Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)/Archive discussion of move
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011). 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. |
moved there from WP:RM ObsidianOrder 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Results: Could any admin please take care of this? This has been up for discussion for 5 days, and another couple of days on the article's talk page. The votes are Support: 19, Weak Support: 2, Strongly Oppose: 1, Oppose 8, Weak Oppose: 1. I think there's sufficient consensus for this move. The destination is now a redirect to History of Iraqi insurgency but it used to have some content so the history may need to be merged. Alternately, just swap the source and destination. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 07:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Results P.S. After this was moved to the holding pen, one more person voted "Support", and two people changed their votes from "Oppose" to "Strongly Oppose". My take: If we are taking late votes, I would prefer that we do so in a way the gives everyone an equal chance to add votes or change their vote, such as a formal extension of a specified duration. I don't think such an extension is needed since there have been very few votes in the last couple of days. I don't think the "Strongly Oppose" vote changes are fair: it is clear from the comments that many people would have voted "Strongly Support" had it been understood that was an option at the time. Should we give them a chance to change their votes now? Everyone voted and made clear how they feel already, let's move on. ObsidianOrder 09:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No there was only one change. I'm not happy with this vote, I see it as systemic bias, but there's little that can be done about that. There was also no adequate response to the fact that it conflicts with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)—Christiaan 19:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reason: One, the proposed name is the most frequently used by far and so should be chosen under the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Google News shows the following number of news articles using each name: "iraqi insurgents" 3,220, "iraqi insurgency" 1,050, "iraqi resistance" 420. Two, "resistance" is POV. From a careful reading of dictionary definitions, "resistance" strongly implies a legitimate struggle against illegitimate authority, while "insurgency" weakly implies a struggle against a legitimate (or at least well-established) authority. While there is no truly neutral term, "insurgency" is the more neutral term. Some additional discussion is on the talk page. ObsidianOrder 07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rebuttal: This cannot be seen as a matter of preference over which term should be used. Both "resistance" and "insurgency" are value-neutral terms, and have nothing to do with the issue of legitimacy. The reason there is one article on the "insurgency" and another on the "resistance" in fact has nothing to do with legitimacy. Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency are separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)), should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - why switch one POV term for another? "Resistance" implies they are doing good to oppose the 'government' and "insugence" implies they are doing bad or doing nothing (it is therefore obvious why one term sees preference in Western media). Can't a truly NPOV title be found? --Boco XLVII 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I would support something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq as an NPOV solution. --Boco XLVII 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, because although "insurgency" implies a weak POV, it's certainly not nearly as strong as "resistance," which is why media organizations eschew the latter in favor of the former. A.D.H. (t&m) 08:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Support First of all, "resistance" is a POV term; "insurgency" is not. Secondly, the news media consistently uses "insurgency", so this is the more common term and the article could be moved on that grounds alone. -- Curps 08:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, after some reflection I agree that "resistance" is too POV. — Ливай | ☺ 08:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Michael Moore lost the election, so we don't have to call his Minutemen the Iraqi "resistance" ;) --Daniel11 12:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support It is clear by now that the insurgency is not a resistance group, it is an anti-democratic fundamentalist sectarian force opposing the internationally recognized Iraqi government. With al Qaeda led forces claiming credit for the great majority of the bombings and attacks, there is serious doubt whether the insurgents and suicide bombers are even Iraqis. "Insurgency" is perhaps too NPOV, suggesting little more than unconventional conflict.--Silverback 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasoning given by some above users voting support, but I agree that "insurgency" is a little less POV than "resistance", and I agree that it is the more common term in the English language. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a question of legitimacy of armed groups, that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. It is not an insurgency, because they are not targetting an established authority. Instead they are resisting the establishment of a new authority. They are Iraqi armed groups whose main targets are (1) foreign occupying troops, (2) the new forces being trained by the foreign occupying troops. These groups form therefore a resistance movement (whatever their aims beyond resisting the establishment of a new authority may or may not be), and the word insurgency is inadequate. Please note that groups targetting civilians, such as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, and whose aim is to further sectarian violence and bring about civil war, cannot be classified as being part of the Iraqi resistance. - pir 14:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There are a number of armed groups which attack a variety of targets, including military, governmental and purely civilian. Do you have any evidence that the groups which attack civilian targets operate independently of the groups which attack legitimate targets? Do you have any evidence that groups which only attack legitimate targets even exist? I think they all work together to attack all types of targets in a very fluid way; there is no operational distinction, except that each group may have different reasons. Any distinction based on excluding civilian-targetting groups such as JTJ is purely artificial. Moreover, JTJ and similar groups which you admit are not part of the "resistance" are a major topic of this article. I will write a longer reply at Talk:Iraqi_resistance, let's continue there. ObsidianOrder 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak support. Properly speaking it's probably a resistance, or a collection of resistance efforts, to an ongoing occupation. However it has become known as the insurgency through common usage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if various Canadians, Mexicans and Americans got pissed off at George W. Bush and started bombing American churches, that would be resistance? Or even insurgency? Is there an option other than support/oppose, to suggest renaming instead something like "Terrorism in Iraq"? --Daniel11 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: No Daniel11, we usually call that an unprovoked act of war by a sovereign power. And the Mexicans did that once, under Pancho Villa, burning a border town to the ground and killing like a dozen or two of the inhabitants. The American response, while not a war (since we weren't fighting Mexico, just invading Northern Mexico to follow the perpetrator), was called the Punitive Expedition. As to the Canadians...check out the Aroostook War...even though people say it was bloodless, the Lumberjacks did fight a few quasi-battles and burnt down settlements in Northern Maine. If Americans did it, it would be domestic terrorism and probably investigated by the FBI (like the racist church bombings in the South during the 1950s and 1960s). —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That was my point -- I was only asking the question rhetorically. Of course we wouldn't call the bombing of American churches by a bunch of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, any kind of a resistance or insurgency. We'd call it what it is, terrorism. Hence, why should we call al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists in Iraq a resistance or an insurgency, when they're doing the same? We shouldn't, we should call it terrorism. --Daniel11 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Questions, whether asked rhetorically or not, will most likely be answered because text is such a poor communications medium. But it is not the same, and it isn't cut-and-dry terrorism. But it's not "terrorism" per se... When the insurgents striking civilian Iraqi targets to force the Iraqi government to capitulate, it is often called "domestic terrorism" just like when the Earth Liberation Front torches car dealerships or Timothy McVeigh blew up an Oklahoma City federal building. BUT when the insurgents turn their anger toward a foreign military occupation force (I don't intend to be POV by that phrase) it is a partisan resistance or an insurgency. Terrorism is never really as organized as the Iraqi insurgency is organized, simply because you have a loose alliance of groups working collaboratively (at many steps) to get a foreign infidel military occupation to pull up its stakes, leave Iraq, and be embarassed at the loss. But in this case, as the Iraqi government is seen by the insurgents as a tool of the occupying force, and by attacking them they are by a corollary attacking the occupying force in an effort to force the hand (esp. to compel a withdrawl) of the occupying force. Just like the partisan insurgency in Italy in 1943-45, and in Germany from 1944-1945. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Iraq is not governed by a foreign infidel military occupation, no matter how the terrorists view it. 2) Terrorism isn't a matter of how organized it is, and even if it were, the terrorists in Iraq are about as organized as numerous other terrorist groups, in fact to some extent they are the same groups. The loose alliances of terrorists operating in Iraq is really no more organized than, say, Hezbollah, or Yasser Arafat's bunch, or Osama's bunch, which all performed carefully planned operations in a variety of countries. Anyway, as I say, that's all moot because terrorism's not a function of the degree of a group's organization. --Daniel11 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was speaking rhetorically about "foreign infidels" etc. just because that's the lingo the insurgents use to justify their insurgency. Terrorism is organized, I'll grant you that. But structurally, this is not terrorism...while terroristic by its tactics, it is structured and justified like the French Resistance, or the Sandinistas were structured and justified, and their tactics carried out against what they perceive as an occupying force...a formidable backlash by groups of people (some coordinated, some randomly amateur) who don't like American tanks rolling through their streets. If the Russians took over the West Coast (as seen in the movie Red Dawn), Patrick Swayze's little band of resistance fighters would be called "terrorists" by the occupying Russians, but they considered themselves a patriotic resistance. What was their organized actions agaisnt the occupiers...an insurgency (see definition [1]). But if we take your route and frankly call them "terrorists" where the seemingly neutral media (they don't call them "patriots") call it an "insurgency" is just blatantly POV and jingoistic, and not in the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Maybe the next contributor here would be some extremist anti-American Arab would like to call the insurgents "Iraqi Patriots" and the American troops as "infidel consumer whores". And that is just as POV. Terrorism is a function of its definition [2], not someone's desire to call bad guys even worse names just to satisfy a personal rage or vendetta, as is the vibe I am getting from the tone of your responses. Your desired type of rhetorical word-picking is best suited for politicized webfora like FreeRepublic.com...history is written by those who know how to step outside of personal prejudices and petty nationalism and analyze a situation equitably to all sides involved. In that case, "insurgency" is as close to neutrality and accuracy as we are going to get. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "while terroristic by its tactics," you say, before arguing that it's not terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, and it's what the Iraqi terrorists are using -- that's why they're terrorists. As I explain on the article's talk page, I'm fine with calling the enyclopedia article Insurgency or Terrorism or any number of other things, but it's foolish to deny that it's terrorism. And as for your weird speculation about my motivation and intent, I'm not sure how to answer. I'm not trying to satisfy any kind of rage or vendetta, and I don't see where you get that vibe from what I've written. If memory serves, FreeRepublic.com is a conservative website, and I'm not conservative. And as for "personal prejudices and petty nationalism," well, I don't have any personal contact with the terrorists about which to be prejudiced, and the flavor of petty nationalism where I am -- Canada -- is nothing at all like what you're thinking of. So, perhaps there's some element of projection or other psychological voodoo involved? --Daniel11 22:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The insurgency is terroristic, not terrorism...there is a difference. Similarly, the Czech Resistance's assassination of Heydrich in 1942 was "terroristic" though it is not considered "terrorism." And that difference is precisely why "Iraqi terrorism" is not an appropriate title for the article, nor the descriptor "Iraqi terrorist" appropriate for the "insurgents." It's foolish of you to not see the semantic and rhetorical rationale behind such a position (or you simply have a limited conceptualization of reality because of a small vocabulary) As to your motives, that was the vibe I was getting...the tenor of your comments here and in earlier threads resonate like the rantings of the stereotypical myopic, jingoistic red state voter. —ExplorerCDT 00:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "while terroristic by its tactics," you say, before arguing that it's not terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, and it's what the Iraqi terrorists are using -- that's why they're terrorists. As I explain on the article's talk page, I'm fine with calling the enyclopedia article Insurgency or Terrorism or any number of other things, but it's foolish to deny that it's terrorism. And as for your weird speculation about my motivation and intent, I'm not sure how to answer. I'm not trying to satisfy any kind of rage or vendetta, and I don't see where you get that vibe from what I've written. If memory serves, FreeRepublic.com is a conservative website, and I'm not conservative. And as for "personal prejudices and petty nationalism," well, I don't have any personal contact with the terrorists about which to be prejudiced, and the flavor of petty nationalism where I am -- Canada -- is nothing at all like what you're thinking of. So, perhaps there's some element of projection or other psychological voodoo involved? --Daniel11 22:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was speaking rhetorically about "foreign infidels" etc. just because that's the lingo the insurgents use to justify their insurgency. Terrorism is organized, I'll grant you that. But structurally, this is not terrorism...while terroristic by its tactics, it is structured and justified like the French Resistance, or the Sandinistas were structured and justified, and their tactics carried out against what they perceive as an occupying force...a formidable backlash by groups of people (some coordinated, some randomly amateur) who don't like American tanks rolling through their streets. If the Russians took over the West Coast (as seen in the movie Red Dawn), Patrick Swayze's little band of resistance fighters would be called "terrorists" by the occupying Russians, but they considered themselves a patriotic resistance. What was their organized actions agaisnt the occupiers...an insurgency (see definition [1]). But if we take your route and frankly call them "terrorists" where the seemingly neutral media (they don't call them "patriots") call it an "insurgency" is just blatantly POV and jingoistic, and not in the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Maybe the next contributor here would be some extremist anti-American Arab would like to call the insurgents "Iraqi Patriots" and the American troops as "infidel consumer whores". And that is just as POV. Terrorism is a function of its definition [2], not someone's desire to call bad guys even worse names just to satisfy a personal rage or vendetta, as is the vibe I am getting from the tone of your responses. Your desired type of rhetorical word-picking is best suited for politicized webfora like FreeRepublic.com...history is written by those who know how to step outside of personal prejudices and petty nationalism and analyze a situation equitably to all sides involved. In that case, "insurgency" is as close to neutrality and accuracy as we are going to get. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Iraq is not governed by a foreign infidel military occupation, no matter how the terrorists view it. 2) Terrorism isn't a matter of how organized it is, and even if it were, the terrorists in Iraq are about as organized as numerous other terrorist groups, in fact to some extent they are the same groups. The loose alliances of terrorists operating in Iraq is really no more organized than, say, Hezbollah, or Yasser Arafat's bunch, or Osama's bunch, which all performed carefully planned operations in a variety of countries. Anyway, as I say, that's all moot because terrorism's not a function of the degree of a group's organization. --Daniel11 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Questions, whether asked rhetorically or not, will most likely be answered because text is such a poor communications medium. But it is not the same, and it isn't cut-and-dry terrorism. But it's not "terrorism" per se... When the insurgents striking civilian Iraqi targets to force the Iraqi government to capitulate, it is often called "domestic terrorism" just like when the Earth Liberation Front torches car dealerships or Timothy McVeigh blew up an Oklahoma City federal building. BUT when the insurgents turn their anger toward a foreign military occupation force (I don't intend to be POV by that phrase) it is a partisan resistance or an insurgency. Terrorism is never really as organized as the Iraqi insurgency is organized, simply because you have a loose alliance of groups working collaboratively (at many steps) to get a foreign infidel military occupation to pull up its stakes, leave Iraq, and be embarassed at the loss. But in this case, as the Iraqi government is seen by the insurgents as a tool of the occupying force, and by attacking them they are by a corollary attacking the occupying force in an effort to force the hand (esp. to compel a withdrawl) of the occupying force. Just like the partisan insurgency in Italy in 1943-45, and in Germany from 1944-1945. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- oh, and by the way, those weren't Canadians at Aroostook, they were Britons. :) --Daniel11 17:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, actually for the most part they were Canadiens at Aroostook since they never really accepted the Treaty of Paris (1763) or the Quebec Act, but I won't bicker. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That was my point -- I was only asking the question rhetorically. Of course we wouldn't call the bombing of American churches by a bunch of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, any kind of a resistance or insurgency. We'd call it what it is, terrorism. Hence, why should we call al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists in Iraq a resistance or an insurgency, when they're doing the same? We shouldn't, we should call it terrorism. --Daniel11 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: No Daniel11, we usually call that an unprovoked act of war by a sovereign power. And the Mexicans did that once, under Pancho Villa, burning a border town to the ground and killing like a dozen or two of the inhabitants. The American response, while not a war (since we weren't fighting Mexico, just invading Northern Mexico to follow the perpetrator), was called the Punitive Expedition. As to the Canadians...check out the Aroostook War...even though people say it was bloodless, the Lumberjacks did fight a few quasi-battles and burnt down settlements in Northern Maine. If Americans did it, it would be domestic terrorism and probably investigated by the FBI (like the racist church bombings in the South during the 1950s and 1960s). —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if various Canadians, Mexicans and Americans got pissed off at George W. Bush and started bombing American churches, that would be resistance? Or even insurgency? Is there an option other than support/oppose, to suggest renaming instead something like "Terrorism in Iraq"? --Daniel11 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support: I don't see either resistance or insurgency as a POV word, however, "insurgency" and "insurgents" appear in more headlines (print and online) and tv news segments than "resistance." I don't think I've heard "resistance" used at all during this war. After all, it isn't organized like the French, Dutch and Czechs were against the Nazis. But that brings up another idea...how does Wikipedia (that is, if we do) treat the non-military largely civilian and partisans who resisted the allies with grassroots guerilla warfare in Germany in 1944-1945? Perhaps we could look at other insurgencies and see if there is a consistent terminology. In the meantime, though, I support. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Insurgencies are not all the same, and they should not be treated the same. I don't suppose you can point to an occasion when the French resistance for example blew up a church full of Corsican civilians? The choice of terms is a matter of the legitimacy of the insurgents (which is affected by the choice of targets), and the legitimacy of the occupying force and/or government they are fighting against (which is affected by the intentions of said occupying force). Insurgency is the closest to a neutral term. ObsidianOrder 21:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In the theoretics of interional law, war itself isn't legitimate... therefore insurgents or resistence fighters can't be anymore legitimate or illegitimate. Fruits of the same spoiled tree. Also, it's a case of preferred semantics...the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument. I do agree though, "insurgency" is where it is at, mostly because "resistence" hasn't been used by the media nor by the architects of the war to describe the acts. Semantics wins. —ExplorerCDT 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying for a compromise proposal ;) I am happy that there seems to be a sort of "bipartisan" agreement on this so far. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of legitimacy (and to counter another point, the French Resistance wasn't fighting against Corsicans, so why would they blow up Corsicans in a church?) Insurgency is the most accurate and most neutral description, in addition to being the most common terminology used to reference this situation. That's why I support the change to Iraqi insurgency, a position which obviously agrees with yours. Where I disagree is that I don't think "resistance" is POV, but it is not the right word to describe this action. —ExplorerCDT 21:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying for a compromise proposal ;) I am happy that there seems to be a sort of "bipartisan" agreement on this so far. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In the theoretics of interional law, war itself isn't legitimate... therefore insurgents or resistence fighters can't be anymore legitimate or illegitimate. Fruits of the same spoiled tree. Also, it's a case of preferred semantics...the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument. I do agree though, "insurgency" is where it is at, mostly because "resistence" hasn't been used by the media nor by the architects of the war to describe the acts. Semantics wins. —ExplorerCDT 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Insurgencies are not all the same, and they should not be treated the same. I don't suppose you can point to an occasion when the French resistance for example blew up a church full of Corsican civilians? The choice of terms is a matter of the legitimacy of the insurgents (which is affected by the choice of targets), and the legitimacy of the occupying force and/or government they are fighting against (which is affected by the intentions of said occupying force). Insurgency is the closest to a neutral term. ObsidianOrder 21:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose: This would go against Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity) and would no doubt be yet another example of systemic bias. —Christiaan 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is bias. "Insurgency" does not take a POV on the legitimacy of the fight. "Resistance" definitely does take a POV. Is it biassed to not take sides? ObsidianOrder 21:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's bias in that you have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that the Iraqi resistance should not bear the title of resistance when that is what they refer to themselves as. This is systemic bias. Iraqi resistance is far more accurate and follows Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity). —Christiaan 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You also have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that Saddam Hussein is not the President of Iraq, when that's what he refers to himself as. I guess we should keep calling Saddam the "President of Iraq" ... lololololol --Daniel11 23:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Insurgency" is inherently biased. I quote from the insurgency article: When used by an authority under threat, "insurgency" implies an illegitimacy of cause upon those rising up. Of course, resistance is also POV. Again, what's wrong with something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq? --Boco XLVII 22:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the Insurgency article, especially the paragraph the passage you quoted was located, is well written. Consult a dictionary [3]...they don't make value judgments as to legitimacy. —ExplorerCDT 00:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's bias in that you have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that the Iraqi resistance should not bear the title of resistance when that is what they refer to themselves as. This is systemic bias. Iraqi resistance is far more accurate and follows Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity). —Christiaan 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is bias. "Insurgency" does not take a POV on the legitimacy of the fight. "Resistance" definitely does take a POV. Is it biassed to not take sides? ObsidianOrder 21:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that there's little or nothing to choose between the two terms as regards PoV, so why move? If someone could think of a genuinely neutral term, then fine. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Arguably there is a difference as regards POV, and dictionary definitions reflect this. Insurgency is just an armed revolt against a government; "resistance" implies that those opposed to the "resisting" forces are "collaborators" (eg, the candidates backed by Shiite clerics who ran for election). "Resistance" is inherently POV. -- Curps 01:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. By my reading, both names are POV, depending on whose shoes you are standing in. So no mileage in moving. I would support someone coming up with a reasonable NPOV alternative. -- Chris j wood 23:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: To both Chris j wood and Mel Etitis...how is insurgency, defined as "an instance of rebellion; an insurgence" or "a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" or "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict" [4] POV? It is rather matter-of-fact. Even if, by some contrived denotation, the word "insurgency" is remotely POV, it is the lesser of two evils and the more accurate term. —ExplorerCDT 00:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- REPLY TO COMMENT: Because of the words 'recognized' and 'constituted' in your quote above, which simply raise the questions 'recognized by whom' and 'constituted by whom'. To repeat my objection, both terms are POV. Whatever our personal opinions, WP seeks an NPOV viewpoint and neither term fits that bill. -- Chris j wood 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: To Chris j wood and Mel Etitis: if both terms are equally POV, should we not go with the more common one? ObsidianOrder 01:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all. Rather, we should seek an NPOV alternative to both. --Boco XLVII 01:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And why do you think it is so POV (other than merely stating that it is)? None of the dictionary definitions remotely hint