|
This seems too narrow [1]. |
|
Cambridge International Dictionary of English [1] suggests: A freedom fighter is a person who uses violent methods to try to remove a government from power. --css |
|
I have searched a bit, but couldn't find any reviewed definition/history of the term so far. I don't think this link will qualify [1] ;-) --css Larry, perhaps an article about freedom would enlighten this page? But that os one nest of snakes I won't be putting my head into :-) --Anders Törlind I'm changing that "used by nations" part of the def. since plenty rebels call themselves freedom fighters. --The Cunctator |
|
The Oxford English Dictionary is the place to go for eytmologies; I'll contact a friend and see if he'll do me the favor of looking it up. --KQ |
|
|
|
For example, I wouldn't begin a definition of the Cold War as "The Cold War is, literally, a military conflict of a low temperature." ::Of course not, because no one would possibly be confused along those lines. They might indeed want to know, from the very start, why a war is a cold war and not a "hot" war. I'd start more like the current entry: "The Cold War is an umbrella term for the political, economic and military conflict following World War II between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the nations under their respective influence." :: I disagree. I think we should give the general concept before giving its application. Later I'd talk about why it's called the "Cold" "War". First define the term, then explain the definition. What's going on right now with "freedom fighter" is the reverse. ::Again I disagree! In my version we do define the term first, and then explain how it is used. In your version, we are dropped down onto the (admittedly) common way of understanding the term, but without the basic background that makes this clear. |
|
And :With its use of the positive term freedom, this term is subjective and propagandistic, implying that the established government is oppressive and illegitimate. serves the exact same purpose as :But, due to the ambiguity of and disagreements over the meaning of the term "freedom?," the literal meaning of the term is not particularly helpful. The term has been used and spread in propaganda, and as a result it has usually not been used in any very careful, precise way....[the freedom fighter fights] an established government considered, by the person using the "freedom fighter" label, illegitimate because it is oppressive of (that person's conception of) freedom. in much fewer words. All the second selection does is circumlocute the basic point that this is a loaded term. ::What can I say? Again I disagree. What you have done is essentially given a brief and more obscure summary of what I have carefully unpacked. I think that, in an encyclopedia article that tries to make the concept clear, it is important that it be carefully unpacked. --Larry Sanger |
|
Really? I must disagree that my version isn't clearer--it's much clearer. The way I read it, it says exactly the same thing your version does, but more simply and precisely. It may not say more clearly what you want said, and if that's the case, you'll have to figure out some way to communicate what that is, because your text doesn't do that. What information or impression do you want to convey that you think is missing? --LDC (BTW, I'm only talking about the first-paragraph definition here. The rest of the article is still needs some work). |
|
Really? I must disagree that my version isn't clearer--it's much clearer. The way I read it, it says exactly the same thing your version does, but more simply and precisely --LDC |
|
I like MRC's version, and if you do as well I suppose we're settled. It says the same things but with less philosopher-speak. But you're still just blowing smoke up my ass unless you say what it is, specifically, that is expressed by your version or his that wasn't in mine, and your meaningless statement above is just more evidence. I'm sure you really do understand something I don't here--you're the better philosopher--but you're not making it clear. I'm a writer. I good at making things clear, but I have to understand them first. --LDC |
|
Did the Soviet Union ever call the Sandinistas "freedom fighters"? If not, I don't think it's quite accurate to say what the article says right now. --LMS Well, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. I really think I said everything Larry wanted said, without the awkward (to non-philosophers) talk about literal meanings, and semantic imprecision. Two changes I'd like to see: 1) something about propaganda a bit earlier in the article (it seems a bit tacked on at the end, and I think it's essential to understanding the meaning of freedom fighter), and 2)I think we should at least mention that men like MLK and Ghandi are not commonly referred to as freedom fighters -- in spite of the literal meaning of the words. MRC |
|
Well, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. I really think I said everything Larry wanted said, without the awkward (to non-philosophers) talk about literal meanings, and semantic imprecision. MRC |
|
