Talk:Resistance movement

message: 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)
thread_title: NZ

message: 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)
replies: text: I presume this is a response to my message left at User talk:24.34.48.193, which means you (User:StrifeZ) are the same as User:24.34.48.193. Did you not look at the policy page I directed you to? What you're doing here is POV; Wikipedia should not attempt to define which resistance movements are "legitimate". Read this article yourself; the generally accepted definition fits the Iraqi insurgency very well. Whether or not you think they're working towards the best interests of the populace is irrelevent. They're resisting the government; it does not matter who says that government is "legal". I can tell from your edits to the insurgency article that you wish to discredit the movement. Do you not see that you're editorializing the article? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should also be aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which you are close to breaking. -- Hadal 02:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If resisting the government is the sole grounds for defining a "resistance movement", then the post World War II list is pathetically short, and would likley have to include the hundreds of "resistance movements" that have sprung up in Western Nations since then. How can there be a "movement" unless it is supported by a substantial portion of the population (as in, more than just a few thousand people)?  The truth is that this article seems to be confusing "resistance movement" with ongoing insurgencies and guerilla wars. It includes the ANC, but what about Ghandi and India after World War II? That is practically the text book definition of resistance movement. My efforts are not to editorialize. It is to try to present an intellectually honest assement of "what is a resistance movement". It seems here, that the list presented are are largley violent in nature, when those are likley the minority of all the resistance movements since World War II. The Iraqi insurgency is an example of a unconventional fight, but being made up of only 5000-20,000 members, with perhaps as many as 300,000 sympathizers out of a country of 24 million, it is very difficult to be intellectually honest in calling this a "resistance movement" in the way the ANC was in South Africa or Solidarity was in Poland. Regardless, this article presents very sloppy handling of something that is very complex. I mean, how can someone have "Resistance movement" and not have Solidarity as exhibit A? I'll refrain on changing it until I hear some more thoughts, but this article needs _lots_ of work to be more than simply a pamphlet-like reference on any disgruntled group that decided to change their government by picking up a gun. There is more to resistance movements than simply that narrow definition. -- StrifeZ 23:27, 26 Jun 2005 (EST)
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)
thread_title: Iraqi "reistance movement"

