Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Removed sourced information on the subject

This is very simple. We had an informative article: [1] (please look through the paragraphs to the bottom). Most of this sourced information was deleted. Silverseren and others, do you think some of that information can be recycled elsewhere? If so, please do. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Some parts of the article belonged elsewhere and have been moved, e.g., sections about state terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, left-wing terrorism and nationalist terrorism. Other parts, which were original research based on primary sources, have been deleted. If you want to expand the article could you please respond to the question in the discussion thread above. TFD (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That is unfortunately naive. What was this supposedly informative article informative about? Let's try a few things on for size:

• Was it about a well-defined subfield in some academic discipline? Apparently not, none of the academic sources given mention communist terrorism in any meaningful way.
• Was it about some common idea that appeared in journalism? Apparently not, since there's no common usage of this term in journalistic sources.
• Was it about some fringe theory promoted by a scholar on the outskirts of academia? Apparently not, since no oe has pointed to a theorist who talks about communist terrorism.

In other words, that 'informative, sourced article' was some editors engaging in research on their own and trying to publish it in wikipedia (assumedly because he would have been incapable of publishing it in an academic journal). Unfortunately, that's not what wikipedia is for. please take it to wikisource.

That being said, feel free to use any of these sources in other articles, where they are not being used to try to construct a new theory. --Ludwigs2 23:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Marknutley is working on his own version of this article. It's way better than mine and amazingly well-sourced. Silverseren^C 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The definition that mark nutley uses for communist terrorism is taken from Drake's Terrorists' target selection (p. 19) Although Drake provides no sources for his definition, it is identical for the definition used in the sources for left-wing terrorism, and all the groups he lists are covered in that article. Curiously he also describes liberal and conservative terrorism. But most of mark nutley's article is about topics that are excluded from the definition he uses, such as actions by Communist governments and separatist groups. TFD (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Errr... odd question, but why is Wikipedia telling me that mark is indef-blocked? and if he is, why is he still trying to work on articles in userspace? that's very confusing. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was confused when the phrase "amazingly well-sourced" was used in reference to mark, but then I've never really got over his insistence that 'communal' and 'communist' were synonyms, and that articles referring to 'anti-communist terrorism' could be used to demonstrate how often the phrase 'communist terrorism' occurred. Perhaps he has finally seen the light, and started to do some work worth of real significance to this article, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we need to consider the article as it is, rather than waiting for the Gospel according to St Nutley... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So many people spent so much time here, but the result is nothing... Why care so much about the subject that does not exist according to most of you? Biophys (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of WP is improving articles and part is preventing OR, POV, etc. from creeping in. TFD (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, if there weren't people who stood up for and insisted on proper sourcing, Wikipedia would in very short order make supermarket tabloids look like sophisticated journalism. sourcing and reason are the only things that stand between wikipedia and the vast sinkhole of usenet opinion mongering, and as this discussion clearly shows, reason by itself doesn't get very far. --Ludwigs2 08:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Protected.

{{editprotect}} Please remove the suggested merger templates as no consensus has been reached to merge article content. Tentontunic (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the notice because it is stale and is unlikely to attract any more people to that discussion. I make no judgement on whether consensus was reached or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrorists' target selection

[2] This issue has been brought to the reliable sources notice board. Tentontunic (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for new lede

Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).

To detailed by all accounts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These groups, which Dennis Pluchinsky states found their ideological guide in Marxism- Leninism and the 13 principles he has identified which believes form the core of their ideology are. 1. The world is viewed through “dialectical materialism,” the Marxist-Leninist approach to the analysis of history. 2. Capitalism is the root cause of all the problems of the proletariat. 3. Capitalism can only be displaced by force. 4. The proletariat does not currently possess the necessary revolutionary consciousness to carry out the violent overthrow of the capitalist system. 5. The traditional communist parties have forfeited their right to represent the proletariat. 6. The fighting communist organizations are forced to fill the revolutionary void of traditional communist parties. 7. In order to survive its present crisis, capitalism must resort to industrial “restructuring.” 8. Imperialism is also in crisis. 9. Western Europe serves as the “imperialist center” that is composed of a “chain of states,” manufactured by the United States. 10. The latent fascist tendencies of the capitalist, imperialist state must be exposed to the proletariat. 11. The revolutionary war against imperialism will be a long, protracted armed struggle. 12. The revolutionary armed struggle consists of two phases. The first phase would armed propaganda phase, with three components: a revolutionary strategy, communist organization, and initiation of armed combat. The second and final the revolutionary civil war. The “armed propaganda” phase reflects the anarchist propaganda by the deed” concept. 13. The next revolutionary stage for an FCO is the "fighting Communist party."

