Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Rewrite

In a few minutes, i'm going to set about doing a complete rewrite of this article. Considering that, currently, there is practically nothing on it anyways, I hope it is not a big problem. The article, as written, is rather confusing and the use of sources that can not be actually accessed online is (at least in terms of the AfD) sinking and not helping the ship. If anyone dislikes or disagrees with the information I change, please let me know either here or on my talk page. SilverserenC 21:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't notice that it was full-protected. Wow...people are determined to make this article be deleted, huh? Should I just lay out the article prose here on the talk page? SilverserenC 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that there is no literature defining the concept. We would need to determine what the article is about and identify sources before writing it. TFD (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
True, it does seem like the term Communist terrorism is just used all over the place in literature, but there's no real literature that tries to define the term. Which is annoying. But the history of the term's use throughout various countries could easily be done. SilverserenC 22:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ooo, this looks like it could be of some use. SilverserenC 22:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, except it is referring to "socialist or communist terrorism". That doesn't really help at all. Can I ask if you can see any particular grounds for treating 'communist terrorism' as a distinct subcategory of 'left wing terrorism'? This is in essence what we've been arguing about for months. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Left-wing terrorism is the overarching article that covers all types of terrorism from the left wing spectrum, which includes sub article types such as anarchist terrorism and communist terrorism. Those two are clearly different things. SilverserenC 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That source came up before and I replied, "This links to a footnote in Ethnic Profiling and Counter Terrorism which is sourced to "Terrorist Groups - - A List of Terrorist Groups by Type" at About.com. Zalman follows the same typology but calls the group "Socialist/Communist". She does not distinguish between socialist and communist, and excludes anarchists and "National Liberation" groups, such as ETA and PKK." Note she does not use the term "communist terrorism" and defines the term in the same way that other writers define left-wing terrorism, excluding anarchist terrorism. Left-wing terrorists are by the definition used "Marxist-Leninist". TFD (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Silver seren, if you can find a WP:RS that gives a sound argument for how the distinction is made, you'll be doing us all a real favour. I'd note however that has been requested for months, but has not been forthcoming, probably because it runs into insoluble difficulties of definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

*However, our very article on anarchism states that it is a radical left wing ideology. Just because that author does not mention anarchist terrorism doesn't mean that she does not consider it to be left-wing. And i'm currently working on a subpage on the topic. If I come across anything that is a more clear definition, i'll let you know. My subpage is working on the use of Communist terrorism as a term throughout history, not as an actual act. SilverserenC 22:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did run across this, but it's kinda short and isn't really a definition. I'll keep looking. SilverserenC 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Found it! THIS is perfect! I quote, "Even so, until the early 1980s various forms of radical left-wing internationalized socio-political ideology - ranging from Maoism to anarchism - still played a significant part as an ideological basis for groups engaged in terrorist activity", pg. 37. SilverserenC 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention this. SilverserenC 22:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And this is an actual definition, like you wanted. SilverserenC 22:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
So you aren't writing about the category 'communist terrorists' at all then? Can I ask why you think this talk page is a relevent place to discuss what is clearly left-wing terrorism in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You asked me to show you sources that proved that anarchist terrorism is a form of left wing terrorism. Since we were discussing it here, I responded here. If you want to move this discussion to a different page, feel free. And I am writing about communist terrorism. I'm just proving to you that since there are two things that fit under left wing terrorism, they are valid subpages to the overarching article of left wing terrorism. SilverserenC 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The question I originally asked was Can I ask if you can see any particular grounds for treating 'communist terrorism' as a distinct subcategory of 'left wing terrorism'? I then asked if you can find a WP:RS that gives a sound argument for how the distinction is made. I'd have thought it was clear that what was asking was nothing whatever to do with anarchism, but on what basis you were going to support the specific subcategory 'communist terrorism', which is the supposed topic of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If i've proven that anarchist terrorism is a category of left wing terrorism and you agree that anarchist terrorism is not the same as communist terrorism, then why do I have to make any other distinctions? I've proven that there are two subcategories of left wing terrorism. SilverserenC 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, i'll get some sources. But I think you're being kind of difficult. If communist terrorism is a subsection of left wing terrorism, any source I find is going to equate them together, yet i'm somehow trying to prove that they are related, but not so much that they are the same thing? That doesn't even make any sense. If i've proven other things fit under the banner of left wing terrorism, then you can't say it's the same thing as communist terrorism, because then you'd be saying that anarchist terrorism is a subsection of communism, which is indeed ridiculous. SilverserenC 23:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism IS left wing terrorism – except that all sources have chosen to refer to communist terrorism as "left wing terrorism". There is no reason to disambiguate between the two, as social democrats do not practice terrorism. And yes, anarchism is a part of the left-wing on the political spectrum. However anarchist terrorism is never classified as left wing terrorism, precisely for the reason that left wing terrorism = communist terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The source you provide refers to "left-wing and anarchist terrorism".[1] How does that help us? We have two separate articles, because they are normally treated separately. TFD (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And this article? SilverserenC 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
heavens, this talk page reminds me of that silly old poem"

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

People seem to know that communist terrorism is a real subject, but no one can actually find it anywhere in the literature. And yet it breeds so many persistent defenders.
At this rate we might as well suggest a merge with the UFO page - it has about the same level and style of sourcing. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of your sarcasm, you clearly don't understand the discussion at hand. Communist terrorism is everywhere in the literature. The issue is whether it should be considered separate or not from left wing terrorism. SilverserenC 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the issue we've been going over for months, and getting precisely nowhere. Can I ask if you've taken the time to look through the talk page archive, to see what the debates discussed? I for one can see no point whatsoever in going over old ground again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I just did, at your suggestion. I see that this article has been in a state of turmoil for quite a while, with it having a number of different names and it being a disambiguation page just a couple of weeks ago. I also notice that it is always the same users wanting to delete it, e.g. the three of you. I also notice, going back directly through the history of the article itself that it has never been made as an article about Communist terrorism as a term. So I still feel validated in the version I am creating (and I do agree that the old state of the article was horrible). SilverserenC 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue hasn't been over the deletion of individual articles, but over the correct and neutral treatment (in as far as this is possible) of the subject of left-wing terrorism in general: i.e. what the subject legitimately includes, and whether it should be subcategorised in any way. With regard to 'communist terrorism', the specific difficulty is in finding an adequate sourced theoretical basis for any subcategorisation, and to repeat, none has so far been found. On that basis, writing an article on the subject is liable to result in synthesis and original research, which is why (along with some distinct POV pushing) the article has been so problematic.