that the term is POV...and as you seem to have some higher level of understanding please enlighten us. (sarcasm) Further, it would be nice if you had a concise "NPOV alternative to both" that you two so desirously demand. Along that vein, don't give me some crap like Government opposition in Iraq because that provides an opportunity to list anyone critical of what is going on in Iraq (which probably consists of 100% of the Iraqis and the lefists in Europe and the US) and doesn't even begin to make you think of the "insurgency." Given the irrational labelling of "Insurgency" as inherently POV without offering any substance, I bet you two would like to see Nazism renamed to ""Ideology of mostly-lower class right-wing activists in Post-World War I Germany" because Nazism has bad connotations and sounds like pre-judging. But then again, you'd say that "Ideology" was a POV word. The candid world calls it an insurgency, it IS the most common term in use, get over it. Now you'll object because you'd want a definition of what "is" is. —ExplorerCDT 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Feel free to ignore my opinion, especially as my viewpoint is clearly the minority here, but if you do seek my voice in the final consensus, I suggest you start listing other names that you would agree with. --Boco XLVII 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Boco XLVII, I don't think you're in the minority - few people think "insurgency" is perfect. It seems like the best available compromise and it is an improvement over what is there now, plus it has the benefit of being the commonly accepted name for this. Try any of these terms: rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, mutiny, insurrection, insurgency, resistance, beligenrents, guerillas, terrorists, militants, combatants, saboteurs, fighters, anti-government forces, anti-US forces ... none fits perfectly. Then there are the really cumbersome alternatives such as "groups involved in the conflict in Iraq" or "militant opposition to the Coalition and Coalition-formed government". I humbly request your support behind the compromise choice. ObsidianOrder 05:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- To: Boco XLVII, I'm fine with insurgency, as evidence by my support vote for the move and my fervent argumentation in support of that vote. Further, I'll ignore an opinion if it is substantiated with wrong information (as no dictionary definition referenced "implies" POV). If you think that the term "insurgency" is POV and that you persist disagree with it, IT IS YOU who should "start listing other names that you would agree with." And so far, your one contribution to that list is fatally flawed for being far too ambiguous and as such lacks the necessary conciseness and accuracy needed for a title. Insurgency, accurate, concise, and as stated by several, sufficently NPOV. —ExplorerCDT 05:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I missed most of this as it was raging, but I'll just respond to a central point. Dictionaries can't give a term's full connotation; they normally restrict themselves to denotations. Two terms can have exactly the same dictionary definition, but a careful writer who's a native speaker would use them very differently. In this case, whatever the dictionary definition, 'insurgence' has a slightly negative connotation, 'resistance' has a slightly positive connotation. I thus see nothing to choose between them as regards PoV or accuracy. I don't think that either of them is so PoV as to make them unacceptable on WP, but the sum of their NPoV distances from neutrality is large enough that the change would' be NPoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're right that dictionaries are not the final word. However, many people (including me) seem to think that the connotation of "resistance" is strongly positive, not slightly positive, therefore it is the less neutral term. If you believe the two terms are equally neutral, we should go with the more common one. You're also right that the change would be large enough to not be NPOV. However the initial decision to use "resistance" was not NPOV itself, considering there is essentially zero use of that term outside the Middle East. I don't suppose I can persuade you to switch your vote to "Neutral"? ObsidianOrder 13:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I missed most of this as it was raging, but I'll just respond to a central point. Dictionaries can't give a term's full connotation; they normally restrict themselves to denotations. Two terms can have exactly the same dictionary definition, but a careful writer who's a native speaker would use them very differently. In this case, whatever the dictionary definition, 'insurgence' has a slightly negative connotation, 'resistance' has a slightly positive connotation. I thus see nothing to choose between them as regards PoV or accuracy. I don't think that either of them is so PoV as to make them unacceptable on WP, but the sum of their NPoV distances from neutrality is large enough that the change would' be NPoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Feel free to ignore my opinion, especially as my viewpoint is clearly the minority here, but if you do seek my voice in the final consensus, I suggest you start listing other names that you would agree with. --Boco XLVII 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And why do you think it is so POV (other than merely stating that it is)? None of the dictionary definitions remotely hint that the term is POV...and as you seem to have some higher level of understanding please enlighten us. (sarcasm) Further, it would be nice if you had a concise "NPOV alternative to both" that you two so desirously demand. Along that vein, don't give me some crap like Government opposition in Iraq because that provides an opportunity to list anyone critical of what is going on in Iraq (which probably consists of 100% of the Iraqis and the lefists in Europe and the US) and doesn't even begin to make you think of the "insurgency." Given the