Talk:Insurgency/Archive 1

message: Hi all.  I am, ever so slowly, trying to organize the web of terms related to rebellion, insurgent, freedom fighter, etc.  First of all, I am trying to collapse terms that are part of participant-event pairs into their events.  I've already moved merged rebel into rebellion and am planning to move insurgent into insurgency unless I hear an objection in the next couple days.  See my talk page for a bit of my whining on the subject and let me know if there are issues you think I should be aware of.  Cheers, BanyanTree 05:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  If the page is merged into insurgency, most of the content would be moved as well (and reworded) and insurgent would become a redirect page to insurgency.  The political nature of the entry would therefore remain.  BanyanTree 16:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: From Requested Moves
I am, ever so slowly, attempting to organize and standardize the web of terms relating to rebel, freedom fighter, guerrilla, etc.  See my talk page for my full rant on the subject.  Where there is little content, I have begun by collapsing event-participant pairs into the event page, which seems like the more logical direction.  I've already merged rebel into rebellion, so would like to move the content of Insurgent to Insurgency, and obviously then change the text to fit.    BanyanTree 19:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of page to [[insurgency]] 

message: :From Requested Moves
I am, ever so slowly, attempting to organize and standardize the web of terms relating to rebel, freedom fighter, guerrilla, etc.  See my talk page for my full rant on the subject.  Where there is little content, I have begun by collapsing event-participant pairs into the event page, which seems like the more logical direction.  I've already merged rebel into rebellion, so would like to move the content of Insurgent to Insurgency, and obviously then change the text to fit.    BanyanTree 19:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Insurgent]] &rarr; [[Insurgency]]

message: Most of the recent additions to this article seems to be about Iraq.  There may be insurgents there, but that's hardly the only definition of insurgents.  The debate on what's going on there shouldn't spill over to this article.  We can mention Iraq, and even mention that use of the term there is disputed, but that's it.  If no one else has a better idea, I'm going to chop most of this out in a couple days.  --A D Monroe III 23:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This isn't just about Iraq

message: I removed "such as a constituted government or a military occupation by an invading force" from the definition because that phrase represents a drift in the definition that appears to have been added to fit the current usage of the term as applied to Iraq, rather than long-standing dictionary definition of the term.  No dictionary definition of "insurgent" or "insurgency" that I have seen includes "a military occupation" or "an invading force" in its examples of an "established civil authority". - DBooth 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to respond to this gross oversimplification, forgive me if this is the wrong spot to say this. Public opinion polls report that a majority of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces while 97% object to foreign fighters/al queda.(bbc poll in Iraq august 2007) I'm sure that foreign fighters are a significant feature of the Iraq war but this doesn't change the fact that opposition is, by the definitions of this article and the one you provided revolting "against civil authority." Smadge (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  insurgency 

message: Something about this article makes me really uncomfortable. The simple fact is, nobody ever used the word 'insurgent' prior to 2003. It's just one of those phrases the US government decided to start using (like 'friendly fire', 'islamo-fascist', 'homeland security') for political reasons, and then the media and everyone else followed. To have an article like this, that makes it seem like an insurgency is a long-established and clearly defined concept, just isn't right. I mean, what is an insurgency anyway? Isn't this just a ridiculously sweeping term to refer to something actually much more complex? Abc30 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word has been in rather normal use, with this very meaning, since the 1800s, with the first known use of "insurgent" in 1765. A couple of examples: 1801, "In regard to the insurgents in Malabar, the war against them cannot be carried on at all without assistance." 1812, "[Why] it was, that the vast strength of Britain did not beat down the colonial insurgents, not in one campaign, but in three." 1822, "The consequence..would be riot, insurgency, and rapine." It is nothing whatsoever like any of the other examples you stated. It may be that it does not warrant a separate article and could be merged into a single article on rebellion and the like but it does have a well-defined meaning that is distinct from rebellion, insurrection, etc. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Abc30 is mostly correct, in that: (a) usage of the term was extremely rare prior to 2003, when the US government began using it; and (b) the wikipedia articles on insurgency and Iraqi insurgency do not adequately warn that the current application of the term to Iraq represents a politically biased deviation from the term's historically accepted meaning.  -- DBooth 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the article does still need work to be more non-POV.  -- DBooth 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DBooth, Abc30 is not "mostly correct". For a start there is proof in the Oxford dictionary that the word "insurgent" has existed for a long time, it only seems like a new word to us because the west hasn't occupied (and I do mean a proper occupation) a country since WW2, and I very much doubt any of you were around during then. Ryan4314 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is wrong 