message: Here are the definitions for "resistance" (the relevant meaning) in a couple of dictionaries:
* (American Heritage) resistance, n. 3. often Resistance An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under 
military or totalitarian occupation.
* (Merriam-Webster) resistance, n. 5 often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators 	
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:
# per MW it has to be a "conquered" country, not merely occupied
# per AH it has to have "liberation" as the goal, and not (for example) imposing a different totalitarian rule
# it doesn't have to be "non-military", merely "underground" i.e. clandestine
# the term cannot refer to "any organized effort ... against a constituted authority", only against "totalitarian"
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)
replies: text: Angrynight - that's a fine explanation indeed for why we should just make up whatever random crap we feel like.  Dictionaries are authoritative sources: you can propose a different definition based on a another authoritative source such as a scholarly publication, monograph or entry in another encyclopedia, but most certainly not just because you feel the dictionary is in error. ObsidianOrder 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Obsidian and agree with Angrynight. Dictionaries aren't the best sources of support for this kind of debates. Some people (like me) believe a resistance movement is any kind of political/social movement against those in power, regardless of its tactics (violent or peaceful), its legitimacy (most people support it or few do) or visibility (underground or open confrontation). There can be resistance movements against legitimate democratic governments; you don't have to accept that, say, Iraq's government is illegitimate in order to grant Iraqi insurgence a resistance status. In fact, there are some dictionaries that come close of my definition: WordNet from Princeton University gives us "Resistance: 10: group action in opposition to those in power". If you add a political context to it (because I'd agree that bank robbers resisting a police raid isn't a resistance movement), then that is what I and many others believe. Andran 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andran - wordnet is not a dictionary ;)  If you read the project description [] it was only ever intended as a tool for  research into linguistics, and it is a lot closer to a thesaurus, and not a particularly accurate one at that.  It certainly doesn't claim to be an authoritative source of definitions.  You say "Some people (like me) believe a resistance movement is any kind of political/social movement against those in power" - you may believe that, but that is simply not what the words mean to everyone else.  I think you'll find almost everyone who uses the term is using it to describe what they consider to be a liberation movement, specifically one against a foreign invader, and not just "any movement against those in power".  I don't think this is true only in English, either - for example Spanish wikipedia says quite specifically "acción de oponerse, en los países invadidos, los naturales del lugar a las fuerzas de ocupación." and German and French wikipedias say essentially the exact same thing.    All the real dictionaries say so as well in some form (although I'd certainly like more examples than just MW and AH).  Actually I'd be pretty interested to see what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about this, I have usually found it to be among the best.  I don't have a copy handy, but I'll look it up next time I'm at the library ;)  ObsidianOrder 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry about the WordNet thingy! I thought it was a traditional dictionary; in any case, Wikipedia considers WordNet a dictionary, and the definition I found lies beyond the guidelines you are proposing. I wouldn't assume everyone agrees with you on "what the words mean", otherwise this wouldn't be a "bone of contention" as it turned out to be, would it? ;-) The problem here is that it is sometimes difficult to demarcate what exactly is to be "fighting against a foreign power". To me, fighting against a puppet government is *really* fighting against a foreign power, and mine isn't just a fringe opinion. This would qualify both the Viet Cong guerrillas and the Iraqi insurgents as resistance movements. Note that I agree this is a difficult issue, likely to offend political sensibilities, but including the list and mentioning that it is a highly debated issue would be in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV. Can't you see that leaving the list out is, in itself, a POV? Andran 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, look at Merriam-Webster's definition, which we can all agree IS a real dictionary: "an underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation." Now, it is still problematic because we are likely to disagree about what exactly is a "military occupation". For example, since the US invaded Iraq, the country is still under military occupation and the insurgents claim they seek to liberate the country, how does this situation not fit M-W's definition? Andran 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate to flog a dead horse, but even Wikipedia's current article on Iraqi insurgency (which I have not edited in any way) claims that "A portion of the Iraqi population, especially among the Sunni Arab minority, sees military attacks on Coalition forces as legitimate opposition to a colonial occupying power." It then goes on to claim other parts of the population do not support the insurgency, but if at least some do, it seems enough for me. Andran 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andran - first let me say that nothing is ever pure black and white, and reasonable people may disagree in their interpretation of the facts even when they agree about what the facts are.  What I was trying to get people to do is to state clear criteria first, applying them in a specific case comes after that.  Still, if you want to talk about Iraq in particular: one, the degree to which it is self-governing has increased progressively, to the point that the US military is minimally involved with governing or administering the country, and primarily acts as a security force to help respond to attacks against the democratically elected government of Iraq - which does in fact enjoy the support of a large, I would say overwhelming, majority of the population, and which is right now responsible for making most decisions in the country.  So while it is true that Iraq was "under military occupation" in 2003 for example, it is mostly not true today (but - again - not black and white).  Second, and this is a very big issue, what exactly are the people who are attacking the government and US forces actually fighting for?  I think it would be extremely difficult to support describing that as "national liberation": by all evidence, half of them would like to impose a religious dictatorship, and the other half would like to restore the rule by a small ethnic minority (or both actually - they're not mutually exclusive).  And - yes, it is true that many in the Sunni minority may see this as legitimate opposition, but let's not forget that Saddam's dictatorship was a government almost exclusively by the Sunni minority, and that it gave many of them considerable priviledges - let's just say they would like to see their old priviledges restored.  In short, it is pretty hard to liberate a country which has a fairly elected representative government already, wouldn't you say?  Anyway, as I said earlier, I would put the insurgents from circa 2003 in the category of maybe a resistance movement (because some of them probably did believe they were fighting to liberate the country, and because the country was in fact under a foreign military government), but the insurgents from early 2006 are in the category of almost certainly not a resistance movement (because they are fighting against a legitimate local government, and because their goal is to institute a dictatorship of one kind or another in its place).   ObsidianOrder 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ObsidianOrder on this one - we have to stand back a bit and try to asses the movement, otherwise there'll always be some people who claim any movement is a resistance (i.e. its sympathisers), even for much more blatant examples than Iraq - e.g. the IRA or Basque separatists. Iraq 2003 may be ambiguous, but Iraq 2006 doesn't look like much of a resistance at all. Deuar 13:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick detour to the dictionary 

message: 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.
* clear resistance movement 1  
* clear resistance movement 2
* clear resistance movement N  