Which is why, instead, I think you should categorize Communist terrorism as a term that has been used extensively throughout the past hundred years and the article should be about the history of the term and where it has been used. That gets around any of the other issues. SilverserenC 00:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
So you are now proposing to write an article on The usage of the term "communist terrorism"? And you expect to find a reliable source for that topic? I give in.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I already stated way above that i've already started a subpage. This isn't new information. SilverserenC 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Silverseren: first point - asserting that I don't understand a discussion is liable to end up with you washing a whole lot of egg off your face. best you don't do it.
second point - I'm not averse to a decent treatment of this subject (under an appropriate title). If you want to try a rewrite of this page, that's cool, but be aware that synthesis from published sources is unacceptable, and I'll axe it as soon as I see it. I'm curious to see how you're going to write an article on 'communist terrorism' when the term does not get used in any systematic way in scholarship or journalism - the idea may have been around for a long time, but the language used to discuss it is not the language this article uses. we can't just fabricate our own terminology, can we? --Ludwigs2 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's mainly going to be a history of the term and how its been used in various countries. Like how fears of communist terrorism in Germany is what allowed the Nazi party to step in after the burning of the reichstag (which was blamed on communist terrorists). Please go and see the subpage that I linked to earlier in this discussion. SilverserenC 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is the disambiguation page, now here not sufficient for the purpose? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If the article is not deleted at AfD, then insisting on "editing" it to a dab page is improper. Meanwhile, until the AfD is settled, making it a dab page is barred by WP policies and procedures. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, be careful about synthesis. looking at what you've written thus far (the lead and the section on the Reichstag), you're starting out on a questionable footing. There are three main problems with what's there:
  • There's no actual evidence that the Reichstag was burned by communists (not that I know of, anyway), so this section is actually about the false creation of communist terrorists by the Nazis for propaganda purposes. If you try to connect that with actual communism it will fall flat.
  • You are not taking into account the wide variety of groups that fall into this list. It's not just difficult to determine whether a particular act constitutes terrorism, it's also difficult to determine whether a particular group is actually communist. You'll need to delineate that carefully, otherwise it's will end up as "someone that someone called communist doing something that someone called terrorism", which is so general that it would probably include disgruntled employees and freaky ex-lovers.
  • You are beginning to slide into an unsupported induction: 'terrorism committed by communists' is markedly different from 'communist terrorism' (in the same way that 'murder of abortion doctors by devout Christians' is markedly different from 'devout Christians murder abortion doctors'). The first is an act committed by a group or individual because of their (possibly misguided) interpretation of a given ideology, the second is an implied program of action built into the ideology itself. This is the synthesis this page has suffered from all along. You cannot go from the individual acts to an implicit program of action without significant and clear sourcing. We don't get to imply that a program of communist terrorism exists; we can only report that implication as it is presented in sources.
Let me know when you do more work on it, so I can read it over again. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond in order to your points.
1. Actually, according to this source, which I also know to be true from my history classes, most modern historians believe that Marinus van der Lubbe, the communist youth blamed for the fire, actually did start the fire and the Nazi party, at least at that point in time, did have some legitimate fear of communists taking over before they were able to.
2. I know. I mean, whenever you're dealing with things that involve the word terrorism, there is always some amount of ambiguity, considering that terrorism itself is ambiguous. I'm going to try and just stick to the main events that a great number of sources call communist terrorism. There are about five or so. I'll try and stay away from the minor things that could be getting a bit too far away from the topic at hand.
3. That is true. However, at the moment, all the article has is info about Germany and they really did believe that there was a large Communist conspiracy of terrorism that would destroy the country. Thus far, for what i've written, there isn't any synthesis. The German fear of large-scale communist terrorism is well documented. SilverserenC 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For a start, Marinus van der Lubbe wasn't a communist party member. He had once been a member of the Communist Youth Movement, but had left and "joined a radical anarcho-syndicalist organisation which elevated 'propaganda by deed' into its main principle of action" (Evans The coming of the Third Reich, P.328). And BTW what you 'know to be true' from your history classes isn't WP:RS, or even WP:V. As to whether van der Lubbe started the fire, I'd say it perhaps questionable, though Evans seems to accept he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any way to dig through the propaganda around the issue to get at the truth, so something like that should probably get sourcing from all the various perspectives. The only thing we can really say for sure is that he was a very useful token for the Nazis. It's one of those 'If he didn't exist, someone would have created him' situations. --Ludwigs2 03:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article isn't about van der Lubbe anyways. So whether he actually did it or not is rather irrelevant and i'm not going to put any info about him in the article. But I do agree with what you just said. SilverserenC 03:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I know he wasn't a member, I never said he was, I just said he was communist. And I also agree that, in terms of Germany, I am discussing Communist terrorism in an illusory sense. It was a significant fear, but the actual communist terrorists didn't exist. Which is fine, since I am making the article about the term, not about communist terrorism as a reality. That's how the literature often treats it as well anyways. and please don't quote RS and V to me, I know that already, I was just making a comment. SilverserenC 03:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting it is possible to be an Anarcho-Syndicalist and a Communist at the same time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Um...no? However, just the fact that one easily moved between the two does show that they are both left wing forms of terrorism. Why are we talking about van der Lubbe again? He's not in the article, so this isn't really important. SilverserenC 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"they are both left wing forms of terrorism." What are? He only (allegedly) set fire to the Reichstag once. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are hopelessly out of your depth with this article. I'd find a subject you are better equipped to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk)
With all due respect Andy, I think it's actually you who's missing Silver seren's point and getting a little "out of your depth". The first point is that whether or not van der Lubbe was a communist or anarchist, his act got branded as an incidence of "communist terrorism". The second point is that both communism and anarchism are left wing ideologies. The third and related point is that anarchism and communism are distinct ideologies. I'm a bit surprised to see you call the second and third points "nonsense" above. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
At least someone understands what i'm saying. :/ SilverserenC 05:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
First point accepted (so long as we don't skip the step from 'branded as' to 'is'). second point: be careful of inappropriate associations. Yes, scholars differentiate between left-wing and anarchist. Yes, scholars differentiate between communist and anarchist. But this does not mean that scholars differentiate between communist and left-wing. As I understand it, 'left-wing' is used as a very general term to refer to any ideology that opposes strong statist+capitalist ties. Communism is a less-loose term that demands a particular form of relationship between the citizen and the state. Communists and anarchists are thus different in their understanding of the ideal relationship between the citizen and the state, but alike in their rejection of the capital-dependent state-system as a whole. But I don't think this is actually spelled out in the literature, and I think a lot of scholars use 'communist' as a loose euphemism for 'left-wing'--Ludwigs2 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the more general issue/problem here is differentiating between "real" communists and people who happen to have communist connections. Che Guevara, for an easy example, was someone who was thoroughly dedicated to Marxist principles, and committed a lot of violence to further them. There's no ambiguity there. van der Lubbe was someone with loose connections to communism, and even assuming he committed the act, it's not at all clear that it was (for him) a 'communist' act. I mean, if I committed an act of violence, and someone discovered that (in my youth) I had gone to a lot of nudist colonies, would that mean that I was guilty of nudist terrorism? Setting aside the difficult challenge of nudists hiding bombs, we do need to see something more than a casual connection between the person and the ideal before we can say that the act was ideologically motivated. --Ludwigs2 05:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still very confused why we're arguing about whether he was a communist or not, since it doesn't matter in terms of this article. :/ SilverserenC 05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me headed down the glorified list avenue again, which as someone remarked on the 'afd' page is what Mamalujos initial effort was in any case. like down the pub or something 'there was the reichstag..and then the RAF they were commie terrorists weren't they, yeah, they're in, and then the malaya emergency thing, they were CP , i think the chinese were behind that..' fascinating, enlightening read. 