis of other writing. Therefore, it is not appropriate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Revolution NOT resistance
Most of the child killing death squads mentioned in the article were not "resisting", but rather creating a revolution looking to impose new alien philosophical views. Carbonarism usurped the legitimate monarchal authorities on the Italian Peninsula, with ideas derived from the French Revolution. Half of this article should be merged with paramilitary the rest with WWII "resistance" movements. There seems to be no real purpose for this article to exist and since it is a very subjective claim. It seems to be about creating a POV in favour of certain groups. An example of its relative subjectivity - was Petain's a "resistance movement"? Since he restored traditional French society and resisted all the alien innovations of the Revolution? There is no way to make this into a coherent article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

clean up
I've tried cleaning up the article's examples to focus on resistance rather than revolutionary groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.152.9 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for using the talkpage to explain why you removed such much content. In your edit summary you wrote: "I've removed all the ones that don't match the definition of resistance groups, as they are revolutionary, reactionary or political groups rather than resisting a foreign invasion." Currently, the article seems to suggest that it is actually about "groups resisting a foreign invasion" such as Irish Republican Army. This is why I reverted you first three edits but not the following ones. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But the IRA wasn't resisting a foreign invasion it was a nationalist political group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.152.9 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this being defined?
It seems to me the categorization of groups as "resistance movements" or not is highly arbitrary. If the application of the term is dependent on a group only being in existence after the term was first used, then it seems to me this should be an etymological article and not a sociological one. For example, what makes the U.S. Continental Congress (and Continental Army, etc) *not* a resistance movement? Isn't that precisely what it was? What about the French Revolution? The article includes Jews in Ancient Judea, which seems decidedly confusing if we're not including 1700s and 1800s resistances, whether that term existed then or not (it certainly didn't in 100 AD). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Attempting to list every "resistance movement" in history certainly seems like a fool's errand. Prezbo (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Resistance movement


text:
Cliff Michelmore

Arthur Clifford Michelmore (11 December 1919 – 16 March 2016) was an English television presenter and producer.

He is best known for the BBC Television programme Tonight, which he presented from 1957 to 1965. He also hosted the BBC's television coverage of the Apollo Moon landings, the Aberfan disaster, the 1966 and 1970 UK general elections, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the investiture of Prince Charles as Prince of Wales.

He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1969.

Early life
Michelmore was born in Cowes, Isle of Wight, on 11 December 1919, youngest of six children of insurance agent and former prison officer, police constable, and groom servant (Albert) Herbert Michelmore and Ellen, daughter of labourer Richard Alford. The Michelmores had moved to the Isle of Wight in hopes of relieving his father's tuberculosis. His father died when Michelmore was two years old, and he was raised- with five siblings- by his mother in a terraced house near the Cowes boatyards until being sent to live with his sister and her husband, a farmer. His mother was unable to afford the fares to the grammar school in Newport, so he attended Cowes Secondary School on Denmark Road in Cowes, where he was head boy and captain of cricket, Loughborough College, and Leicester College of Technology and Art. He was a member of the 32nd entry of the Aircraft Apprentice Scheme at No. 1 School of Technical Training RAF which was located at RAF Halton. He was a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War and began broadcasting on British Forces Network radio.

Broadcasting career
After the war he worked for BBC Radio and television as a freelance sports commentator, then as a news reporter and as a producer of children's programmes, including All Your Own.

From 1955 to 1957 Michelmore presented the BBC TV programme Highlight, a current affairs show with a reputation for uncompromising interviews. On 18 February 1957 he became anchor for BBC Television's new topical weekday magazine show Tonight (1957 TV programme), with Fyfe Robertson,, which ran for eight years and attracted eight million viewers at its peak. This made him probably the most frequently appearing person on television at the time, and hence one of the best-known people in the UK. He was named BAFTA Television Personality of the Year in 1958. He was on air when the news of the assassination of John F. Kennedy broke in 1963. Michelmore introduced a 17-year-old David Bowie to his first television audience on Tonight in 1964. Bowie was introduced as the spokesman and founder of 'The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Long-Haired Men'. Arguably Michelmore's most poignant commentary was in October 1966 on the Aberfan disaster, where 116 children and 28 adults died after the collapse of a colliery spoil tip.