* debated movement 1 
* debated movement 2 
* debated movement M
----
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)
replies: text: I strongly support this! It gives the idea that this is a contested issue without withholding information. Andran 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, let me explain why:  I was in favor of having a list of recent movements if (a) we could work a clear set of criteria on talk and (b) come up with a few unambigous, non-disputed examples based on this.  Yes, I know, unreasonably optimistic, but one can hope ;)  If we can't do that, it is better to have no list at all, since clearly just about any organized fight against a local government or foreign power would like to claim the title, and thus the mantle of legitimacy that it brings (if one side is La Resistance, the other side must be the Nazis, right?).  I don't think Wikipedia should be giving space to unfounded, self-serving claims like that which are often made by people who are in fact just garden-variety thugs.  Getting back to my hopes for a non-disputed list: Tibet rebellion 1954-65, ANC in South Africa, East Timorese rebels, SPLA in Sudan?  Plus one "maybe/probably": FLN in Algeria?  Other entries from the old list like Mujahideen, Hizbollah, Contras, Viet Cong etc are very much a gray area for various reasons so I would propose not including them, and yet others are in a "probably not" category like the IRA, FARC, Baader Meinhoff, FLQ in Canada, etc etc.  However I can see that even items on my supposedly non-disputed list can be regarded as controversial by some, and so perhaps it is better to have nothing.  That said, I like Deuar's introductory text, perhaps we can have that but no list?  ObsidianOrder 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty doable. Let's have a few pretty certain movements before the POV tag, and then how about lower down the disputed ones (like in the now changed proposal above). I'm pretty sure we can come up with a few that are clearly resistance. e.g. I agree with the suggested list (what about you, Andran?), apart from not being failiar with the SPLA and FLN. There's was probably a few more pretty certain resistance movements around as well. Of course nationalists from the country that was being resisted will always be found to object to any of the above, but they can usually be easily spotted. We could also have a separate section with a list of candidate movements on this talk page, where factual comments can be  made about the situation for each movement. (see below) Deuar 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if different movements are to be included, there is no excuse for not including the Lebanese resistance, which is in fact one of the few indubitably successful ones in recent decades - and let's note (because Hizbullah as much as anyone else try to obscure this) was composed not just of Hizbullah, although it was indeed Hizbullah that finally forced the departure of the occupying forces, but indeed was originally launched by the Lebanese Communist Party under George Hawi and the Communist Action Organization under Mohsen Ibrahim. I think there is no real doubt about this case. Palmiro | Talk 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palmiro - a bit confused about which Lebanese resistance you're refering to - there are so many ;)  If you mean the 2005 Cedar Revolution, or more generally Lebanon in the last decade or so, I wholeheartedly agree.  If you mean the last part of the Lebanese Civil War, 1984-90, I'm not so sure - perhaps you can expand on that a bit?  ObsidianOrder 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am quite familiar with the position in Lebanon and so tend to use the common terminology there. I mean the resistance to the Israeli occupation from 1982 til 2000, which is what the term is generally used to mean, without any ambiguity, in Lebanon. Palmiro | Talk 15:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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:
# They were resisting an external foe (i.e. they weren't just a rebel group fighting against the government)
# The foe had conquered/dominated their country or the area in which they were resisting (i.e. they're not invading anyone else)
# They were tyring to regain independence lost, rather than gain it for the first time (i.e. not your standard separatists).
# They had the support of most, or at least a large part of, the population in the whole area where they acted (i.e. again, they're not just any old rebels).
# They were less repressive than the people they were trying to overthrow. (Well, I guess that follows from the last point)
The last two criteria apear to not be universally accepted, and can also be hard to verify. 
Deuar 14:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you know I actually agree with your comments on the movements. I mostly put the movements that are further down the list in because they had been "suggested" by various people during our discussion. I mustn't have been very clear! I certainly don't agree that the Iraqi terrorists are a resistance movement (see my post higher up on the talk page). I used to think that the Chechens were a resistance for a while, but I'm more and more doubtful of this. Lebanon and FLN I don't know anything about. No list is good with me. Such a list is an edit war attractor, and bound to be unbalanced. Deuar 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with having no list of current movements, for the excellent reasons already given. -Will Beback 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resistance and terrorist shouldn't be mutually exclusive, someone can call resistance terrorists if they are in their POV, but that shouldn't stop them from being listed as resistance, eg. Iraqi Rebels may fit definitions of both resistance and terrorist and could be listed here as resistance. "Terrorist" confuses the issue and often has some bias behind it. raptor 12:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested resistance movements 