'more natural homes for the info in other articles' - the terrorism that sprang from independence movts, from the Cold war rivalry internationalised, from the revulsion of the young at the hypocrisy of its leaders etc - malaya in the 50s - in that article etc..except the creators and defenders of the article aren't really interested in that, - as if the status quo were a peace disturbed - didn't lenin get his chance because of the slaughter of the first world war anyhow..' the terrorist is the guy with the small bomb' was that behan?Sayerslle (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It will be an OR list of an article, Voluntaré Marek. Sayerslle (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: "... his act got branded as an incidence of "communist terrorism"." Please, keep in mind that it was branded as such by Nazi. I am not sure if serious mainstream scholars share this idea. Therefore, and taking into account that this thesis was successfully used by them for coming to power, this story belongs to the article about Nazism, not Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If one wants to write an article about the use of the term, then one requires sources that describe the use of the term. One cannot read through the literature, find the countless ways the term has been used and describe each of them. That is original research. TFD (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Luckily, one can do exactly that in a disambiguation page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And my article will essentially be a disambiguation page, just with a bit more info than bulleted points. SilverserenC 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Disambiguation pages are not articles – they are navigation aids!": Wikipedia:Disambiguation_dos_and_don'ts. Inventing a hybrid 'article'/'disambiguation page' format to shoehorn different concepts in is totally at odds with normal Wikipedia style, and more or less certain to become a synthesis AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
hmmm... what would that be, an artiguation or a disacle? --Ludwigs2 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
An abomination, I'd say. Regardless, it would be a horrible precedent to set. If you can't justify an article, but think there should be one anyway, don't write about the subject (because you can't define what it is), but instead write about anything that seems vaguely related, even if only because you found the words of the title via Google. Come to think of it, wasn't that more or less how this article started off? Synthesis is synthesis, regardless of how you present it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is contingent on the current AfD ending in Delete, though I presume that it will anyways. How about this. I finish up the subpage version of the article that i'm working on (though if I could have a few weeks to do so, that would be appreciated, finals are next week) and I move the information to mainspace, either replacing or restarting the article on this topic. Then you can immediately put that version up for AfD and I will happily abide by the decision of the community. Furthermore, this will cement the community's consensus on whether the article is appropriate or not, for if it is decided to be deleted, then that will show that all versions of the article has been decided to be unacceptable by the community (considering that both the version of communist terrorism as a real thing and as a term will have been voted on by the community). How does that sound? SilverserenC 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about 'communist terrorism as a term', you can't by any reasonable logic include it in Wikipedia under the title 'communist terrorism'. Article titles are supposed to refer to their (single) subject. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a number of articles on various types of terms. A dictionary is not a place for a history of a term and its use, an encyclopedia is. See Evolution (term), Roman Catholic (term), Hippie (etymology), and Moron (psychology). SilverserenC 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. You've just proved my point. The article you propose would have to be titled 'communist terrorist (term)'. And then you'd have to find WP:RS that discussed the usage of the term to write it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The refs I have already used for Germany are discussing the usage of the term? Unless you mean a piece of literature that discusses the use of the term in other literature? I would direct you to this, since it's fairly comprehensive. SilverserenC 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Look. Write anything you like. If it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, it'll get included. IMO you are entirely confusing two different topics, but I can't be bothered to discuss abstractions about vague unwritten articles. All I know is that nobody has come up with a convincing argument for the legitimacy of a Wikipedia article entitled 'communist terrorism' up to now, and the issue has been debated quite long enough to have convinced me it can't be done. Claiming you can get around this by writing a hybrid 'disambiguation page'/'article' doesn't encourage me to think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no general objection to you creating an sourced article under the title Communist terrorism (term). If you want I will also let you have rescue the article history and the {{Copied}} tags on this talk page. However what needs to happen after the current AfD ends is that Communist terrorism be turned into a redirect and permanently protected from editing and edit warring. The redirect can point to Communist terrorism (disambiguation), Left-wing terrorism, or if you make a good point, to Communist terrorism (term).
As to the proposed "term" article itself, I do tend to agree with the criticism presented above. You cannot synthesize an article from the material that should be a disambiguation page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I appreciate your contribution and intents to the order in wikipedia, but I am afraid I have to disagree with your understanding of what disambiguation page is. I saw your page (and I invite others to look at it) Communist terrorism (disambiguation) and I have objections to ist content. In essence, by your approach, the page, e.g., Democracy (disambiguation) has to look something like:

Democracy may refer to:

The disambig page is for subjects that may have the same title. I doubt very much that someone might write the article on the subject "Malayan Communist Party forces" and title it "Communist terrorism". I don't know what is the term for this logical blunder, but it is akin to confusing the notions of "tree" and "oak" (Tree (disambiguation) may refer to: oak, fir, pine,elm... ) Lovok Sovok (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Initially the guerillas were known as 'bandits' but this was soon changed to Communist Terrorists, or CTs."[2] "...Templar pressed on with propaganda appeals to the Communist rank and file, whose members were now called 'Communist Terrorists or 'CTs'.[3] Clearly they are using the term CT as a proper not a common noun phrase. Note too they were called Communist because they were part of the Malayan Communist Party. They are more accurately described as nationalist terrorists.[4] TFD (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess I picked a bad example; you convncingly argued that it belongs to the disambig page. What about the rest? Also, I believe that in some discussion there was mentioned that one should not confuse/conflate the terms "terror/terrorism/terrorist". I may well believe that these guerillas were called "CTsts" in governmental sources. The question is whether these sources used the terms CTsm. If not, the term should be in the page communist terrorist (disambiguation) (or in the discusssed one, only which may explicitely state "CTsm or CTst may refer to: "). Lovok Sovok (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Sources written about the Emergency, even modern academic ones, use the term "Communist Terrorism" (usually capitalized). I think a pc version would be Malayan Communist insurgents and insurgency, although they did engage in terrorism. TFD (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge sections

I am restarting the merge discussion. I have marked two sections with merge tags, as they duplicate (as in WP:POVFORK) content of other articles. I have already used material from this article to expand Terrorism and the Soviet Union and Left-wing terrorism. I do not see any reason why the content should be duplicated here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Um -- did you not notice that the article was not deleted? It appears that you seek to continue the "stubbification" of the article, which would be quite against WP policy. Collect (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in the least. the fact that people think there should be an article on this topic does not excuse synthesis. I already told you how to resolve this issue - you present the sources you want to add so that we can examine them and have a discussion about using them. If they're good, they go back in, if they are synthesis, they stay out. do you have an objection to that? --Ludwigs2 14:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously an oppose here. You are just attempting to remove all of the info from the page. If it is just a POV fork, then rewrite it so it isn't. And just because you have used info from this page to add to other pages doesn't mean that we should then merge it to those pages. It works the opposite way. You've made it so that those other pages are duplicating this article now. I say those other pages should have those sections removed. SilverserenC 20:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • See, this is what bugs me about this dispute. Neither you, Seren, nor Collect seem to have the least bit of concern about the content of this article - you are intent on preserving the article title at seemingly all costs. this despite the fact that the article title (as we have shown a double-dozen times already) has no real significance in the real world (outside of Malaya, at any rate). why is that? --Ludwigs2 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Why is that? Two words. Synthetic intersection. 'Communist terrorism' = anyone we can call a terrorist, so we can associate them with communism + anyone we can call a communist, so we can associate them with terrorism. Simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Any real kind of terrorism is a type and the word terrorism anyways. Even the left/right wing discussion from before is essentially saying, these people are left or right wingers and they do terrorist actions, therefore they are doing left/right wing terrorism. Pretty straightforward, really. SilverserenC 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • AfD discussions are over the notability of a topic (which includes the title), not necessarily the content. I believe that the topic itself is notable, but I agree that the content should be improved. However, what you are proposing is not improving or rewriting the content, but removing it altogether. If you wish to rewrite the content of the article so it is improved and no longer a POV fork, go right ahead, but removing information entirely is not improvement. I'm going to be working on my version of the article anyways. SilverserenC 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