===References=== {{Reflist}} ===Bibleograpy=== *C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974 *David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291 *Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

Suggestions for improvements

The above content is taken from a blocked users page but was mentioned above so I took a look at it. Tentontunic (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake's typology does not appear to be standard. The term "Communist Terrorist", or "CT", normally refers to insurgent groups in the Malayan emergency. TFD (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Having looked into this I would have to disagree, the term has been used to refer to actions in Vietnam, Cambodia, the USSR, Europe, South America, North America, Africa and Japan. Do you believe the source fails WP:RS? Tentontunic (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that refer to both the Vietnamese insurgency and the "fighting communist organizations" as communist terrorism? Do you have any sources that say that "fighting communist organizations" are normally called "Communist terrorists" and not some other name, for example "fighting Communist organizations? Because articles are supposed to be about topics, not the usage of words to describe different things. TFD (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again, and please focus on the question, do you believe the source fails WP:RS? Tentontunic (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask whether the 'blocked user' was User:marknutley? If so I'd point out that there have been questions concerning copyright regarding this text, not to mention the issue of using content from a banned user. I think it would be highly questionable to use the text, even if it were acceptable (it isn't, in my opinion, but that is another issue). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this content was taken from his talk page [3]. It was mentioned above by Silver Seren. Why do you think it is a copyright violation when it is on his talk page? Tentontunic (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Gather the copyvio evidence and see if the edits to remove it can be made without removing factual material from the article. Mark was not blocked for anything to do with this article. Nor is he a "banned" user. "Banned" has a specific meaning on WP. Collect (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, there is no suggestion here to remove content, rather to add in fact. Please look above Suggestion for new lede. The content there is from the blocked users talk page. Tentontunic (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the "there have been questions concerning copyright regarding this text, not to mention the issue of using content from a banned user" to mean that material from a "banned user" should be eliminated (which is pretty clearly a "removal" of content). As the person is not banned, the suggestion is ill-founded. WP does not delete material from non-banned users. Collect (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I take that to mean you support inclusion of the suggested content? Tentontunic (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=411657137&oldid=411656731 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Blocked user Marknutley claiming a copyright violation.. I think that Mark may have started to draft the article here, then continued on the Mises Wiki. Given the comments at AN/I, I suspect we'd do as well not to use his early draft either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That would appear to deal with the fighting communist organizations, not this article. If you follow his link to Mises you will see he has created an Communist terrorism article as well as one about the fighting communist organizations. As this content is already on this wiki I see no issue with copyright. Do you have any other objects? Tentontunic (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)MN set this up as a proposal with refs - I actually think that the refs may reasonably be used without any conceivable problems, and I would suggest that some of the material is far too detailed for a lede (though not for the body of an article). Thus, the cavil is moot from my point of view. Note also that the WP copyright license would require, at most, that we credit the editor in the article edit history - which I think is a prudent and simple thing to accomplish (WP simply says that edit histories should credit the editors involved). Is that an onerous thing to do? I do not feel the material, as written, makes for a good lede. Collect (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the 'edit history' might be problematic - some of it seems familiar, and may be from an earlier Wikipedia article. The sourcing is inadequate, as Collect notes. I'd think we'd also have to confirm whether the 'Dennis Pluchinsky' bullet points are actually a paraphrase, and not a copy, before we used them - Mark wasn't always as careful with sourcing as he should have been, and this was only ever a draft. In any case, no, I do not think it is a suitable lede: it looks like synthesis AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which parts do you think are synthesis? The Pluchinsky points are in a blockquote, I assume this means it is in fact a direct quote. Tentontunic (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake never uses the term "communist terrorism"[4] and uses the term "communist terrorists" only six times.[5] His book uses the term "left-wing terrorism" 20 times[6] and left-wing terrorists four times.[7] It would appear that he is describing left-wing terrorism, and his book would be a reliable source for that article. TFD (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, are you seriously saying that Drake talking of communist terrorists means he is not speaking of communist terrorism? Tentontunic (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) The name has been discussed at length. Over and over and over. Always with the same results. Iterating arguments about the article name is tendentious at this point entirely. Collect (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that Drake's book uses the terms "communist terrorism" or "communist terrorists" only six times, while it uses the terms "left-wing terrorism" or "left-wing terrorists" 24 times. It would appear that he is describing left-wing terrorism, and his book would be a reliable source for that article. TFD (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point is flawed, your guess at what Drake is describing is WP:OR, he clearly defines "Communist Terrorists" in the book, thus a more than suitable source for this article. Tentontunic (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out the obvious, please. the lead of the article is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. the current body of the article contains basically nothing, and even the current lead is probably inappropriately long and detailed. What you've given above is the typology established by one author (Pluchinsky) and I see no evidence that this typology is widely accepted in any particular academic discipline. In other words, there are notability concerns for the entire article. In fact, the whole idea here seems to be to lump a wide variety of disparate behaviors (insurgent campaigns, military interdictions, governmental crackdowns, independent acts of violence from ideological crackpots, etc.) under the rubric 'terrorism' explicitly because they have an identifiable connection to communism, and thus can be used to defame communism. very 1960's antidisestablishmentarianist, which is cool in its own way, but unfortunately too OR-ish for wikipedia.--Ludwigs2 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Um - perhaps you think that removal of content by editors then becomes an argument for deletion of an article? Did you note the dab deletion at all? Give this article an opportunity to have material added before trying deletion again, please. Collect (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, are you arguing that Pluchinsky is fringe? He has authored several books on terrorism and is cited in hundreds of others [8] he is a highly respected scholar in this field. Could you please point out were you believe the WP:OR is in the suggested lede. Tentontunic (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pluchinsky does not use the term "communist terrorism" but "fighting communist organizations".[9] TFD (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And the "fighting communist organizations" are? Also please respond above to 15:30, 12 February 2011. Tentontunic (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, since "fighting" ≠ "terrorism" "fighting communist organizations" ≠ "terrorist communist organisations". Let's stick with the terminology used by the sources.