message: as of this writing , this article refers to insurgents as muslim and defines an insurgency as muslims against non-muslims. --Philo 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a POV tag 

message: Article says: Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurrectionists
Shouldn't that be Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents? --Apoc2400 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: insurgents was recently changed to insurrectionists, so I changed it back.
I would really like to see Insurrection as well as Insurrectionists have their own distinct page, Insurrection has historically been something unique and the people that practice it are distinct from insurgents. Perhaps someone with a better historical could put together something that make reference to insurrection being a generalized revolt against society and the way it is organized rather than insurgency which in modern usage is a group fighting against a particular established organization. You could take 
Insurrectionary Anarchism as a model for what i mean as that is a long running current of thought and if you were to say "Insurgent Anarchism" it would not have anywhere near the same definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.78.250 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  insurrectionists? 

message: I move nelow the chapter drom dissident article, as I could not find any source to support 
such a meaning: ''
 
Militant dissidents (insurgents)
Militant dissidents is the term usually sought by armed paramilitary groups whose aim is usually to overthrow a government or regime, or otherwise impose changes on the established order. Since militant dissidents are almost always militarily disadvantaged compared to the ruling power, such groups may resort to asymmetric warfare, guerrilla warfare, or terrorism to further their cause. Such groups are often denounced as terrorists by the ruling power regardless, though they often consider themselves freedom fighters or resistance movements.
''
dima 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Militant dissidents (insurgents) 

message: "the government established by an invading force counts as "collaborators", not "established authority"."
this statement seems to be partisan, as a goverment established by an invader is a legal goverment by the standards of the invader. only the insurgents would consider it 'collaborators'. indeed, from the perspective of the goverment involved, those who help insurgents are also termed collaborators. so the statement fails to be neutral in tone.
dropping it does nothing to alter the definition, which is still 'insurgents are an armed uprising against civil authority' what each side calls the other is not important to that definition. 156.110.35.146 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recognized authority 

message: An insurgency differs from a resistance both in its political overtones and in the nature of the conflict: an insurgency connotes an internal struggle against a standing, established government, whereas a resistance connotates a struggle against invading or occupying foreign forces and their collaborators.
The Iraq war has made this definition very redundant considering that the insurgents in Iraq claim to be fighting an occupying force. Tourskin 03:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: "Insurgents use a variety of asymmetrical warfare tactics, usually because of the insurgents force's capabilities are unequal to the authority's capabilities." 
isn't that sort of a definition of guerilla warfare?
and if 
"an insurgency connotes an internal struggle against a standing, established government,"
this is then a civil war.
"In addition, insurgents establish ties with other outlaws and double agents to further their goals."
outlaw!? 
I mean really, should we make a posy?  and what the hell do "double agents" have to do with "outlaws"?
Cliff
78.1.110.173 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, or just wrong 

