This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this statement: "In Ireland, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Loyalist Volunteer Force have assisted the British government in their conflict with the Provisional Irish Republican Army." requires a reference to a newspaper story etc.

Also, perhaps "Ireland" should read "Northern Ireland" or possibly "The North of Ireland".

Since people ignored what I wrote in the section below, I will make it clearer: "And I will now remove KKK from this page. It is not right-wing, it is just racist. I will not deny that David Duke is conservative (a disgrace at that), but what I will deny is that the organization as a whole, including Robert Byrd (take a look, he has defended it at different times, though also condemning it, what a flip-flopper), is right-wing."

In the first paragraph alone, there are tons of liberal biases! Just read it for yourself! OneGyT

First of all, what does Nazi mean? It's the freaking Socialist party. The Neo-Nazis formal party name is the National Socialist Party. What's Right Wing about that?

It is almost universally acknowledged that the Nazis and national socialist groups in other countries are "right-wing" rather than "left wing". If you want to insert the POV that they are leftists, please find a notable source to which that assertion. - Willmcw 04:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"First of all, what does Nazi mean? It's the freaking Socialist party. The Neo-Nazis formal party name is the National Socialist Party. What's Right Wing about that?" Common misconception. First, "socialist" means collectivist and it is not necessarily about creating social equality (Britain during wartime was arguably operating a socialist system, albeit one for fighting a war rather than levelling society) - the fascists did believe in society working together for a common aim but they were most certainly not influenced by any Marxist ideas about class conflict. Private enterprise and class distinctions remained under the Nazis, many German businesspeople were Nazi-supporters and they were not considered "socialist" in the leftwing sense at the time. There was a section of the Nazi party that found marxist economic ideas of state-ownership attractive but Hitler had them eliminated in the night of the long knives, some allege to calm the fears of his business-supporters.

It's also worth remembering that laissez-faire capitalism was seen as a dead duck by many on the left and right following the 1929 stock-market crash and socialist ideas were, at the time, seen as a way forward. Hitler knew socialism was popular even among the conservative German working-class and his party reflected that.

The Nazis are considered extreme-rightwing because they were racist, nationalistic, aggressive, rejected values of mercy and humanitarianism and embraced the amoral ideas of "the will" over previous humanistic european values. It should be noted that they are little to do with the modern mainstream "right" which is has increasingly embraced centre-right and liberal-right values and increasingly rejects far-right ideas. -- Zagrebo 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I show you their website, "25 Points on American National Socialism. Take a look at 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 25. None of those would ever be alleged by a right-wing group. The common ploy of calling all racists right-wing serves to do nothing but eliminate debate by the demonization of one's opponents. You can call it universally acknowledged, but it is universally wrong. We need not use propaganda definitions here. Right-wing is free-market, pro-individual (to the point of materialism to its detriment), anti-central government (or government in gerenal), anti-social engineering, and so forth. Racism can easily fit into EITHER camp.

Right-wing is free-market, pro-individual (to the point of materialism to its detriment), anti-central government (or government in gerenal), anti-social engineering, and so forth. Those are more centre-right values. The political centrist ideas emphasise the individual, economic freedom, democracy, human rights. -- Zagrebo 10:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, there is no evidence, nor has it EVER been alleged that Operation Rescue engaged in terrorist acts. Obstructing access to an abortion clinic with protests is not terrorism or ever protest that has ever taken place could be construed as terrorism. That should be removed because it is obviously false unless someone wants to produce something that indicates otherwise. There has never been criminal charged, and the RICO suit doesn't allege terrorism. Jbamb 14:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And I will now remove KKK from this page. It is not right-wing, it is just racist. I will not deny that David Duke is conservative (a disgrace at that), but what I will deny is that the organization as a whole, including Robert Byrd (take a look, he has defended it at different times, though also condemning it, what a flip-flopper), is right-wing. OneGyT 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please justify ProtestWarrior as a terrorist group? Using free speech is terrorism? Please.

jdh24

In no way is Protest Warrior a terrorist group.. people who continue to add this claim will be blocked from editing. However, I don't see any reason for the overly vague rewrite of the intro. If you have specific complaints about the intro, please discuss them here. Rhobite 02:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the rewrite is in response to the vague writing on the left-wing terrorists page. It shows clear bias against so-called "right wing terrorism," and yet left-wing terrorism of the same kind is dismissed as non-violent or not terrorism at all.

I think the intro to Left-wing terrorism is much too vague. No reason to muck this article up with the same kind of contentless doublespeak. The solution is to fix the text on Left-wing terrorism, not copy it here word for word. Please remember the three revert rule, also. Rhobite 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Rhobite 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just compare this article to the one on Left-wing terrorism! Both articles, taken together, constitute a blatant political statement about the nature of right- and left-wing; the former demonized, the latter even flattered. Come on. Either article will have to conform to the pattern of the other, that is, either we change this one making it similar to the soft condemnation of Left-Wing terrorrism or we'll have to make that other article as tough as this one on any forms of violence and on tacit condonement towards it. There has to be a real debate here so that we don't apply double standards, ever. E.Cogoy 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I reworded some parts on the Left-Wing Terrorism article in order to lessen some bias there. But the difference is still large. Please send suggestions concerning what to do here... E.Cogoy 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I must agree that this article and the left-wing one violate the POV standard so many times it is not even funny. But unfortunately I cannot think of much else to do. OneGyT/ T| C 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove both, both the right-wing terrorism and the left-wing terrorism pages. Both, as have been stated, are NPOV and to be honest so subjective that they're ridiculous. Hauser 07:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, though I really doubt that enough people would vote for deletion. OneGyT/ T| C 10:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

just proposed this article and Left-wing terrorism for deletion. Drop a comment explaining why you agree with this or not, if you can. Xemoi 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of the Left-wing terrorism article and i can not see the POV problems that you claim it has. If it has POV problems please raise them on the talk page and we can try and deal with them. Having just read this article it seems fine to me, though it could do with some more quotes. Only the line "In many other cases, right-wing terrorists are among the least organized" seems particlulary problematic to me. Also the article could do with stating the fact that most people who would be understood/describe themselves as right-wing reject terrorism.-- JK the unwise 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, read the concerns of the other editors above.

Secondly, as I said, the best solution is to merge some of the less disputable content in both articles into a single, expanded Political terrorism article. As for that article being biased, there's no possible doubt that it is subreptitiously supportive of some far-leftist goals. I don't think you're the best person to independently indentify or qualify bias here, since you're an avowed Marxist. It's nothing personal, really. But we should avoid unnecessary conflict with these provocative pages, for god's sake. Besides, the very nature of the distinction of "left" and "right" is ridiculous and severely outdated in political science. Only by a political activist perversion could we really think of adding this kind of fishy stuff into an encyclopedia entry. Both pages are clearly designed to push for an agenda, and, as such, are clearly in violation of wikipedia rules. Let's make a more balanced and general description of Political Terrorism, that's it. Xemoi 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have said on the left-wing terrorism talk page, I don't agree but I'm off on holiday for a week. Since I am contesting the deletion of the page you should use the deletion nomination procedure rather then the deletion prompt.-- JK the unwise 19:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.