Secondly, re "your guess at what Drake is describing is WP:OR", let me point out that "original research" means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. In other words, it has a relation to the article namespace, not to the talk pages.

Thirdly, the "removal" of the content was in actuality a move of this content to the more appropriate article (based on what majority sources say). Majority, and sometimes an "overwhelming majority of sources dealing with each separate topic that had been moved (not removed from Wikipedia) use the term "left-wing terrorism", and not "communist terrorism" to describe those topics. Accordingly, we had to move the materials to the more appropriate article.

Fourthly, and lastly, I strongly advise all newcomers to read the talk page archives to avoid repetition of the same arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PS I added a {Round In Circles|search=yes} template to this talk page. Please, read the archives before re-opening the discussion about this issue .--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly "fighting" ≠ "terrorism" "fighting communist organizations" ≠ "terrorist communist organisations" read Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations

Secondly "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" Are you saying Terrorists Target Selection is not a reliable source?

Thirdly please focus on the suggested edit, not the past. Tentontunic (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm suggesting that we work on the body of the article first, and rewrite the lead later after we see what the body contains. We should not try to dictate what the article by writing an OR lead and tryng to construct a body to fit. let's find some nice references for communist terrorism, write the body, and then worry about what the lead says. how does that sound? --Ludwigs2 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 [10] in this section above, both yourself and The Four Deuces asked for a definition of communist terrorism for this article, now that they have been provided we see obfuscation and pointless argument. The references provided in the suggested lede above can also be used to expand the article. There is in fact no shortage of such sources. I have not seen you suggest any additions to the article, please do so now. Tentontunic (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic: first warning on personal attacks. it would be taken as a sign of good faith for you to refactor the attacks you made in the previous post

I haven't been on this page in something like a month, so I don't really remember what I said above, and don't really care. I'm offering you a better approach to this problem: let's work to create a body for the article, and worry about the lead after we have done so. I'm not judging your source (aside from the fact that I don't currently think it's particularly mainstream).

If you are interested in developing this page, I suggest you take my suggestion to heart so that we can move forward productively. If you continue with the kind of post you just made, that's fine, but please note that I will start asking for administrative sanctions after the third waning. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please point out this personal attack that I might redact it. If you do not care about what you have said before then why would you say it? This makes little sense to me. Now instead of threatening me with administrative actions for perceived slights perhaps you would suggest an addition to the article. Tentontunic (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of "obfuscation and pointless argument" when I am offering a productive direction for discussion. please strike that now. In general, please keep focused on content, and avoid making any comments whatsoever about other editors, and I will endeavor to do the same. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your confusion, I did not accuse you of anything Ludwigs, I was in fact pointing out that a definition had been asked for, and once one was provided the conversation went downhill, hence the usage of "obfuscation and pointless argument" No attack was meant by this, I believe I was in fact pointing out the obvious. So shall you now suggest a content addition? Or continue to insist this article ought to be deleted? Tentontunic (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this is a non-notable (or barely notable) topic that should be deleted or merged into left-wing terrorism. you seem to think otherwise, so it's your job to provide sources that use the term 'communist terrorism', so that we can see where and how this terminology was used in the literature. that will give us something to discuss. If you cannot provide such sources, then this article will most likely get merged as suggest. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re #1. Again, the fighting organisations can be described as terrorists only if the reliable sources do that explicitly in a context of this concrete organisation. Everything else is WP:OR;

Re #2. That was a response on your attempt to accuse TFD in WP:OR;