When Tonight finished in 1965, Michelmore hosted a BBC One series called 24 Hours until 1968. In 1967 he presented the UK segment of Our World, a worldwide TV broadcast that was the first to use satellite communication extensively in an attempt to "connect the whole world by television". The programme featured a performance by the Beatles of their song "All You Need Is Love". Michelmore presented coverage of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon in 1969, alongside James Burke and Patrick Moore. In the 1970s and until the demise of Southern Television in December 1981 (the ITV contractor for much of southern England), Michelmore acted as chief anchor and presenter for the evening local news programme Day by Day. When the BBC closed its Lime Grove Studios in 1991, Michelmore presented the last broadcast from Lime Grove.

After leaving full-time television work, Michelmore became head of EMI's new video division. He was a regular presenter on BBC One's Holiday programme from 1969 to 1986, and presented other shows for BBC TV, ITV and BBC Radio.

Michelmore returned to the BBC on 18 November 2007 to present a programme on the BBC Parliament channel, recalling the 1967 devaluation of the pound.

Personal life
Michelmore married a nurse during the Second World War but they divorced in 1949.

On 4 March 1950 he married Jean Metcalfe, a BBC Light Programme announcer, who presented Family Favourites in London while he was presenting the Hamburg link in the programme for the British Forces Broadcasting Service. The two did not meet face to face for six months, but after meeting they were quickly engaged and married. Michelmore called it "love at first hearing". The marriage produced a daughter, actress Jenny Michelmore, and a son, broadcaster and composer Guy Michelmore, both of whom have children.

Michelmore resided during his later life in the West Sussex village of South Harting. He died at Petersfield Hospital in Hampshire on 16 March 2016, aged 96. Paying tribute, the Director-General of the BBC, Tony Hall, said: "It's impossible to overestimate just how important a national figure he was at a time when there were just two channels... He was natural, warm, engaging - he was utterly himself and showed he was one of us." His body was buried in the graveyard of Saint Mary & Saint Gabriel Church in South Harting.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cliff Michelmore


text:
Talk:Liquid fuel

Diesel generalisation
Removed text: Diesel fuel, unlike gasoline, is only for use in diesel engines. This sweeping generalisation is not true, yachtsmen in particular use stoves that burn diesel. It is a useful fuel for any situation where the fire risk from stored fuel needs to be minimised. I'm not quite sure what the removed text was trying to say! Andrewa 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Correct removal. Diesel has a much wider range of uses than appears at first sight.  Most people are unaware that (at least in Europe) heating oil (for oil fired boilers) is actually diesel.  That it has a different name (and generally no tax) makes little difference.  In fact heating oil has a dye tracer that can dectected by the excise people should you try to use it in your diesel car or lorry (where it works faultlessly).   Lorries are routinely stopped and their fuel tested.  86.156.154.237 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol
I don't think, under alcohol, that "they combust rapidly (too rapidly for fossil fuel replacement)" is correct. Alcohols have higher ignition and flash points that hydrocarbons. Or do I not understand what is meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Ingham (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 June 2005 (UTC)

 * Please sign you posts on talk pages. Andrewa 06:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Database glitch
This edit blanked most of the page, perhaps accidentally, I've had similar glitches myself. One further edit was lost in reverting. Andrewa 06:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

change
hi just made a change to change a link so it works

where it read alcohol fuels (link) it now reads alcohol fuel (link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemodonnell (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

LNG LPG?
Liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas are liquid fuels. While it is true that they are most commonly used as gases, it is also true that gasoline is volatilized before burning. LNG and LPG deserve a mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

suggestion...
Hey, you guys'd do well to first give people a rough idea of the difference between these fuels: which one is (roughly speaking) the lighter or heavier distillation fraction, which is more volatile, why do diesel engines need different fuel and why do jet engines need "heavier" fuel etc. etc. (maybe also: what can you with these things for cleaning (household?), which one is dangerous etc.)

Actually I've been searching through Wikipedia (also the german one) and haven't found answers to these basic questions...  Sometimes it seems there's too much space in Wikipedia and so the art to say the essence is lost...

Greetings, 212.171.252.118 (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen
I have deleted the section on nitrogen as irrelevant to an article on fuel. Nitrogen does not burn. The application of nitrogen (actually liquid nitrogen) is solely relying on the expansive properties of the nitrogen as it turns to gas. In this application, the energy is not derived from the nitrogen, but is the energy absorbed to turn the liquid back to a gas. To be really pedantic, the energy required to run the engine comes from the energy used to liquify the nitrogen in the first place. It is the source of that energy which is really the fuel here. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

More examples
More examples of liquid are Water, Petroleum, Kerosene, Diesel, Gasoline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.118.46 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

JP-10
Article should mention JP-10. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuel Consumption versus Mode of Transportation.
This article or a related one could have a graphical depiction of fuel consumption versus mode of transportation. A pie chart is an obvious possibility. It would show the fraction of petroleum fuel consumed in aircraft, automobiles, ships, trains and any other significant types of vehicle. Very likely the information is published somewhere but I don't have a citation at present.

