Talk:Nationalist terrorism

Article for deletion. Archived discussion
Nationalist terrorism was proposed for deletion. This talk section is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This talk section is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS

Nationalist Terrorism should be deleted it is a list without attribution. Unattributed label of terrorism violates NPOV rule. --Alberuni 18:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Lost/unresolved VfD. It might be POV, but the topic is not inherently so. Keep. Cool Hand Luke  01:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The person who wrote this list was neck deep in POV. So the topic doesn't have to be POV, I agree, but fixing this article means blanking it, killing its distinctions, and then rewriting it from scratch.  To me, that's the same thing as a delete.  Geogre 04:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve perhaps merge and redir to List of terrorist groups or another page related to Wars of national liberation. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Clean-up. This article looks somewhat salvageable--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 13:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A strange hybrid of a dicdef and a list. The dicdef could profitably be merged into the article on terrorism, and the list *might* be able to stand on its own. I'm not sure. --Improv 17:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form, although it does need work. &mdash;siro &chi; o  00:07, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 16:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The NCTC page is also very well organized and offers credible sources for the information found on the page, However the page could probably use just a bit more information. A total number of agents and how much the agency uses and receives would be very helpful information if it were possible to obtain it. I also noticed that the links to pages for the past directors of the agency did not always include a picture of the director, and that just seems like something that could easily be remedied to make the page just that much better. Tyler Hulan (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

PLO
I maintain that a great deal of respectable organizations do not consider the PLO a terrorist organization; especially considering the tough policies employed in recent years by U.S. and Israeli governments with regards to refusing to negotiate with terrorists and terrorists factions. The claim that the PLO is a terrorist organization is a POV statement that is made by members of the American and Israeli right-wings. 69.139.231.149 01:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is an interesting link: . Note, the Tanzim are part of the PLO. Jayjg 01:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup. A right-wing, American military site. Very biased. 69.139.231.149 17:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DFLP and Popular Front
DFLP and Popular Front do not meet the definition for nationalist terrorism. Those organisations do not seek a seperate state for Palestinians, but a secular state encompassing both Palestine and Israel, where different religions can leave in harmony together and where no religion is discriminated in favour of another (as is currently the case). This means those groups are not nationalist in the way this article defines it. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's bullshit. Don't tell me that they're killing Jews so they can live in harmony with Jews in Israel.  Bullshit.  They want every Jew out of the Middle East.  Gerritholl, that's the most ridiculous comment I've read on Wikipedia all year. Jewbacca 10:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Currently no religion is discriminated against in Israel. More importantly, though, on what do you base your claims about the DFLP and PFLP? Jayjg 15:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is quite simply inaccurate. Israeli citizenship law makes it next to impossible for non-Jews (even those descended from occupants of present-day Israel) to immigrate.  Under Israeli law, if the spouse of a citizen is Arab and not Jewish, s/he does not obtain citizenship by virtue of marriage.  One could argue either way about the validity of such laws in a Jewish state, but (valid or no) they are transparently discriminatory.

NPOV
I maintain that a great deal of respectable organizations do not consider the PLO a terrorist organization; especially considering the tough policies employed in recent years by U.S. and Israeli governments with regards to refusing to negotiate with terrorists and terrorists factions. The PLO is recognized by the U.N. and the U.S. as the voice of the Palestinian people. The claim that the PLO is a terrorist organization is a POV statement that is made by members of the American and Israeli right-wings. 69.139.231.149 18:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The article does however say "The following are nationalist groups, which in some circles have been deemed "terrorist":", in an attempt at neutrality it says that the listed groups have been considered by people as terrorist organizations, it seems that it does not make the judgment one way or another. Garden Stater 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine
While one could make the strong argument that the PLO does not do enough as far as attempts to make peace and halt terror activities, this does not make them a terrorist organization. They changed the charter of their organization in 1993 to erase the need for the complete removal of Israel and are officially in support of a two-state solution, of co-existance. I'm not saying we put the PLO on a peace advocacy group list, but they are NOT a terrorist organization, and are recognized by the U.S. and U.N. as the official voice of the Palestinian people, unlike other shadier groups listed in this very article. President Clinton and and President Bush even more strongly have made it a national policy not to negotiate with terrorist groups- something both Presidents, as well as the government of Israel have done with the PLO. Your instance on keeping the PLO as part of this list shows a skewed, POV perception that does not belong on an unbiased reference source such as Wikipedia. 69.139.231.149 00:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This point is moot as of a while ago. The list no longer claims to be authoritative vis-a-vis who is a terrorist; rather, it's a list of some groups often called terrorist.  If you want, feel free to add another caveat, but the article seems packed with them.  nate

Nation-state
The current statement is incorrect. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine does not seek a nation-state, it seeks a multinational state. The same holds for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Either of the following changes should occur:


 * The definition should be widened to include groups seeking multinational states.
 * The groups seeking multinational states should be removed.

I did the second one and it was reverted. I will now do the first one, hoping this one does not get reverted. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 11:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The language got a bit ugly, so I added a sentence saying that some arguably nationalist groups are simply trying to make a state that affords one group rights (as opposed to their own nation-state). Got rid of "nation-state" as a qualifier, too.  nate

I.R.A. 1916-
Excuse me but that is a disgraceful statement. The Ira of today are not the same Ira of 1916, the ones who fought for the freedom of my country... who ever wrote that should have ahistory lesson if they are one in the same then so are The Army Of the Repuplic of Ireland and Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael....they were all started by Ex 1916/1922 I.R.A. men...

also the IRA existed before 1916 as the I.R.B amonst other things.... Owwmykneecap 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Final note on the IRA, the Provisional IRA which is listed as IRA on the list of nationalist terrorist groups has been removed from both US and UK lists of terrorist organizations with disarmament of the army's weapons and the move into democratic (and peaceful) actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.107.155 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty Were Not Nationalist
If the definition of nationalist terrorism is correct on this page, then the SOL were not. The British were not an occupying foreign regime, nor did they set up an "illegitimate" state on what is now the US. The SOL were Republicans (much like the IRA), but that doesn't mean they had the same nationalist agenda as the IRA. The British OCCUPY Northern Ireland. The British created the colonies in North America; there was no pre-existing nation-state on that spot. -Libertarian92


 * What about the natives who were wiped out? I also sure hope you realize the contradiction between your "libertarian" politics and the PIRA's socialist politics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.220 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You think I'm defending the PIRA? I'm just saying that they're nationalist and the Sons of Liberty weren't. You can't be nationalist when there is no nation. The British wiped out the natives and formed colonies. Last time I checked, a colony is not a country. This has nothing to do with libertarianism. -Libertarian92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.136.146 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nationalist terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507081227/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/45fc0c6e511ec0c5802564d400560ca0%21OpenDocument%26Highlight%3D0%2Cterrorists%2Cbernadotte to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/45fc0c6e511ec0c5802564d400560ca0%21OpenDocument%26Highlight%3D0%2Cterrorists%2Cbernadotte

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Nationalist terrorism → Ultranationalist terrorism – Many references attribute terrorism to ultranationalists instead of nationalists.

Jeaucques (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - ngrams, scholar , and Google News results  show a strong preference for "nationalist terrorism". estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Ditto. Terrorism brackets tend to use the overarching name for the associated ideology. That terrorism occupies the extreme fringe of a movement is a notion self-contained within the typology of terrorism. Hence it is right-wing terrorism, not far-right terrorism, and left-wing terrorism, not far-left terrorism, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment: I've added Reflist-talk to your request to prevent its references from showing up at Requested_moves. I've also removed the extra signature. – – Material  Works  12:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)