Re #3. Please, respect the time of others. Every polite newcomer is supposed to familiarise himself with the previous discussion, because old participants do not have to reproduce the arguments that have already been put forward on the talk page previously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, did you not even bother to read my response to you? Again 1 Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations the clue is in the title. 2 TFD was engaging in WP:OR by second guessing what a reliable source may be describing, especially as the source "Terrorists target selection" specifically says "Communist terrorists". I have looked over the previous discussions, they all seem to end up much like this one has. Tentontunic (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break

In response to Ludwigs from above. The term as it is has been used from the Malayan emergency, Vietnam, the Philippines, Western Europe, acts committed by China, the USSR, Cambodia and some African terrorist groups. I find myself somewhat surprise that you do not know this. Do you require citations or shall you take my word for it? I am of course still awaiting your content proposal based on the source already presented. Tentontunic (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would advise that you give up on this. As can be seen from my attempts in archives 11 and 12, it doesn't matter what evidence or arguments you present, the opposing editors will find some way to refute them, whether their arguments are logical or not. One of the main methods is by ignoring what you say. In light of this, there is no way to actually have a proper discussion. Nothing you present will help with this, that's the problem when you're arguing with users who fundamentally disbelieve in the existence of the subject.

However, if you're going to persist with this, feel free to utilize the information I have conglomerated here. I'm not going to do anything with it anymore. I've washed my hands of this subject. It's just as ridiculous as the Climate change and Israel/Palestine areas of Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 03:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Silver Seren: Focus on content and avoid casting aspersions on editors. If the only argument you have to make is that other editors are being mean to you, then you don't really have an argument at all, do you?

Tentontunic: I've seen the term used (not extensively, but to a notable degree) in reference to the Malaya. I have not seen the term used in other contexts, except here, where wikipedia editors try to argue the concept into existence. please show me specific sources who use the term 'communist terrorism' with respect to "Vietnam, the Philippines, Western Europe, acts committed by China, the USSR, Cambodia and some African terrorist groups" (quoted from above). I understand that you think this term is common; I understand that you think this term applies. However, I want to see it used in sources. is that clear? Sorry to be brusque, but I have wasted far too much time on this page listening to editors like Silver Seren waffle on about this without providing a single source, and I am tired of it.

Wikipedia is not the place for you all to make the term 'commnist terrorism' happen - i.e., we're not in the business of rescuing minor jargon from half a century ago and building a case that it is an important and current concept. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The argument you make lost at the AfD. Collect (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect: I don't f%cking care. you cannot use the results of an AfD as a justification for not providing sources. --Ludwigs2 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the request for sources which use the term outside of the Malayan emergency.

Vietnam

The sources below all call specific actions carried out in Vietnam as Communist terrorist actions.

• Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg. Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces. 1st edition. Texas A & M University Press 15 August 2008. ISBN 978-1603440592 pp 185-186
• Randall D. Law. Terrorism: a history. Polity Press 26 August 2009. ISBN 978-0745640389 p 189
• Nghia M. Vo. The bamboo gulag: political imprisonment in communist Vietnam. McFarland & Company 31 December 2003. ISBN 978-0786417148 p 28/29
• T. Louise Brown, War and aftermath in Vietnam. Routledge. 2 May 1991. ISBN 978-0415014038 p 163
• Charles A. Krohn. The lost battalion of Tet: breakout of the 2/12th Cavalry at Hue. Naval Institute Press Rev. Pbk. edition. 15 February 2008. ISBN 978-1591144342 p 126
• Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. La guerre du Vietnam et la société américaine. Presses universitaires de Bordeaux. 1991. ISBN 978-2867811227

Do you require quotes from each source or shall you WP:AGF Tentontunic (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic: we are having a disagreement about the application of this term, and disagreements on wikipedia are resolved by using sources. It's work for me as well as for you - I need to go through and look at these sources to see what they actually say so that I can assess them properly. I don't need a ton of sources, I just need enough to properly assess the prominence of the term in the literature, and the general way in which it's used, so that we can discuss what to do with it. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one questions that the Vietnamese Communists used terrorism as a tactic. Also, in the 1950s and 1960s the term "Communist Terrorists" (CTs), originally applied to the Malayan insurgents, was also applied to other insurgencies in south-east Asia. But none of these actions meet the definition supplied by Drake and are normally seen as nationalist terrorism - terrorism used in order to attain nationalist goals. TFD (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The actions carried out in Vietnam fits perfectly with drakes definition. I doubt you have in fact looked at the sources above given the speed with which you have replied. Ludwigs2, is there anything else you require or do you wish for some time to look at the currently provided sources? Tentontunic (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your first source. The Vietnamese communists used terrorism as part of a strategy to defeat South Vietnam during the Vietnamese war. TFD (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Also note that the NYT used the term "communist terrorism" in the 1940s ... making the claim that it "originally applied to the Malayan insurgents" absurd on its face. ~~