What motivates the observation? Well, a friend sent me this link. http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ It mentions sulphur and sulphur oxides. Nothing about greenhouse gases. So I wonder whether the story is deliberately cooked to give the impression that emissions from personal vehicles are insignificant. It's an important question and the pie chart or tabular data at least, would help. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liquid fuel


text:
Bolte Bridge

The Bolte Bridge is a large twin cantilever road bridge in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The Bolte Bridge carries a total of eight lanes of traffic – four lanes northbound and four lanes southbound. While officially only 490 metres in length, the actual structure appears much longer as it forms part of a 5 kilometre elevated roadway between Flemington Road and the West Gate Freeway. It spans the Yarra River and Victoria Harbour in the Docklands precinct to the west of the Melbourne CBD. It forms part of the CityLink system of toll roads that connects the Tullamarine Freeway from the northern suburbs with the West Gate Freeway and the Domain and Burnley tunnels to the Monash Freeway and the south eastern suburbs. It is named after Victoria's 38th and longest-serving Premier, Sir Henry Bolte.

Construction
The bridge was designed by architects Denton Corker Marshall and was built for head contractor Transurban by Baulderstone Hornibrook, construction taking three years from 1996 to 1999 and costing $75 million. It was named by Jeff Kennett, for former Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte because of its linking the West Gate, Monash and Tullamarine Freeways—projects commissioned or completed by the Bolte Government.

It is the largest balanced cantilever cast in situ box girder bridge in Australia. The superstructure is built as two independent bridges of variable depth, prestressed concrete box girders, separated by a 1.15 m clear gap between the structures.

The bridge features two 140 metre high silver (grey concrete) towers, situated on either side of the roadway at the midpoint of the bridge's span. These two towers are an aesthetic addition by the architects, and are not joined to the main body of the bridge. These towers are hollow, and feature access ladders to a small roof top hatch. Until locked and surrounded by water, these towers were a popular target for urban explorers. It has two main spans of 173 metres, two side spans of 72 metres with approach viaducts 430m to the south 4080 metres to the north. The bridge supports eight lanes of automobile traffic. Access is prohibited to cyclists and pedestrians.

Other bridges in Australia of similar construction are the Gateway Bridge, Brisbane and Mooney Mooney Bridge near Gosford, north of Sydney.

title: Bolte Bridge


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of chemistry

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 19:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of chemistry
Article is a substub on a non-topic. No value currently, and I see no way it could be expanded into a worthwhile article -- chemistry is a science, not a philosophy. Egomaniac 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to distinguish the philosophy of chemists from that of most other scientists. Redirect to Philosophy of science. Raven42 00:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contrived and uneeded mess. The only link to it was from Philosophy of science and I just got rid of that along with a half dozen red links to various other philosophy of ... subsciences. -Vsmith 01:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also any philosophy specific to chemistry sould be included in the chemistry article. Also any redirect should be to chemistry as well. - Vsmith 01:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Abstain. The article goes around in circles and never gets around explaining what it is about; no amount of improvement can save a seemingly bogus article. Keep.--Sn0wflake 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Jpo 02:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its possible to work up an article on this topic, and I've just rewritten it to show how. Much more might be done on these lines. --Christofurio 00:45, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not just write a philosophy section for the chemistry article instead? -Vsmith 02:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The one choice would be no more or less arbitrary than the oter. There are articles on the philosophy of mathematics as well as mathematics, on the philosophy of physics as well as of physics. There is even an article on the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, which seems to me to be a good deal more specific than chemistry! --Christofurio 04:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say this, but your version of the article makes it even more in accordance to the VfD deletion police. You aren't talking about the subject within the article, but rather you are explaining topics which, albeit related, belong to their own articles. --Sn0wflake 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is still a work in progress. When you check it again you'll see that I've added the pub. date of a book which is specifically titled The Philosophy of Chemistry, the name of its author, and two other philosophers who work in this field. If you are concerned about notability, check out this link, http://www.hyle.org/ -- --Christofurio 04:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Christofurio, I got your message regarding the edits and appreciate the attempt to clean the article up. Do you have any ideas for how to grow the article from where it currently stands?  I'll reconsider my stance if so. Egomaniac 23:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just divided it into sections distinguishing results from method, and expanded a little about why handedness is a philosophically interesting result. I think somebody else should be able to take it from here, and I've done enough to qualify it as a notable scholarly field. --Christofurio 15:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel really bad about this in the face of all the work you've done on the article, but it just still isn't doing anything for me. I'm sticking to my original Delete. Egomaniac 00:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, I fail to see how the philosophy of chemistry is vastly different to the philosophy of science, and this article doesn't do anything to inform me--nixie 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics vastly different from the philosophy of science? That's been around for two years. Has there been any effort to Vfd it? This article as it stands should give you a sense of where the philosophy of chemistry fits within the range of philosophical inquiries into the sciences. --Christofurio 15:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics is, in itself, not Wikipedia material. Not due to the content, but due to the "under construction" editor's note. If you understand about the subject, you should probably fix that before it goes to VfD. --Sn0wflake 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand almost nothing about thermal and statistical physics. Sorry. Judging from the comments on the talk page there, a couple of editors who do seem to have been knowledgeable started that project but then grew bored with it. --Christofurio 19:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Redirect to philosophy of science. Neutralitytalk 19:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Philosophy of chemistry is clearly a topic of substantial discussion and inquiry. A google search for the phrase (with quotes to yield only pages containing the words in a phrase) yields 10,500 hits.  Wikipedia has articles on topics that have 5% of that much internet presence.  If the article is currently substandard, there is clearly enough material to improve it with.  Giving that potential for the article, chemistry is an important enough discipline to give the philosophy of it it's own page, just as the other topics within philosophy of science have their own pages.