        • These people have beards and they do terrorist actions, therefore they are bearded terrorists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure if scholars would accept that, since it would be an affront to their beards, but essentially. I'm just saying that it seems to be standard procedure for naming cases of terrorism, since terrorism itself is so ill-defined. SilverserenC 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Are you trying to name cases of terrorism? They can go in an article entitled 'terrorism'. If you are trying to name causes of terrorism, which is what this synthetic intersection appears to be doing (e.g. being a communist makes you more likely to be a terrorist and vice versa), you'll need to find WP:RS to back this assertion up, and this has been entirely lacking. If one defines 'terrorism' as violence carried out for political ends', then it is self-evident that there will be some sort of connection between violence and politics. The question is can you find a particular connection (with WP:RS) between this particular form of politics ('communism' - and good luck trying to define that), with this particular form of political violence (e.g. 'terrorism', though as you yourself admit, this is ill-defined). Unless you can find a clear theoretical explanation from a reliable outside source for why the subject is meaningful, there is nothing to write about, without engaging in OR and/or synthesis. Which is what the problem with this article has been all along.AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was talking about common titles used when talking about types of terrorism. They are generally worded as "{some idealogoy, religion, or other word) terrorism". That's what I was commenting on. See here for some examples, but there are many other examples, of course. SilverserenC 03:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Yes, exactly. There is an article on 'left wing terrorism'. Why shouldn't 'communists' be discussed under that? Without specific grounds for doing so, the distinction is unnecessary. (unless you want to argue that 'communists' aren't necessarily 'left wing', but you can't do that in an article without first finding WP:RS to back this up). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • My argument is the same as before. Both anarchist terrorism and communist terrorism fit under the umbrella of left-wing terrorism. They are subarticles, but completely valid ones. SilverserenC 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • That isn't an argument, it is an assertion. If you think you can find WP:RS to justify treating 'communist terrorism' as a subset of 'left wing terrorism' on a theoretical basis that explains why the distinction is necessary, then you will have a good justification for your article. I'd accept that there may be grounds for treating 'anarchist terrorism' as a special case (see propaganda by deed), but any attempt to subdivide other forms of 'terrorism carried out by leftists' will need its own theoretical justification (and nobody has found one yet...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                    • We already went over this in the Rewrite section and I gave sources there. Go look at them again if you would like. I proved that anarchist terrorism is considered a subset of left wing terrorism. If you are going to say that Communist terrorism is left wing terrorism, then you are saying that anarchism is a subset of communism, which obviously isn't true. SilverserenC 03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                      • Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Do you perhaps think that every left-winger that isn't an anarchist is a communist? Even that doesn't explain your logic. (And BTW, what you can 'prove' is irrelevant. What matters is what you can find sources for). As I said some time ago, I think you are out of your depth here, and really need to learn more about a subject before trying to write an article. I applaud your enthusiasm, but think it is misdirected. 03:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                        • You're clearly not understanding what I mean. I don't think that every left-winger who isn't an anarchist isn't a communist. Which is why left-wing terrorism does not mean communist terrorism. Both communist terrorism and anarchist terrorism are separate sub-sections of left-wing terrorism. And I personally believe that there are other subsections, but they are just not clearly defined. What you are proposing by saying that communist terrorism is the same as left wing terrorism is that every left wing terrorist is a communist, including anarchists. Does that even sound remotely correct to you? And I "proved" what I was saying by showing you sources in the section above, sources that you are, almost deliberately, ignoring. Please do not say that I am out of my depth. The fact that you can't understand what i'm trying to explain makes me believe the opposite. SilverserenC 03:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
                          • I think the reason I don't understand what you mean is because you don't either. You seem to be under the misapprehension that being able to label somebody as both 'a communist' and 'a terrorist' (without actually defining what either means), makes 'communist terrorism' a legitimate title for a Wikipedia article. It isn't. End of story. Write your article, and then see how long it stands up to proper analysis from people who understand what reification is, and why it cannot be grounds for encyclopaedic articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said and it seems like you're purposefully trying to obfuscate the discussion. Let me try a simple sort of chart thing then. Let's see if that helps.

  • I put the untitled terrorism in there because not every left wing terrorist is a communist or an anarchist. But we don't really need to worry about that anyways. The point is, both communist terrorism and anarchist terrorism are sub-types of left-wing terrorism. Is that clearer now? SilverserenC 04:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not at all. You can't subdivide a subject without explaining the basis by which you make the subdivision, and without explaining why this subdivision is significant. End of story. I'm not going to waste my time arguing further. If you think you can create a valid article, go ahead. Just don't expect it to survive long before people who know the difference between arbitrary labels and real phenomena get to look at it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't bullet-point entire discussions - it's distracting. use normal indents instead.
Seren, you're making a faulty move in your logic. The fact that scholars distinguish anarchist terrorism as a sub-type of left-wing terrorism only means that you have 'anarchist terrorism' and 'non-anarchist left-wing terrorism'. there is noting in the literature that I've seen which suggests that 'non-anarchist left-wing terrorism' is regularly called 'communist terrorism'. CT is just a convenient label that some wikipedia editors like yourself use to refer to non-anarchist left wing terrorism, but wikipedia editors are not reliable sources.
In my view, the way to structure this schematically based on the way sources deal with the information is as follows:
  • Terrorism
    • Revolutionary terrorism (terrorism around regime change)
      • Left wing terrorism
        • Anarchist terrorism
      • Right wing terrorism
        • Nationalist terrorism
    • Religious terrorism
      • Islamic Terrorism
    • (an assortment of notable context-specific topics like eco-terrorism, that don't have an over-arching structure in scholarship)
You'll notice that I haven't assigned names to the 'other' categories in any of the sections - which would include things like Christian terrorism related to abortion, terrorism related to Irish reunification, and terrorism more generally related to communism - even though there might be reason to do so. These do not have a presence in the scholarly literature, so trying to assign labels to them myself would be synthesis.--Ludwigs2 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You forgot reactionary terrorism, such as white terror.(Igny (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC))
Sorry. actually, 'terrorism' is not the best way to frame this domain anyway - if you start from 'political violence' the typologies fall together much more cleanly. but getting wikipedians to give up polemical terminology is a near impossibility. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Id say that there is a strong case to suggest that the word 'terrorist' is becoming increasingly meaningless (not that it meant much to start with). Perhaps it is time to revisit the question? I'd agree entirely with Ludwig's schematic - it seems to fit in well with the majority of academic discussion of the subject, from what I've seen. We need to bear in mind that it is only a schematic, and may not always fit a particular example very well - the IRA (in it's many manifestations) has been at various times 'leftist', 'nationalist' and arguably at least 'religious' and even 'right wing' (if only by association). And then there are groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army which seems to have been leftist, but showing little evidence of having a coherent political ideology to speak of. This leads me to ask whether we should actually be subdividing 'terrorism' by political affiliation at all. Does this actually help in understanding the phenomenon? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
See, I think we're just confusing each other here. I agree with your formatting. However, you guys are the ones saying that Left-wing terrorism just means Communist terrorism, which is what I disagree with. Where do you propose Communist terrorism fits on your list then? Because if you're saying it's the same as Left-wing terrorism, then it would be equally correct to format it like this.