message: Robin Hood 1212 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't. See discussion above. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It really shouldn't have a post-war list, adding it is just appeasing the thugs who would describe themselves as the resistance for propaganda reasons.  But the real reason is, as discussed extensively above, that it is effectively impossible to come up with reasonable criteria that can be applied in a neutral way.  ObsidianOrder 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will add current movements to the list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Resistance Movement = A Movement That Resists 

message: What about a section for notable fictional restiance movements, for example the Bajoran or Jaffa resistance movements.
--Carterhawk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be interesting--or maybe a disambiguation between fictional and real resistance movements...?  There are some fictional resistance movements that have inspired the actions of real events, and literary examples of resistance have been used in real world speeches/comparisons. TeamZissou 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "literary examples of resistance have been used in real world speeches/comparisons."  <--This brings Reagan's references to the Rebel Alliance of Star Wars to mind. I agree that a "fiction resistance movements" article (with a link-to on this page) would be a good idea.  --DOHC Holiday 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the Bajoran one Kira was in? Lunakeet (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Restiance Movements? 

message: - : 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 
:: Anon user 78.12.74.62 had replaced my comment with:
"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)
replies: text: They are resisting the Israeli occupation, so its a resistance. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah a resistance movement?????==  + ==Hezbollah a resistance movement

message: 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? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Underground resistance movement has little to no useful information. HaItsNotOver (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Support - I also think that its too little and too alike to this article that it be merged. Cyborg999 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no opposition, and with two votes in support, I think we should proceed with the merge.  After all, it has been almost two months. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: 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
:Hello, while I can appreciate what you are asking, the plain truth is that a dab page for two terms would not be a good use of resources.  If someone is looking for "underground resistance" it is less likely that they are looking for the record label than for an article about the armed resistance movement.  If you type in Underground Resistance, with the proper capitalization, you will go to the correct article.  If you do not use the capitals, you come here.  A dab message, or hatnote, at the top of this article would help, though.  I will see about putting one in.  ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no disambiguation page? 

message: I have removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:
:Fascist governments are largely able to prevent civil revolt through the consistent use of violence, the utilization of paranoia to prevent the formation of enemy groups and the control of citizens by means of restricting their rights as workers. According to Walter Laqueur, “Violence has always played a central part in fascist philosophy” (50). The utilization of paranoia is arguably the most important factor in the continuation of fascist governments. Stories of children being targeted by Nazi- influenced teachers and other authority figures have been widely publicized as anti- fascist propaganda. Fascist governments have used to prevent civil revolt is by means of controlling their citizens through their jobs. This method was put into practice in both Italy and Germany, though Italy was the heavier user of it. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference.” (Common characteristics of fascist movements section paragraph 29).
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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Large Scale Resistance in World War II? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revolution NOT resistance

message: 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)
replies: text: Hello and thank you for using the talkpage to explain why you removed such much content. In your edit summary you wrote: "I've removed all the ones that don't match the definition of resistance groups, as they are revolutionary, reactionary or political groups rather than resisting a foreign invasion." Currently, the article seems to suggest that it is actually about "groups resisting a foreign invasion" such as Irish Republican Army. This is why I reverted you first three edits but not the following ones. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: clean up

message: 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)
replies: text: Attempting to list every "resistance movement" in history certainly seems like a fool's errand. Prezbo (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this being defined?