If you looked at the first source, and it says that which you just wrote, then what exactly is your issue? Please note, this refers to Viet Cong, not NVA Tentontunic (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be helpful if you could find a source explaining how the term has been used throughout history and the different meanings used by various writers. (Yes, you are correct, the Malayan emergency began in 1948, and the term CT was developed after the Communists ceased to be our allies. TFD (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to editors here to assert such. All we do is report what reliable sources say, not to interpret what they "mean." Collect (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

These philosophical discussions are not helpful to improving the article. We need reliable sources that explain the use of the term "communist terrorism" not just examples of its use. It seems that we are dealing with a term and its various meanings rather than a generally accepted term. TFD (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD your statement makes little sense, the term was of course used to describe terrorist actions carried out by communist groups. What else would it mean? Tentontunic (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It could mean a tactic used to "overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution." TFD (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you make little sense. You say "But none of these actions meet the definition supplied by Drake" Then quote Drake`s definition. Please be clear in what you are trying to convey, please. Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was quoting your suggestion for the lead that you made above and claimed Drake as the source.[11] TFD (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you were quoting, I did in fact say so. Are you now saying that the actions carried out in Vietnam meets drakes definition? If so what exactly are you complaining about regarding the suggestion? Tentontunic (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Shining Path

I am suggesting this section from Left-wing terrorism be merged here as it is obviously a communist group. Tentontunic (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, we write articles based on sources, not on what appears to be obvious. TFD (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD your source says The Communist Party of Peru, more commonly known as the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), is a Maoist guerrilla organization It does not get more obvious than that. Tentontunic (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section introduction: "In The new dimension of international terrorism, Stefan M. Audrey identified the Sandinistas, Shining Path, 19th of April Movement, and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as the main organizations involved in left-wing terrorism in Latin America during the 1970s-1980s".[12] TFD (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I.e. the "Communist Party of Peru" is not communist? Collect (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

May be. For instance, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is neither liberal nor democratic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, my personal views on the topic are of no consequence. TFD (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is quite rocket science to say that a "Communist Party" is "Communist." Moreover the Russian Liberal Democratic Party I am assured states that it is Liberal and Democratic. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] , [18] etc. all seem quite explicit in connecting the "Communist Party of Peru" to "communism" indeed. Would you need more reliable sources than these to make that extraordinary leap that the Communist Party of Peru is Communist? I assure this is not a matter of my "opinion" at all. Collect (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to whether or not they are normally described as participating in "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But clearly any terrorism from an avowedly Communist Party, generally described by reliable sources as a Communist party, would certainly be terrorism by Communists. Unless you wish to say that members of a Comunist Party acting in a revolutionary manner for that Communist Party are not Communists? An interesting sort of claim, that. Collect (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. Although the Russian Liberal Democratic Party is free to characterise itself as it wants to, that doesn't change the fact that it is neither liberal nor democratic. Similarly, despite the fact that North Korea identifies itself as "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" it is arguably the most antidemocratic state in the world. Yes, Peruvian Communist party is nominally Communist, and some sources do describe it as such. The problem is, however, that other sources describe it as left-wing, and the latter term seems to be more common than the former one. That is the main problem, which you refuse to recognise: although all these movements are being described as Communist by some sources, the term left-wing, or leftist is more frequently used. Therefore, we must use this term despite the fact that another term ("Communist terrorism") can also be found in the literature.

In connection to that, there is one more argument in favour of the "left-wing" term as opposed to "Communist". Although "Communism" ("Marxism") is being described in popular literature primarily as some totalitarian concept, the central idea of Marxism is historical materialism. According to this concept, any social transformations are possible only if material prerequisites exist for them. Therefore, the very idea that the existing state system can be overturned in any arbitrary moment by a series of terrorist acts is deeply anti-Marxist. However, that idea does not contradict to other leftist doctrines. For instance, in pre-revolutionary Russia the Bolshevik party was building it strategy mostly aroung the propaganda of Marxist ideas and on the preparation of the full scale revolution, whereas the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (non-Marxist leftists) relied on the terrorist acts against state officials. In connection to that, literate historians prefer to describe nominally Communist terrorist groups as left-wing, because the activity of these groups had little in common with Marxism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Six clearly reliable sources say it is "Communist". That ought to be sufficient. And connect it specifically with Maoism in several cases. Collect (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we go by what sources say, in this case that they have engaged in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With regard to Maoism, you are right. This deeply revised version of Communism inspired majority of nominally Communist groups in Latin America and Asia. Since Maoism as a very specific version of Communism, and, since it was its specificity (concretely, some Mao's ideas) that inspired terrorists, maybe we should combine the Maoist terrorist groups under the category "Maoist terrorism"? For instance, this source (India's Role in Nepal's Maoist Insurgency Author(s): Rabindra MishraSource: Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2004), pp. 627-646) directly contraposes Nepali Communists (Marxist-Leninist) and Nepali Maoist (terrorists), and draw a connection between the Nepali and Peruvian Maoists terrorists:

"Nepal is in the midst of arguably the most successful Maoist insurgency the world has witnessed in recent decades. The so-called People's War, started by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in 1996 as a small armed movement in four remote districts (Rolpa, Rukum, Gorkha, and Sindhuli), has now spread to all of the country's 75 districts, taking the lives of over 9,000 people. The Maoists, who appear to model themselves on Peru's Shining Path guerrillas, have shaken the country's 14-yearold, multiparty democracy to its very foundation."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I daresay trying to say "Maoism" is not communism would be something for which I would like to see a reliable source. Absent a reliable source saying that, the sources say "communist." As editors we must abide by what reliable sources say. Collect (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In none of these cases are the left-wing terrorist groups connected to the official Communist parties. In the case of Peru, for example, the Shining Path is not connected to the Peruvian Communist Party. TFD (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Only "official Communist parties" are communist? Might you furnish a reliable source making that interesting claim? Collect (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we go by what sources say, in this case that they have engaged in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the reliable sources do say "communist" but somehow the group is not "communist" so that its terrorist acts are ergo not "communist terrorism" despite what the reliable sources state? Collect (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine the terminology that the experts should use. TFD (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[19] "socialist or communist terrorism" listing Shining PAth explicitly. [20] they will also meet the same fate as that of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia and the Shining Path Communists of Peru,” Nepal said. [21] One of the most vicious communist terrorist groups in history, the Shining Path, is making a comeback in Peru [22] The Shining Path used violence to try and topple Peru's government and impose what it saw as a pure form of communism on society. Note these sources do not say "fought to introduce left wingism". The sources say "communist" thank you very much. Collect (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not these groups are communist is irrelevant to classification of their actions as "left-wing terrorism". It is not up to individual editors to define the categories that reliable sources should use. TFD (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We have established that SP is, indeed, "communist" based on many reliable sources. That it engaged in "terrorism." That reliable sources use the precise term "communist terrorism" in referring to SP. Yet somehow you insist that reliable sources only count when you cite them as saying "left wing"? Sorry -- the facts are here - the SP is a communist organization. It engaged in terrorism. Its acts are called "communist terrorism." Seems plenty good enough. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can put in their article that they are communists and have been called terrorists. What has that got to do with their inclusion in the article "left-wing terrorism"? TFD (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow "They have been called terrorists" in the face of all the sources? Seems that the sources fully comply with sourcing the terrorism by communists which has been called "communist terrorism" by a number of sources, reasonably belongs in an article on "Communist terrorism." SP is "communist" at least. That much is now not contested, but whether they are "terrorists" is the problem? Collect (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Source: New York Times 14 October 2006 [23] The founder of Shining Path, Abimael Guzman, whose messianic communist vision inspired a 12-year rebellion that cost nearly 70,000 lives, was found guilty of aggravated terrorism and sentenced to life in prison. New York Times 2 December 1990 [24] They could surrender, but they would face virtual enslavement and forced indoctrination in the Shining Path's rigid Communist dogmas. New York Times 14 September 1992 [25] "My turn to lose," Mr. Guzman, the head of the Maoist Shining Path group, reportedly said when the police arrested him at a house in the middle-class Surco neighborhood here. New York Times 15 May 1994 [26] More important, that meeting set in motion a conservative pro-business movement to rescue Peru from economic chaos and Shining Path terrorism that looked to the novelist as its natural candidate for the 1990 elections. New York Times 24 July 1992 [27] Hunched over computers confiscated from a guerrilla group here, detectives recently discovered a surprising electronic file: a list of 239 Peruvian businessmen forced to contribute "war taxes" and a directory of 2,500 additional candidates for extortion or kidnapping. Peru's more radical guerrilla group, the Shining Path, is thought to finance its activities through the collection of as much as $40 million a year in "war taxes" from Peruvian coca leaf growers and Colombian cocaine traffickers. In early July, the anti-terrorist police released a document that they said was seized during a recent raid on a Shining Path cell in Lima. According to this document, the Shining Path committee in Peru's principal coca leaf-growing area, the Upper Huallaga Valley, promised to turn over to the party half of the protection money raised from coca leaf growers and laboratory operators.