  • Revolutionary terrorism
    • Left-wing terrorism (Communist terrorism)
      • Anarchist terrorism
    • Right-wing terrorism
      • Nationalist terrorism
I believe that this format is completely incorrect, since anarchist terrorism is not a subsection of communist terrorism. So, I ask again, where does communist terrorism fit, in your opinion, based on the sources out there? SilverserenC 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Seren, this is exactly the problem - as far as I can tell, 'communist terrorism' only applies (in scholarship) as a term used in certain discussions of Malay insurrections. That would make it something like:
  • Left-wing terrorism
    • Anarchist terrorism
    • Regional examples
      • Malaysia (Communist terrorism)
There's no real grounds in the literature for using it more broadly than that. If you want to go to specifics, that's where communist terrorism lies; if you don't want to go to specifics, there is no such thing as communist terrorism, except as a casual-but-incorrect euphemism for left-wing terrorism. Analogy: you can say that all sports are played with balls (which is largely true). If you want to get right down to the details you can say that hockey is played with a puck rather than a ball, and if you live in Canada you might talk about pucks more than you talk about balls (since hockey is big up there). You might even comfortably claim that a puck is a kind of flat ball, just for consistency's sake, in which case pucks cease to exist for the purposes of the discussion. but even the most ardent hockey fan can't really claim that all balls are actually spherical pucks; that's just nonsense. see what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's meant to help understand the phenomenon - it's an ideologically motivated rubbish article - in its tiny-minded way it is part of the problem, an unsubtle approach to reality that furthers the cause of stupidity.Sayerslle (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how to even respond to this comment, since it's not actually saying anything at all. If there's a point in it, I can't decipher it. SilverserenC 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion about the typology of terrorism. Generally it is classified by the objectives (see Aubrey for example), and the major classifications are left-wing, right-wing, nationalist, religious, anarchist, state-sponsored and special interest. Left-wing terrorists (aka "Marxist-Leninist terrorists") seek to establish a socialist state with themselves as leaders, while anarchist terrorists seek to destroy the state altogether. Left-wing terrorism is not merely terrorism by those who are considered left-wing, and left-wingers may be involved in other types of terrorism as well, including right-wing terrorism. The relevance is the objective. A good parallel is a gangster who drives impaired. Law enforcement would not treat this as organized crime, because they would look at the offense and the intention, rather than the nature of the offender. TFD (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

However, the sources I gave in the above Rewrite section show that anarchist terrorism is considered a subsection of left-wing terrorism. Where does that fit in what you just said? SilverserenC 05:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"Left-wing terrorists (aka "Marxist-Leninist terrorists") seek to establish a socialist state with themselves as leaders...". Source please, for the "aka" (and the rest, come to think of it...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"AKA" seems to be an unneeded usage, to be sure. Nor do I think the strange catenation of (essentially) "left wingers may be right wing terrorists" to be of any particular use at all. Nor are metaphors utile in any article, unless a RS uses that metaphor, and it is ascribed as such to the RS used. I suggest it might be easier to define "communist" as a specific term than to use any particular political spectrum definitions being used inconsistently. Perhaps going back to the simplest definition of "communism" as "belief that all property should be held in common, or by the state" and stating that "modern communism" mainly derives from the writings of Marx and Engels, would be a more sane course? Subsections could then deal with origins and acts of subgroups of "communists" in the modern usage. Then "Communist terrorism" would be "acts of terrorism committed by adherents to communist beliefs with the goal of establishing or maintaining a communist government" would be as NPOV as imaginable. And a very short lede. Collect (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
collect: You're suggesting that we create a definition of 'communist' for our own uses? Or are you suggesting that the above is a definition that you found in a source (citation please?), and that we should determine for ourselves what real world objects it does and does not apply to? The first is entirely original research, the second synthesis from sources - both are against policy. or is there some interpretation of what you said that isn't against policy that I'm not seeing at the moment? --Ludwigs2 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we create a definition - I am suggesting that we start with a definition from a reliable source (basically, in this case, using a standard definition of "communism" found in many sources) and work from there. This, in fact, is how WP works. If you have a source with a sufficiently disparate definition of "communism" kindly present it. I had thught this one was the least political of any to be found. It is, moreover, not "OR" to use a definition from a reliable source. Instead of Webster or the like, would you prefer the political definitons found in, say, [5] or [6]? [7] seems to be RS if you do not like the use of Webster's 3rd or the like as a source. Is there a reason for specifically rejecting a published definition, by the way? Collect (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect, I may have missed it but I haven't seen you supply a typology of terrorism from a reliable source. Creating a very generic definition of communism (one that could equally apply to many a socialist) and then creating a secondary definition of terrorism is original research and synthesis. --Snowded TALK 15:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not define "terrorism." Nor did I "create" the dictionary definition of "communism." Saying I created it is absurd. Really! Now if you have a beef with the dictionaries, write to their editors. If you have a beef with the RS sources I just gave, write to those people. But do not assert I made the words up! Collect (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You are deflecting again Collect. Have you got a source which creates a typology of terrorism in which communist terrorism is a distinct part. yes or no? --Snowded TALK 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect:
  1. dictionaries are generally considered to be tertiary sources, and thus are not completely reliable sources on wikipedia reliable.
  2. even if we were to accept the dictionary definition as reliable, you still have not addressed the question I asked about synthesis - how do we get from your dictionary definition to a real-world application without making the connection on our own?