irrational labelling of "Insurgency" as inherently POV without offering any substance, I bet you two would like to see Nazism renamed to ""Ideology of mostly-lower class right-wing activists in Post-World War I Germany" because Nazism has bad connotations and sounds like pre-judging. But then again, you'd say that "Ideology" was a POV word. The candid world calls it an insurgency, it IS the most common term in use, get over it. Now you'll object because you'd want a definition of what "is" is. —ExplorerCDT 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all. Rather, we should seek an NPOV alternative to both. --Boco XLVII 01:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: To both Chris j wood and Mel Etitis...how is insurgency, defined as "an instance of rebellion; an insurgence" or "a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" or "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict" [4] POV? It is rather matter-of-fact. Even if, by some contrived denotation, the word "insurgency" is remotely POV, it is the lesser of two evils and the more accurate term. —ExplorerCDT 00:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The term "Iraqi resistence" implies legitimacy and heroism, particularly because of the connotation with the "French resistence" to Nazi occupation in WWII. While others here claim that "insurgency" implies illegitimacy, I believe that it is the more commonly used term for any type of guerilla movement, whether left-wing or right-wing, against a recognized government. I don't believe that "insurgency" makes any sort of judgment about the legitimacy either of the "insurgents" or of the government they are in opposition to, and is therefore the less biased of the two phrases. Jhamby 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, They seem to fit the accademic consensus of terrorist rather well but lets compromise on the neutral insurgent. Dejvid 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. — Davenbelle 01:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I see the argument being made here that 'insurgency' is the more NPOV term; I feel this is erroneous. 'Iraqi Insurgency' is the term used by those who want to avoid the damning-sting that 'Iraqi Resistance' has; a common association many people have for the word 'resistance' is the French Resistance — the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors. 'Resistance' is the appropriate term, because it is the most accurate term; 'insurgent' is a spin-word. — Davenbelle 11:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- By what you wrote, you just make an excellent argument for the move. resistance, or in your words "the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors", is a POV. insurgency, or in other words "people fighting against the government", is a simple statement of fact. of course none of this explains how "the unjustly dominated" come from a tiny minority which had been lording it over the majority for thirty years, or how their "valiant resistance" consists of blowing up churches of the majority religion. something to think about. ObsidianOrder 11:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do not cut & paste my words. I referred to people's view of the French Resistance as valiant, and I said that 'resistance' is the accurate term for what many Iraqis are doing; resisting an army. I count 14 comments of yours on this page; who's got a POV here?— Davenbelle 15:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- By what you wrote, you just make an excellent argument for the move. resistance, or in your words "the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors", is a POV. insurgency, or in other words "people fighting against the government", is a simple statement of fact. of course none of this explains how "the unjustly dominated" come from a tiny minority which had been lording it over the majority for thirty years, or how their "valiant resistance" consists of blowing up churches of the majority religion. something to think about. ObsidianOrder 11:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I see the argument being made here that 'insurgency' is the more NPOV term; I feel this is erroneous. 'Iraqi Insurgency' is the term used by those who want to avoid the damning-sting that 'Iraqi Resistance' has; a common association many people have for the word 'resistance' is the French Resistance — the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors. 'Resistance' is the appropriate term, because it is the most accurate term; 'insurgent' is a spin-word. — Davenbelle 11:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Early on, the press started calling them "insurgents," but there was little to no established government or control at the time, so it would go against the definition. Resistance against an invading force is more logical terminology. —User:Mulad (talk) 05:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- When do they become "insurgents" then? After a government is elected? Or...? Also, how are attacks on Shia mosques part of "resistance against an invading force"? ObsidianOrder 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- After a government is elected? Sure. I'd be open to the point when a constitution was created as well, but would prefer a greater level of self-destiny. Before then, no (not in this case at least, as the U.S. has maintained that they are not there to rule the country—other conditions would/could be relevant for a definite empire-building endeavor). I suppose you could use some government-neutral measure, like the point in time when electricity was restored to the amount of the country it was in prior to the war. As for other attacks, perhaps attacks on civilians in Iraq? —User:Mulad (talk) 02:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- When do they become "insurgents" then? After a government is elected? Or...? Also, how are attacks on Shia mosques part of "resistance against an invading force"? ObsidianOrder 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, insurgency is NPOV. Grue 12:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I prefer the more NPOV "insurgency". Carrp | Talk 21:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Resistance is more accurate. - XED.talk 11:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Both are value-neutral terms, both NPOV. However, there is no reason to move a long-established featured article because some new user comes along with a POV crusade. 