message: I personally don't think that the headline picture is appropriate. An image of living insurgents would probably be a lot better to accurately portray the article about insurgency, and showing the heaped corpses of insurgents killed by american troops may be a tad inflammatory, and rather apologistic toward insurrection. Perhaps a picture of living, Iraqi insurgents would probably be more appropriate because that's what this article is mainly concerned with, and this image could be moved to somewhere lower on the page.          ~ Ludo716
:Picture has inaccurate description, those are actually insurgents AGAINST Soviets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.182.188 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL how do you know that? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I've added a tag to "Tactics and strategies" since I believe it contains unverified claims, no references etc. Goldbringer 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think all of the things you describe are insurgencies. Perhaps the analogy might be that firearms include rifles, arquebuses (if that's the plural. More than one arquebus), muskets, and matchlocks. Matchlocks and firelocks refer to their ignition subsystems, while muskets and rifles address their barrel subsystems.
Believe me, the models that I have described are pure, clear, pools of water, when compared to the early attempts to develop systems of categorizing insurgency, in the sixties and seventies. It did not endear me to my boss when I looked at one 40-page questionnaire intended to be administered, by one of the geniuses at a Army contract research center, to illiterate villagers. This was the "garbage in" that fed the Hamlet Evaluation System used in Vietnam.
I'd call the approach military science, for want of a better term. The study of the factors that lead to insurgency, as well as those that defeat it, are in the realm of grand strategy. Where Clausewitz described war as the extension of national politics by military means, "strategy" now focuses on the military means alone, where "grand strategy" includes military, but also diplomacy, psychological/information, economic, law enforcement, covert operations, and other means. 
The matrix in my draft is there to illustrate that there is no one simple categorization model for insurgencies, but it begins to be easier when you see that several categories apply to the same conflict. Models like Kilcullen's and Eizenstat's describe the factors that weaken a society, be they security or economic or identity gaps. McCormick, however, deals with the interactions among the insurgents, the government, the neutral population, and outside organizations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As to your point about the "average reader", I'll make two observations. First, there is no reason not to have an article about the Iraqi insurgency. Second, if the average reader gets things oversimplified into sound bites, he won't be better off than he was to start with. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Picking this up again, I'm concerned that many of the definitions in this article source dictionaries, rather than serious works on warfare. Dictionary definitions have a habit of oversimplifying. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Same? Different? Talking this through helps.

message: The new version contains almost everything that was in the old version, but in a more formal context and with supplemental material. Unfortunately, politicians and news talking heads try to make "insurgency" a new concept specific to Iraq, or restrict its definition, or separate a wide range of actions that are reasonably considered insurgency.  One important point is that terrorism does not necessarily equate to insurgency or vice versa.
I'm sorry, but I cannot find a simple and universal definition of insurgency, much as some people would like -- at least without violating WP:OR. General-purpose dictionary definitions are oversimplified to the point of uselessness. 
See also counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, and counterterrorism. These articles are in varying shape, but should be considered together to minimize overlap and maximize appropriate cross-referencing.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold major rewrite 

message: After a pleasant discussion that avoided a revert war, I'd welcome suggestions on how to improve the mechanics of the table, "Rough Classification of States" as weak to varying extents. It may not be clear that this is a summary of such states from the major sources, such as Eizenstat, Kilcullen, and Cordesman.
When I first created the table, I tried to put a source on every single country reference within the body of the table, but that soon became unreadable in edit mode.  Eventually, I seemed to be faced with the choices;
:*Get rid of the table
:*Get rid of detailed footnotes in it
:*Prepare the table, with detailed footnotes, as a graphic, but that would not be editable.
None of these were ideal, but there is clear grounds for confusion. For example, one reading of the material led an editor to assume the table entries were all from Kilcullen, while the specific example of Pakistan was from Eizenstat. 
Any ideas on making this clearer and more useful?
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rough Classification of States" table; how to improve 

message: Somehow the introductory paragraphs got so precipitously into specifics that they ceased to play the proper role of an introduction.  I've restored four introductory paragraphs from a version dating from March, without eliminating anything substantial from the current version.  Mainly my restorations are intended to ease the reader into the subject matter before transitioning to technicalities.
Martel,C (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I propose to delete those three paragraphs. No serious student of worldwide insurgency considers a participant in the mainstream political process, even a maverick like Ron Paul, an insurgent. The insurrection vs. insurgent also tells me nothing useful abotu the subject. These are not introductory to the topic; they are grabbing the sort of misinformation that gets propagated in sound bites by politicians and television "commentators". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: american colonists - anti-colonialist and anti- occupation in the table -
Should they not be separatists?
By definition, they are occupying somebody elses land, rather than the inverse.
And anti-colonial colonists - is such a thing possible. Surely they would be separatist colonists?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  american colonists - anti-colonialist and anti- occupation in the table - surely not? 

message: This section states as fact that a number of organizations are connected to terrorist organizations without citation and despite their denials.  This seems an obvious violation of factual accuracy. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over and Covert Wings 

message: It seems to me that the Insurgency#Potential for insurgency and historical examples section is written as a refutation to the widely held belief that all insurgencies are Islamic, using phrases like "incorrect assumption" and "easily challenged."  This seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Examples - POV?