If you can't answer that question properly, you are indeed engaged in synthesis, and that is the end of this discussion forever (or at least until someone outside of wikipedia does the research for us). I'll give you one more shot to provide a source that makes that connection for us. if you can't - by which I mean if your next post involves anything other than the presentation of a source that makes the connection for us - I'm going to archive this thread as resolved (and as a waste of time) and the rest of us are going to proceed with the merge over your objections. As I said before, this is not a debate club, and you don't get to keep rambling on about things for which you have no sources. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) So "Principles of Education" etc. are now dictionaries? I did not think it was a "dictionary" when I gave it to you - but I suppose you know dictionaries when you read them? Dictionary defs cited in reliable sources, by the way, are accepted on WP. If you do not read the cites to see that it is not a dictionary, then read them now. As for your iterated claim that it is up to editors to know anything other than what the RS sources currently in the article say, then I suggest you reread the principles of Wikipedia. And if you wish to try another AfD, try. When it failed, the job is clear - to make the article as good as we can. Collect (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question Collect. Have you got a source which creates a typology of terrorism in which communist terrorism is a distinct part. yes or no? --Snowded TALK 18:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll confess, you've piqued my curiosity. you've offered one book that tries to explain communism in terms of the principles of the Baghavad Gita and an education text published in New Delhi. Are you Indian, per chance? just curious... The education text is also a tertiary source, the Gita text does not strike me as representing a mainstream view of the matter (though we could debate that), and the other text talks specifically about the 'official Soviet definition of communism' (see the first line on the top of page 193), and would need to be contextualized as such. More to the point, not one of these sources connects a definition of communism to any real-world communism or real-world terrorism in a way that would be useful or useable in this article. doing that would (again) involve synthesis. so, I'll presume you simply misunderstood me and give you one further opportunity to make good. Please give a source that makes a connection between the definition of communism and some real-world terrorism. If you can't do it this time, we will know for an absolute certainty that you are engaging in synthesis. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect, combining words to create new concepts is synthesis. We must leave that to the experts and not create our own terminology. You need a source that defines "Communist terrorism". The only sources I have found relate to the Malayan insurgency, which was not btw left-wing terrorism, but nationalist terrorism. (Although the CTs were Communists, the objective of their terrorism was independence.) TFD (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source, Aubrey (The new dimension of international terrorism, vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004).[8] "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist. (p. 43) The term nationalist terrorism generally connotes the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group.... Left-wing terrorism (also referred to as Marxist-Leninist terrorism) is a political tool to replace Western capitalist regimes...with Marxist-Leninist or socialist governments. (p. 44) Anarchist terrorism today is a relatively isolated affair...." (p. 46) TFD (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And what about this, which says "The rise of socio-revolutionary and anarchist terrorism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries may be seen as the first historical peak of left-wing terrorism." And it is dated 2008, after your source. SilverserenC 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Silver seren, you do realise that "socio-revolutionary" in that context is almost certainly a reference to the populist Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party rather than to a Marxist organisation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't using that source as a comment on communist terrorism. I was using it to counter the notion that anarchist terrorism is separate from left-wing terrorism as TFD quoted above. SilverserenC 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. This debate is getting a bit confusing (or at least I'm getting a bit confused). I'd have to agree that since Anarchism is generally seen as left-wing, 'Anarchist terrorism' should be seen as either 'left-wing terrorism', or as a subset of, and given the propaganda by deed philosophy of many anarchists (though most 'deeds' were/are not terrorist), there are grounds for giving it it's own article. The suggestion that all (non-anarchist) 'left-wing terrorism' is 'Marxist-Leninist' is plainly nonsensical though, from the point of view of logic, if nothing else (and historically false, as the SR example shows). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
See, this is why I think we're just confusing each other. You just said exactly what i've been trying to say. So, now I have no idea what we were arguing about anymore. So, you agree that anarchist terrorism should be seen as a subset of left-wing terrorism (like I put in the poorly made chart above)? And you also agree that just because you are not an anarchist terrorist doesn't mean you are automatically a communist terrorist? Essentially, you agree that not all left wing terrorism is marxist-leninist (communist) terrorism? That left-wing terrorism encompasses more than that, such as anarchist terrorism which we already said. And, as you've just said, left-wing terrorism also includes SR terrorism, which is pretty much unique in how Russia used it. Thus, left-wing terrorism is made up of anarchist terrorism, SR terrorism, Marxist-Leninist (Communist) terrorism, and likely other types of terrorism that we either haven't thought of or haven't been given a name yet. Is this something you agree with? SilverserenC 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You'll note I suggested that there are grounds for a specific article on Anarchism "given the propaganda by deed philosophy of many anarchists": the fact that they explicitly espoused an ideology which was used by some to justify 'terrorism' (though as always, the meaning of this has varied over time), makes them a special case. My point is there in nothing that distinguishes 'communist terrorism' from other 'leftist terrorism' other than the label 'communist' (and it can only be a label unless you find WP:RS that argues to the contrary, in regard specifically to 'terrorism'). Actually, I'm increasingly moving towards the position that even 'leftist terrorism' is little more than a label, and that division into arbitrary sub-categories does nothing but make understanding more difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The book says, "The two most basic, traditional and commonly used typologies of terrorism are that of domestic versus international terrorism and typology by motivation.... According to this [second] criterion, terrorist groups are normally allocated to one of three broad categories: (a) socio-political...terrorism of revolutionary leftist, anarchist, right-wing or other bent; (b) nationalist terrorism... (c) religious terrorism.....(pp. 5, 8)." While I agree that anarchism is left-wing, the typology is based on motivation and their motivation is different. Collect brought up the example of Irgun, a right-wing Zionist terrorist group. They are classified as nationalist rather than right-wing or religious terrorists, because that was the motivation of their terrorism. If you can find a source that provides a different typology then please do so. But we should follow the standard typology and terminology used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
In that case, should we only have three articles: 'socio-political terrorism', 'nationalist terrorism' and 'religious terrorism'? (personally I can't see how 'nationalist terrorism' isn't 'socio-political', but that is just my opinion). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The three main types of revolutionary terrorism (which is the more common term) are sufficiently different to keep their own articles, although RT could have its own article. It could be a good article if it concentrated on terrorist theory, why they believe these tactics are justified and effective. Certainly NTs are "socio-political" but the different motivation will affect the types of targets they choose, their organization and leadership, and how authorities deal with them. For example, they will have fewer civilian targets, their organizations will be broadly based with less ideological rigidity and they will negotiate and lay down their arms when their objectives are met. Menachem Begin, Yassar Arafat and Nelson Mandela are in a different league from the Red Brigades, 19th century assassins and Timothy McVeigh. (They were also more likely to be successful.) Grouping the first three together as nationalists makes more sense then listing them as left, right or religious. TFD (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) that would work for me. Incidentally, nationalist terrorism is different from socio-political terrorism because it's essentially secessionist or separatist. NTs want to get away and make their own nation, not take over the nation they are currently part of. --Ludwigs2 04:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Reply to TFD: And yet again, we get back to the same point: how are 'the three main types of revolutionary terrorism' different? As I say, there may be a case for treating 'anarchist terrorism' as a special case but only because of the specific ideology of its proponents, which explicitly sees it as integral to political action. If the only difference between 'right-wing terrorism' and 'left-wing (non-anarchist) terrorism' is the general political stance of its proponents, as opposed to a particular stance regarding terrorism, why should they be treated separately at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not only will their belief system be different, but also their organization and membership, their political contacts and their choice of targets. RTs typically belong to smaller less organized groups, are unlikely to have foreign contacts, are less educated and mentally sound from a lower socio-economic backgrounds, are more likely to be conventional criminals, are more likely to attack ethnic minorities, inflict greater human injury, have less concern about their own personal safety, do not issue warnings and do not claim responsibility. Also while an LT was typically an active member of a left-wing group, an RT generally had minimal contact with right-wing groups. Compare Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh. Their different ideologies affect their actions because while the LT believes the revolution will come and hopes to start and lead it, the RT is afraid that it may be too late to save the Republic, and wants to wake up his fellow citizens, or may just wish to express his (it always is a him for RTs) rage. TFD (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Yesterday I added several {{citation needed}} tags to the first sentence of the lede section. I also failed to verify the use of the term "communist terrorism" in the second reference, Europe's red terrorists. My edit was reverted by Collect less than an hour later. I am not going to continue this edit war. However, I will be removing the offending material in 24 hours, unless proper references are given. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Collect could provide us with a source explaining what "communist terrorism" is. Otherwise we have no way of knowing if any content fits the article. TFD (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The cn tags were for single words - making the tags silly at best. As for your continued insistence that I must state what I know, there was, is, and likely shall never be any WP policy requiring such. [9] placed a cn tage after the word "Marxist", after the word "socialist" , and stated that the source by Alexander & Puchinsky "failed verification" which would be nice if there were some vague indication of what "failed verification" on an admitted reliable source per prior discussions. Nor, by the way, is it required that the term "communist terrorism" be present in every source used - which was made fairly clear in the AfD discussions. Collect (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have reverted Petri Krohn and his removal of the terms in the first line and the addition of a ridiculous amount of tags. First off, the Off-topic tags should be removed, since the information in the articles they are referring to was originally copied from this article. Therefore, if anything, that information should be merged back here rather than to there. Lastly, the terms in the first line, "Marxist", "socialist", and "left-wing", are all directly applied to communism, which are clearly correct and factual. Petri's tagging of them before as needing to be sourced is ridiculous. SilverserenC 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Marxist, socialist and left-wing are not the same as "Communist" and are wider concepts. TFD (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The tags are totally justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 1RR restriction

Well, this is a bit annoying. I'm trying to figure out why I'm being put under (collective) restriction, when I have never come close to abusing editing privileges here and was never notified of the discussion at AE (I chanced on it a day or so ago due to a different matter). I'll go and add a (late) comment there now, but I see this as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Wikipedia does not want to be restricting reasonable editors on pages like this. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The restriction is due to a recent pattern of edit warring on the *article*. Since the last protection expired on 24 November there have been a series of very large reverts. (You removed 25,237 bytes in your last edit). This does not suggest a gradual approach to consensus. If the 1RR does not contain the problem, the next option to consider would be indefinite full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
How it is possible to approach consensus with people who even do not participate in discussion? How in the world the number of bytes removed matters if the whole material is irrelevant? Does it mean that if someone wants to insert some ridiculous info, he just have to insert as much bytes as he wants so other people could not revert him completely?--Dojarca (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring on this article is mostly done by user Petri Krohn who insists on deleting the proper article by turning it into a disambiguation page, despite the fact that a proposed move resulted in "no move". Even Paul Siebert and Igny, as well as many others, have said that the this page SHOULD NOT be a disambiguation page (though ideas on what exactly can go in here differ).