New York Times 22 March 1992 [28] Shining Path's brutality is deplored by human rights organizations and governments alike, and they hold no hope of bringing it into the political mainstream. Its tactics include the burning of ballot boxes and the public "executions" of moderate local leaders and others, including nuns and priests, who are seen as rivals for the allegiance of the poor. In wildly exaggerated demonstrations of Maoist precepts, children have been killed for political "crimes." Amnesty International says the guerrillas routinely torture, mutilate and murder captives. More than 23,000 people are thought to have died in a decade.' (seems enough here to state unequivocally that it engaged in terrorist acts)

I suggest the New York Times is an unquestionably reliable source for these quotations. Collect (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, Collect, you miss the point of wp:SYN. Yes, sources say they are terrorists. Yes sources say they are communists. No, sources do not say anything about 'communist terrorism'. In the same vein, a number of Catholic priests are pedophiles, but we do not create the term Catholic Pedophilia, as though there were something intrinsic to Catholicism that encouraged pedophilia. You obviously cannot find sources that intrinsically link communism to terrorism in the manner that you would like (because if you could you would be pouring those sources all over this page with extreme glee), so that leaves you in the hole. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since several use the exact phrase "communist terrorism" I fear you are quite errant in your claim. Collect (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course Black Book of Communism has a chapter entitled "Communism and terrorism". It describes Korean Air Flight 858 and famous Carlos the Jackal and Wadie Haddad who were supported by the communist states.Biophys (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect: Cool. if several use that exact phrase, then this is the place where you provide citations and page numbers so I can read them for myself. see how easy that is?

@ Hodja: let's be clear... I don't have a problem with the idea that communists perform terrorism. many different ideological groups perform terrorism, and it would surprise me if communists were an exception. however, the term 'communist terrorism' is much stronger than communism and terrorism, at least how it was originally used on this article (some editors here were trying to make the argument that communism is inherently terrorist, which is completely unfounded and unsourced). One of two things needs to pertain to use 'communist terrorism' as a rubric: (i) some indication in sources that the phrase 'communist terrorism' is or was in common enough usage in academia or journalism to make it notable as a reference to a particular, well-defined class of phenomena, or (2) some indication in sources that communism itself is noted for promoting terrorism. The second doesn't exist, so far as I can tell: early Marxists discuss terrorism, but mean something very different than the modern use of the word (closer in sense to total war than to political terrorism); later marxist (or marx-derived) theories didn't have much to say about terrorism at all. For the first, the term was used in a limited capacity to refer to Malay insurrections, but not in any significant way outside of that conflict so far as I know. Either way, sources are called for. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, martin's definition that communist "terrorism is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government" excludes KAL007 and state-sponsored terrorism by the Soviet Union. Since you and martin disagree over the definition of "communist terrorism" perhaps you could provide a source for your definition. TFD (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Below are two quotes from one reliable secondary source (Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America. Author(s): Andreas E. Feldmann and Maiju Perälä. Source: Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 101-132). Please, look at the terminology it uses.

"Following the 1959 Cuban revolution, nongovernmental terrorism became a distinctive phenomenon of Latin American politics. To counterbalance the hegemony of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, Fidel Castro and the Cuban communist leadership fostered a revolutionary doctrine to advance the idea that a small group of military combatants, elfoco, could start an uprising against bourgeois governments. This struggle, they thought, would prompt popular support for the revolutionary cause and generate a military movement that could defeat ruling regimes and replace them with widely supported "people's governments" (Ratliff 1988, 16). During the 1960s, several Latin American leftist groups, aided by Cuba, attempted to organize rural guerrilla warfare."

In other words, Communist Cuba started to support left-wing organisations to provoke overturns in Latin American countries. It is natural to suggest that these left-wing organisations were Communist terrorists, because, as someone can argue, "Communist terrorists are the terrorists supported by Communist regimes". However, such a conclusion would create serious problems, and I can explain why. The authors continue:

Throughout the Cold War period, the superpowers endorsed many Latin American organizations that resorted to terrorism. There is evidence that the Soviet Union, through Cuba, provided funds, weapons, training, political endorsements, and logistical assistance, such as passports, intelligence services, and the use of diplomatic facilities, to many groups, including the Montoneros, the Tupamaros, the FARC and ELN, Peru's MRTA, Chile's MIR and FPMR, and the FAR in Guatemala. By supporting these organizations, the communist leadership attempted to spread revolution and to challenge U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, the United States endorsed numerous rightwing groups that perpetrated terrorist acts, especially in Central America, such as the death squadrons in El Salvador and the Contras in Nicaragua. Washington provided weapons and supported these groups politically to contain the advancement of communism in the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, in the Third World (Schlagheck 1990, 171; Luttwak 1983, 63-64; Laqueur 1987, 270-74; Asprey 1994, 1094, 1108-10)."

