Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism

Right-wing terrorism

Irremediably prejudiced in its concept and preposterously biased (also notice that a substantial part of the content was added by anon editors.) Both this and the Left-wing terrorism page have to go, definitely. A more comprehensive article addressing general features of Political terrorism (expanding the current one) would be more than enough.Xemoi 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism. Aplomado ^talk 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has already been discussed, the sole intention of this "article" is clearly to push for a politically sectarian point. It's not just about POV, but also the original idea, the article's name, the disputed examples, the inevitable and arbitrary attribution of a left- or right- wing ideology to this or that "terrorist" group, etc. I wouldn't object to a merge into Political terrorism (as has been suggested), though. Justice III 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete E.Cogoy 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Little attempt has been made to resolve the POV problems (if indeed they exist) on the talk page). There is a posible arguement for merging and turning into redirect rather then deleting (though I'm not 100% convinced) but the content is realitivly sound.--JK the unwise 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sdelete I don't see how this term can be used in a non-POV way. We have at least three different things being called "right-wing terorism", one of which is already covered at State terrorism. In addition to that one, we have racist actions grouped with religious ones, which IMO causes real problems with even describing them as parts of a valid common term. (Why are actions motivated by Christian fanaticism called right-wing, but actions by Islamic fanaticism aren't specifically labeled left or right?) Fan1967 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sdelete. [Same comment as for left-wing terrorism]. Any categorisation into "left-wing" or "right-wing" is inherently POV, since the use of these terms is disputed in many cases. Having this categorisation in an article title itself is even worse, and will inevitably lead to pointless edit wars (and indeed cases where it simply isn't clear which -- if either -- of left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism an organization should be listed on). Cadr 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't agree more with Cadr. -- WGee 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV garbage. Not encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 01:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here. --Leifern 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Ultramarine 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rebecca 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Trash. michael ^talk 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

- The terms "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are definable, and so is "terrorism." Why is it impossible to write an NPOV article about terrorists whose aims are either right-wing or left-wing? George W. Bush will inherently have POV issues, Vietnam War will in herently have POV issues, Socialism will inherently have NPOV issues. That's not a reason to ax them. Aplomado ^talk 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly, the article at Right-wing makes no mention of race, which is central to a number of the groups cited here. That article also says identifying fascism as right-wing is disputed, while this one lists groups who fall under that label. That's the problem when you try to use broad labels. Fan1967 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are more often defined basically to disparage opposite groups. They are anachronic and almost useless labels in modern political science and only serve ideological agendas. Using this kind of pseudoscientific junk will just stuff unwanted GIGO into a subject as serious as terrorism.Xemoi 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]