If the page is tentediously being turned into a meaningless dab page despite strong opposition and complete lack of consensus, how exactly can changes to article text be discussed and proposed?
And Dojarca, you haven't contributed anything constructive to this discussion except to make statements that make it painfully clear that you are not in the least bit interested in compromise (unlike - to give credit where it's due - some others like Ludwigs2 or Andy). This is in fact a dis-improvement on your position last time around when you just asserted (with a straight face!) that "all leftists call themselves communist anyway". Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ed, one does not need consensus to remove synthesis - the consensus to do such is already established in policy. That large removal was a function of the material being moved to a different article where it is appropriate, and away from this page where it is (at best) coatrack material and (at worst) original research. I'm all for consensus discussion, but there hasn't been consensus discussion on this page in as far back as I care to look - all there is is an endless stream of justifications of novel viewpoints and the spurious addition of tangentially related sources. that's a carpet-bombing strategy - throw as many barely relevant sources and as much talk page text as you can at the page in the hopes that it will intimidate other editors - and the only thing one can do with respect to that kind of approach is take a machete to it and demand that material be added back slowly and deliberately.
If you want to encourage others to go through the material point by point and discuss it, I'd like that, but I object to your suggestion that the addition of and removal of unadulterated synthesis should be assigned the same moral value. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem of course boils down to the fact that some editors consider certain things SYNTHESIS and others don't. What the Wikipedia policy actually states is: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. [10]. The article is not doing that. What conclusion is being drawn or implied from combined sources? The article simply uses multiple sources to cover different aspects of the same topic, which is what is ALWAYS done on topics that have some depth in them. This is the way articles on Wikipedia are written. It's just that other articles are not subject to such strong ideologically motivated objections.
So how do we decide whether or not this is synthesis? I'm sorry, but your own opinion is not enough here. So we're back to consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't 'decide' if something is synthesis, we apply Wikipedia policy which states what synthesis is. If an article conflates different sources to demonstrate an argument for its existence, it is synthesis. The article consisted of the intersection of two (vaguely defined) concepts: 'communists' and 'terrorism'. No RS has been provided that shows this conflation is done elsewhere to any meaningful extent, so the act of creating the conflation is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't 'decide' if something is synthesis, we apply Wikipedia policy which states what synthesis is. - Right! And Wikipedia policy says that this is NOT synthesis. RS sources which discuss "communist terrorism" have in fact been provided and are already in the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, the whole "baffle 'em with bull" approach doesn't work on me. You have a very clear task, Marek, should you choose to accept it: you provide sources that make the claims that we add to the article. If you do that, then you're golden - I sure as heck won't argue with you. But articles are not built on a keyword approach. The fact that you can dredge up a number of sources that happen to mention some varietal of communism (in any one of thousands of contexts) and happen to connect it with some use of the term terrorism (which has at least three distinct meanings in the political science community) is irrelevant. Tossing them all into a heap on a page and waving your magic wand over them does not mystically transform them into encyclopedic information. Do your homework and come back at it, or let it drop. --Ludwigs2 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed, by writing that "The restriction is due to a recent pattern of edit warring on the *article*. Since the last protection expired on 24 November there have been a series of very large reverts. (You removed 25,237 bytes in your last edit)" you became the party of the dispute, not an uninvolved administrator. Therefore, you should be better informed about the factual details of the dispute. The text removed by Ludwigs was essentially the text that I moved (not "removed") to another article, so this text has not been removed from Wikipedia. With regard to the procedure of this move, I did that in three steps: (i) using google.scholar I demonstrated that the terrorist groups discussed in these sections are discussed in reliable sources in a context of "left wing terrorism" and NOT in a context of "Communist terrorism", therefore to place them in this article would be against the neutrality principle; (ii) notified other users that I am intended to move the content, and proposed to demonstrate weaknesses and flaws in the search criteria by decision was based on; (iii) waited for about three weeks. Most users supported this idea. Although some (few) editors still objected to the move, that could not have any affect on the move, because no evidences that neutrality principles had not been violated were provided, and because editorial consensus (or lack thereof) cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements. In connection to that, can you point at at least one violation of WP policy or guidelines committed during that move?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned a 'recent pattern of edit warring' without making a judgment as to who was correct. The large reverts merely show that the article has been unstable recently. If you believe that your proposed restructuring has consensus, it would be more convincing if you could point to an WP:RFC where that was decided. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A WP:RFC could only ever establish 'consensus' (in theory, unlikely in practice), but consensus doesn't override policy. We cant reach a 'consensus' to keep an article pushing a largely-unsourced minority POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Mamalujo, Volunteer Marek, and Collect have political views that are outside the mainstream and cannot find any mainstream sources (or fringe sources for that matter) to support their views on this article. The latter two have poor records. Other editors who supported their edits - Justus Maximus and User:Marknutley are blocked, and User:Martintg and User:Biophys are under topic bans. There is no way that any of these editors will agree to following Wikipedia policy in writing this article. TFD (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask you to redact the above TFD. My political views are about as squarely in the moderate middle - i.e. "the mainstream" - as possible. DO NOT ascribe to me the fancies of your imagination (in fact, I've warned you several times before about you (mis)labeling those who disagree with you. On the other hand, my impression of your edits is that they involve pretty much a pro-Communist, if not an outright Stalinist viewpoint, across a whole wide range of articles. I hope you realize that it is such views which are actually "outside the mainstream".
Mainstream sources are already in the article so don't misrepresent the situation.
