This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.:
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)
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 !!!
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)
You mean restrict the "sens of resistance" to only include those you approve of and exclude those you don't like?
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here are the definitions for "resistance" (the relevant meaning) in a couple of dictionaries:
military or totalitarian occupation.
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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
{{POV-bit|the remaining items in this list}}
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)
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)
List: (please expand and comment)
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. -- Heptor 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)
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. -- Heptor talk 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Robin Hood 1212 19:39, 21 May 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
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.
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)
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)
What about a section for notable fictional restiance movements, for example the Bajoran or Jaffa resistance movements. -- Carterhawk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- : 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
"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)
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)
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
I have removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.:
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)
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 !!!
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)
You mean restrict the "sens of resistance" to only include those you approve of and exclude those you don't like?
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here are the definitions for "resistance" (the relevant meaning) in a couple of dictionaries:
military or totalitarian occupation.
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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
{{POV-bit|the remaining items in this list}}
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)
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)
List: (please expand and comment)
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. -- Heptor 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)
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. -- Heptor talk 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Robin Hood 1212 19:39, 21 May 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
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.
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)
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)
What about a section for notable fictional restiance movements, for example the Bajoran or Jaffa resistance movements. -- Carterhawk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- : 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
"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)
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)
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
I have removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)