The mention of "guerrillas" as a negative term is incorrect, at least historically. Most of the Marxist revolutionaries in the Cold-War era used that term to describe themselves, including Che Guevara and Vo Nguyen Giap, who both wrote about using guerrilla tactics. We've got this set of loose synonyms: rebel?, freedom fighter, guerrilla, terrorist, and revolutionary?. (Maybe you can think of more...) And then there's activist?, protester?, marcher?, hippie?.... --The Cunctator Larry's edit of Mark's text was good; your edit may have been a bit more complete but it was confusing, so I rearranged it and I think clarified. Also, Larry's "an often propagandistic term" is far superior to your "a propagandistic term", because the latter is non-neutral; it expresses the opinion that use of the term is always propaganda, which is not true. It is true that terms like "freedom" and "oppression" are ambiguous, but they do have real meanings and real examples, and the term can be used in a straigtforward and meaningful way. Finally, I deleted the links to dictionary articles. I don't think such links are a good idea for Wikipedia in general--the reason we put an article here is because we have more to say about it than a mere dictionary entry. I might be convinced otherwise. --LDC Well I can see that this page has had some contention around it, so let me just point out that the first and third sentences of the first paragraph are redundant, and should probably be combined and left at one location or the other. I'll leave it to someone else to decide where that sentence should go, if the two are combined. --Koyaanis Qatsi The Cunctator edited out some of the content of the third sentence of the first paragraph, which made it almost identical to the first. Originally they were different. I've tried to tighten them up, and restore the original content. Just so that we are all on the same page about what the essential content is, let me explain in greater depth why the paragraph reads as it does now, and why I think this communicates what Larry wanted to say, as well as what The Cunctator and KQ want (which only works because both sides have valid and important points to make.) |
|
I like MRC's version, and if you do as well I suppose we're settled. It says the same things but with less philosopher-speak. But you're still just blowing smoke up my ass unless you say what it is, specifically, that is expressed by your version or his that wasn't in mine, and your meaningless statement above is just more evidence. I'm sure you really do understand something I don't here--you're the better philosopher--but you're not making it clear. I'm a writer. I good at making things clear, but I have to understand them first. –LDC |
|
I think it's essential that at least some hint of the subjective and ambiguous nature of the term be provided in the first paragraph. I also agree with KQ and The Cunctator that it is essential that we make the standard definition as central as possible. Balancing all of these concerns is not a simple process, but I think we're in far better shape than we were yesterday. |
|
I think it's essential that at least some hint of the subjective and ambiguous nature of the term be provided in the first paragraph. I also agree with KQ and The Cunctator that it is essential that we make the standard definition as central as possible. Balancing all of these concerns is not a simple process, but I think we're in far better shape than we were yesterday. |
|
I'd still like to see more on the history of the term, and I'd like to see the propaganda paragraph expanded to clarify some things, and to include examples. MRC |
|
Hey, this is looking better. --LMS |
|
Larry's edit of Mark's text was good; your edit may have been a bit more complete but it was confusing, so I rearranged it and I think clarified. Also, Larry's "an often propagandistic term" is far superior to your "a propagandistic term", because the latter is non-neutral; it expresses the opinion that use of the term is always propaganda, which is not true. It is true that terms like "freedom" and "oppression" are ambiguous, but they do have real meanings and real examples, and the term can be used in a straigtforward and meaningful way. Finally, I deleted the links to dictionary articles. I don't think such links are a good idea for Wikipedia in general--the reason we put an article here is because we have more to say about it than a mere dictionary entry. I might be convinced otherwise. --LDC Did the Soviet Union ever call the Sandinistas "freedom fighters"? If not, I don't think it's quite accurate to say what the article says right now. –LMS The mention of "guerrillas" as a negative term is incorrect, at least historically. Most of the Marxist revolutionaries in the Cold-War era used that term to describe themselves, including Che Guevara and Vo Nguyen Giap, who both wrote about using guerrilla tactics. We've got this set of loose synonyms: rebel?, freedom fighter, guerrilla, terrorist, and revolutionary?. (Maybe you can think of more...) And then there's activist?, protester?, marcher?, hippie?.... --The Cunctator |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)