 * I'm concerned that some of the votes for deletion have not taken into account a thorough review of the abundant philosophy of chemistry material available on the web. An interesting book review of Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry by Michael Weisberg, Philosophy, Stanford University concludes "issues in philosophy of chemistry may not raise the kind of deep conceptual perplexity that the quantum mechanical measurement problem raises, and they may not be as conceptually complex as debates about optimality arguments in evolutionary biology. They are, however, essential to understanding what makes science work and progress."

 * The review also wites: "The contributors to this book are philosophers, chemists and philosopher-chemist teams (including the editors). Collaboration between philosophers and chemists is one of its most exciting features; it focuses the discussion on the application of traditional topics in philosophy of science to chemistry and on previously unexplored topics native to chemistry."

 * These directories appear to be good places to start research:

--Nectarflowed 20:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry
 * Web resource directory at the International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry
 * Philosophy of Chemistry directory at MavicaNET (Multilingual Search Catalog)
 * Philosophy of Chemistry directory
 * Keep. It makes a nice change from all the fictional fancruft!  Miss Pippa 22:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Miss Pippa and Nectar. It seems clear with our respective dissents that there is no consensus for deletion. --Christofurio 16:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Someone above said chemistry is a science, not a philosophy. Well,  science is not philosophy, either, so would that mean the philosophy of science, a major discipline, ought to be abandoned?  Specific applications of science have peculiar philosophical implications with respect to methodology and underlying assumptions.  Most philosophers of science are oriented towards physics, and, happily, a growing number are coming from chemistry and biology.  It makes perfect sense to have such an article. icut4u
 * Now, yes. Take a look at the original version to see what I was talking about when I said that, though.  And Christofurio, I apologize for taking so long to be convinced.  Keep Egomaniac 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Walter Tucker

Walter Tucker may refer to:

 * Walter R. Tucker Jr. (1924–1990), Mayor of Compton, California
 * Walter R. Tucker III (born 1957), United States Representative for California
 * Walter Tucker (Canadian politician) (1899–1990), Saskatchewan politician
 * Walter Tucker (Church of the Universe) (died 2012), established Church of the Universe

title: Walter Tucker


text:
User:Raven Conners

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, "Through thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou," I said,"art sure no craven, Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore- Tell me what thy lordy name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!"

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore." -By Edgar Allen Poe

This is but a small sample of my favorite poem by Edgar Allen Poe. The Raven was a daark and dreary poem that was written in Febuary, 1845. I would tell you more, but this is a knowledge site, and you can just search for it. Thank you for the small amount of time you spent reading this extremely boring and pitiful article abount absolutely nothing.

-Raven D. Conners

title: User:Raven Conners


text:
Black birch

Black birch is a common name for several trees, and may refer to:

 * Asian black birch, the English name for Betula dahurica, tree species native to eastern Asia
 * Black birch, a common name for Betula lenta, also known as sweet birch, tree species native to eastern North America, sometimes used to produce oil of wintergreen
 * Black birch, a common name for Betula nigra, also known as river birch, tree species native to the eastern United States

title: Black birch