Talk:History of terrorist groups

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to history of terrorism.

I don't see any reason for this being nominated for deletion, and whomever nominated it didn't bother to explain their reasoning on this discussion page. Mensch (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the original Irish Republican Army should be on this list. The Provisionals I don't think most would object to, but the originally IRA were a military organization. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. The only terrorism that took place in Ireland between 1920-21 was perpetrated by the British forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.216.70 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems, to me, a back-door way of giving the Wikipedia stamp of approval for applying the word 'terrorist' to various groups which do not apply the word to themselves. It is riddled with POV and over-simplification. I don't necessarily think it should be deleted, I don't know the policy on that, but if some folks don't improve it a great deal it's not a positive contribution to wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No group applies the word terrorist to themselves, so your argument is nonsensical, most would call themselves freedom fighters etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.18 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there is a wikipedia policy severely circumscribing use of the word terrorism and terrorist, because it is typically applied as a pejorative label on groups a person opposes. This article violates that policy flagrantly. See wikipedia's terrorism entry for a sense of how nuanced this sort of discussion should be in an encyclopedia. Still, I think an article on "terrorist groups" (I don't know about 'history' of terrorist groups) is possible, but would have to be inclusive rather than restricted, generally it seems, to "non-state groups the U.S. doesn't like."Haberstr (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, shouldn't there be a category for "U.S.-backed counter-revolutionary groups"? I see the Contras are not given their place in the list of terrorist groups, for example.Haberstr (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is riddled with POV and oversimplification, that is true. Perhaps it should be deleted or better yet merged with the article on terrorism. Simply take the material from this article which is actually worth salvaging. One small problem amongst many that I had, I recently edited it was on the FLQ. Quebec as referred to as "Canadian controlled Quebec"

That implies that Quebec is a nation under foreign occupation, which couldn't be further from the truth. Last time I checked Quebec was a democratic province within a democratic federal country, with a high degree of autonomy and it's own elected government, it's own laws and it's own institutions. Bias, so annoying. - Chris Gilmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.71.39 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that terrorist groups are a name given to group contrary to another group beliefs and by many other reasons, I also agree that one person terrorist is another person freedom fighter, my vote is to delete this article it clearly violates community guidelines.Quantumleaf (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

The image File:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The merger was completed a week or two ago

I think it is fine to delete this entry now. How is that done? Can it be done by anyone?Haberstr (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]