Deleting an article out of process and against an explicit RM discussion is "not following WIkipedia policy". Not trying to undo such disruptive behavior. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Many people believe that the U.N., the media, the academic community and the banks are controlled by the Communists, and I do not intend to argue that they are not. However, WP:NPOV requires that we accept their view of the world. TFD (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What in the world does that have to do with anything?!?! Are you implying that I believe such things? I really can't see a reason for you making this kind of non-sequitur except for purposes of false insinuation. I have no idea what However, WP:NPOV requires that we accept their view of the world is supposed to mean as it is clearly a false statement. Again, what in the world are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ed, sorry, but you have to decide which side of this 'synthesis' issue you're going to stand on. By trying to play the blind admin who doesn't involve himself in content disputes you are (IMO) legitimizing pure crap as valid editing. If this were just a content issue, I'd see as how you are correct, but this is a policy issue, and as an admin you have an obligation to look at the policy ramifications and make a decision. basically it boils down to this:
  • You tell me I'm wrong and that this wasn't synthesis; we debate it, maybe I'm convinced, maybe you're convinced, either way case closed.
  • You tell me I'm right that this was synthesis, and then you bring the hammer down on it with administrative authority.
  • You waffle as you're doing now, in which case you basically (from my perspective) enforce a violation policy using administrative powers, by legitimizing synthesis as valid wikipedia content for the purposes of discussion.
Sitting on the fence is just going to exacerbate the problem. --Ludwigs2 04:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur, we are dealing with a small group of editors who are determined to maintain a POV position; we had consensus to move this material to left wing terrorism but then the reverts happened. --Snowded TALK 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, which editors do you think support the material being at Left-wing terrorism, and which editors want it to be kept here, in your view? EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just about got the energy to clear out some vandalism in other articles before getting on a 13 hour flight back to the UK. I will put together a summary later on the weekend. --Snowded TALK 11:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
[11]. Closed as "no move". Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There was no such consensus. Can you point to a diff, an RfC, an RM or an AfD where this consensus you claim is shown? I CAN point to an RM which shows that there was no consensus to move. An assertion is not an argument, especially when it's not backed up by evidence. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston. Re your "If you believe that your proposed restructuring has consensus, it would be more convincing if you could point to an WP:RFC where that was decided", you are missing the point. You proposed me to seek for consensus about the move that requires no consensus. In addition, you still didn't answered on my question: what was the problem with the search results made by me and, if the results are neutral and reflect what majority of reliable sources say, how the users' consensus can take precedence over these results? Please, note that, independently of what your answer will be you will become a party in the dispute (because one side insists that no consensus is needed, whereas another side tries to veto any changes under a pretext of the lack of consensus).
@ Volunteer Marek. You mix two quite different things: move of the part of the article's content to another article and move of the article as whole. Since I neither moved the article as whole nor proposed to do that, your reference to the lack of consensus about the move of the article as whole is simply irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging templates

Can we remove these now? The article was recently at AFD and there is no good reason apart from not liking it to have all these templates, perhaps involved contributors would benefit from removing it from their watchlists and moving along. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an article was not deleted does not mean that it should contain material that is not relevant and belongs in other articles. TFD (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is meaningless, the merge templates are detrimental to the article and basically I don't like it pointy . I under stand if I was a supporter of communist ideals, I wouldn't like it, but it is a notable topic, well reported, supporters of communism don't like it, but that is no reason not to allow our readers the decency of investigating the topic, I suggest removal of the pointy merge templates. WP:NPOV is well worth a read by involved editors, articles are supposed to reflect a global educational position , not the view out of your opinionated window ..actually involved contributors are imo detrimental to articles as this article has been destroyed by contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing my best to try and get more information put into the article and to also remove the excessive amount of tags, but my actions have been stalled by the users above. Not sure what else I can do. (And i'm apparently now taken to AE about this article for making one revert?) SilverserenC 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, a frivolous report which deserves a boomerang for the reporter imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What is Communist/communist terrorism?

While the article is blocked from editing, could editors please provide sources (article or books) that explains what Communist/communist terrorism is. We cannot write an article unless we can define the topic, and so far I have been unable to find any sources that do this. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are only attempting to delete the article, please present diffs to show if you have previously attempted to expand and develop it. Your contributions to this article are content removal and a couple of tags. In fact you made more contributions attempting to get this article deleted in the last AFD than you have to contribute to its expansion . Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Rob - if there are no sources that explain what CT is, then this article should absolutely and unquestionably be deleted, and no AfD result will make one bit of difference. This isn't some silly experiment in legislative legitimation, this is an encyclopedia. If you want to argue in circles, run for congress; otherwise put up sources (or don't) and either way we're done with this. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
When I see opinionated attempts to delete articles such as I have seen here it makes me so angry as such editing is so detrimental to the NPOV educational ambitions of the project. I have seen exactly the same tactics in the climate change war, its the same, I would topic ban you and him and a couple of others.Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
well, since we are expressing our feelings here, allow me to say that it makes me angry to see editors try to POV-push a topic into existence that has absolutely no verification in sources. You have a choice, rob - Either you show me good sources (in which case I will apologize for making you angry and wander off to do other things), or you admit there are no sources and apologize to me for making such a stink over something that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia in the first place. I don't care how angry you get, otherwise: anger is not a substitute for sourcing, and I am not going to allow this article to exist sans verification simply because some editors throw tantrums whenever I ask them to show sources. do we understand each other? So which is it going to be - the high road (where we look at and discuss some sources you will kindly provide), or the low road (where we sit here and emote about how angry we're getting in an otherwise mindless vacuum)? --Ludwigs2 20:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
See my previous reply to you about the first source:
That source came up before and I replied, "This links to a footnote in Ethnic Profiling and Counter Terrorism which is sourced to "Terrorist Groups - - A List of Terrorist Groups by Type" at About.com. Zalman follows the same typology but calls the group "Socialist/Communist". She does not distinguish between socialist and communist, and excludes anarchists and "National Liberation" groups, such as ETA and PKK." Note she does not use the term "communist terrorism" and defines the term in the same way that other writers define left-wing terrorism, excluding anarchist terrorism. Left-wing terrorists are by the definition used "Marxist-Leninist". TFD (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
About.com – what a wonderful source! Yes, TFD is correct, reference Zahman 2000f, listed on page 124 is http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/a/TerroristGroups.htm -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Besides, Amy Zalman does not sound particularly reliable. She is discussed here: Lincoln Group. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Your second link is to a snippet view. Could you please explain what it says. If no one can read it, it will not be helpful in expanding the article.
TFD (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It explains the relationship between Marx, communism, and terrorism and why it's always been difficult to definitively say something is communist terrorism. SilverserenC 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Then let us remove everything from the article and put in the sentence, "it has always been difficult to definitively say something is communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you making this up based on the snippet view, or have you actually read the source? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You can see more of that section if you try using different words on the snippet view. I should see if that book is at the library though. SilverserenC 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Try this: ISBN 9780379009064 -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The book is a collection of papers by experts in terrorism.[12] I cannot tell who wrote this paper, but s/he writes, "This paper will focus on the content and role of ideology in left revolutionary terrorism".[13] S/he also refers to it as "left terrorism". It seems that s/he is referring to left-wing terrorism and prefers to call it left or left revolutionary terrorism, rather than communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is titled, "Ideologies of revolutionary terrorism: some enduring and emerging themes", by John Dinse and Sterling Johnson".[14][15] TFD (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
@Off2riorob – We have all made extensive efforts to find sources that would enable us to expand the article. So far no one has been able to find one single source that would enable us to expand the article beyond a disambiguation page. It is not enough that you want the article to exist. You have to be prepared to write the article and provide the sources for it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism/Archive_11&oldid=1136630449"