172 12:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 172, are you saying that you do not have an objection to the proposed new name, simply to the move itself? What is the downside? If you think both are value-neutral, then why not go with the more common one? Okay, I am a new user (more accurately "newly involved in Wikipedia politics" - I've done low-key contributions for a while). It's not just me though, so far around 2/3 of everybody who voted prefers the new name. Also this is not a new topic, and it was far from settled. In fact I believe the objections to the title predate the featured article status.
- I do not object to the usage of either term in specific contexts, but Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency ought to be separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification, should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think I see what you're getting at. How about "Iraqi insurgency" and "Iraqi insurgency timeline"? The second of those can be a section under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 or a separate article. I am unpersuaded by the self-identification argument, you can as well call them by any of the florid terms used by Zarqawi [5] [6] or maybe "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (sign at the HQ in Fallujah). I am not even sure "resistance" is the self-identification they use - it has certainly appeared often in sympathetic sources aimed at a western audience, but I think much more common terms for one insurgent talking to another are "the nation" [of Islam] or "brothers". Can you give some quotes to support self-identification? Also: self-identification is not used when it is misleading or plain wrong. Even people opposed to the move agree that some groups (such as Zarqawi's) cannot be reasonably described as "resistance". ObsidianOrder 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not object to the usage of either term in specific contexts, but Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency ought to be separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification, should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 172, are you saying that you do not have an objection to the proposed new name, simply to the move itself? What is the downside? If you think both are value-neutral, then why not go with the more common one? Okay, I am a new user (more accurately "newly involved in Wikipedia politics" - I've done low-key contributions for a while). It's not just me though, so far around 2/3 of everybody who voted prefers the new name. Also this is not a new topic, and it was far from settled. In fact I believe the objections to the title predate the featured article status.
- Support. Insurgency seems more widely used, and marginally more NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Insurgency" is clearly POV (mainly because of the way its used in media and its connotations). Resistance is POV also, but not as bad to use. zoney ♣ talk 14:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, primarily because insurgency is far more commonly used.--Etaonish 17:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, insurgency seems somewhat more NPOV. - SimonP 18:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term, and more in line with NPOV than resistance. Redxiv 04:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Personally I would call them "gangs of Islamo-fascist murderers," but I will settle for "insurgents." To call them a "resistance" implies a comparison with such heroic figures as the French Resistance, which is a gross insult. Adam 12:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with Adam - to call them a resistance is a gross insult - i really wish more Wikipedians would be less tolerant of such POV. PMA 12:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term. Especially after the election turnout, it is hard to call the continuing violence a "resistance", which implies a level of national support. The attacks are sectarian and shared by a minority of the population. Thus insurgency is much closer to the situation as it stands. —thames 15:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support. At this time, Insurgency is far more commonly used, and slightly less POV. It should also be noted that the Iraqi Resistance article also covers non violent groups; such groups do not qualify as insurgents and IMHO should be in a separate article. --Bletch 18:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, those should probably be in a separate article. Suggestions for name? ObsidianOrder 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The section on non violent groups seems to be almost an afterthought. I'm not sure that the info in question belongs in a single article. The tidbit on the 'National Foundation Congress' seems more appropriate under a 'Political Parties in Iraq' article, or even its own stub article. Not sure about the following tidbit on Trade Unions though. The third paragraph with Wamidh Nadhmi says so little that it could still be under an article on the insurgency, or occupation or pretty much everything else. That might change if someone were to clarify it further. --Bletch 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, those should probably be in a separate article. Suggestions for name? ObsidianOrder 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support obviously, since I suggested the move ObsidianOrder 07:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support Insurgency is NPOV. - --Noung 16:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)