In other words, although Communist USSR and Cuba provided a support for some left-wing organisations, the authors, for some reason, persistently avoid characterise them as Communist terrorists. Why? In my opinion, that is not only because the Soviet support does not automatically make some organisation Communist (for instance, the USSR supported Spanish republicans, but they were not Communists). The answer may be in the second part of the quote: Capitalist (or Democratic) USA provided equal, if not greater support for right-wing terrorist groups. Obviously, the US support didn't make El Salvador death squadron terrorist "democratic". I don't think we can speak about "democratic terrorism" at all, even despite the numerous examples of the support of terrorist groups by some democratic countries.

Let me re-iterate, the authors carefully avoid to call Latin American leftist terrorists "Communist" despite the fact that they were supported by the USSR and Cuba, and, similarly, they avoid to call rightist terrorists "Democrats" despite the massive support these groups were obtaining from the USA.

Another example of careful usage of terminology by these authors:

"In Peru, Sendero Luminoso, a Maoist group, began a violent struggle in 1980 against the new democratic administration of Fernando Belafinde Terry. Soon a second revolutionary group, Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA), a pro-Moscow organization, also used terrorism to rebel against the Peruvian state. In Ecuador, Alfaro Vive, Carajo (ALC, Alfaro Lives, Dammit!), a left-wing organization, unleashed a series of terrorist attacks to weaken the new democratic administration of Jaime Rold6s (Laqueur 1987, 255-57; Mickolus et al. 1989a)."(ibid.)

For some reason, the authors again avoid the word "Communist" to describe Sendero Luminoso, preferring to use "Maoist" instead. They also use "left-wing" for Alfaro Vive, Carajo. I do not think that has been done by accident, and, taking into account what the author write about Communists, they hardly are Communist sympathisers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that "Maoists" are not "Communists"? Astounding! Collect (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism by both Communist states and the United States comes under the category of "state-sponsored terrorism", which along with left-wing, right-wing, anarchist, religious, single issue and nationalist terrorism, forms one of the seven major classifications of terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for the claim that there are precisely "seven major classifications of terrorism" please/ Collect (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here. TFD (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific claim. If you do not have a source for the claim, the claim is of zero value. The issue seems now to be: are the sources sufficient to say "Shining Path, the Communist Party of Peru, engaged in communist terrorism" or not. As the reliable sources say this, I would suggest that any aside that it is "not one of the seven types of terrorism" is quite valueless. Collect (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not asserting that Maoists are not Communists. My point is that, when different terminology can be used, the scholars choose the term that is more relevant to this particular case. The part of the "political phylogenetic three" of the left-wing movements we are talking about is

left-wing -> Communist -> Maoist

In other words, all Maoists are Communists; all Communists are leftists; however, the opposite is not through. The authors characterise MRTA as a "pro-Moscow revolutionary group", however, they do not characterise them as Communists. However, they explicitly write about Shining Path that they are Maoists. Probably, the reason is that SP's adherence to the Maoist version of Communism is more relevant in this particular case. Therefore, it would be more correct to write about them as about Maoists. Similarly, the same person can be characterised as a human, a Caucasian male, a EU citizen, a French citizen, a Parisian, a husband, or a father of two children. Depending on a situation, all of that is applicable to him, however, in some situations some of those terms are hardly appropriate. For instance, a sentence: "This small bistro was full of Caucasian males." sounds absolutely ambiguous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) So we all agree the Shining Path is Communist. And that it committed terrorism in the name of communism. Simple. We have an article on Communist terrorism. We do not have an article on Maoist terrorism. Thus Shining Path clearly is a fit for Communist terrorism since that is the existing article. Collect (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, we have no article about Maoist terrorism. However, taking into account that most left-wing terrorist organisations in Latin America and Asia declared adherence to the Maoist branch of Communist doctrine (and taking into account that the sources prefer to describe them as Maoist, not Communist, implying that there is some concrete connection between Maoism and terrorism), we should probably create this article. There were virtually no non-Maoist Communist terrorist groups, so the connection between Maoism and terrorism is more obvious than between Communism and terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that claim, I listed a slew of reliable sources using the term "communist" which rather means your argument fails. And since we do have this article, and Shining Path clearly falls into the category of "communist terrorism" I would think all the cavils about it "not an official Communist party", "Maoism is not Communism" etc. are all simply preventing the adding of legitimate material to this article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. "Mimi is a cat. Mimi is from Siam. Therefore Mimi is a Siamese cat." TFD (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An interesting analysis of the works of Senderologists (the scholars who study SL) can be found in the article "The New Chroniclers of Peru: US Scholars and Their 'Shining Path' of Peasant Rebellion" (Author(s): Deborah Poole and Gerardo Renique Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1991), pp. 133-191). The quotes are below:

"Third World 'extremism' and Maoist 'dogma' shape the early work of two US Senderologists. These assumptions are based in received theoretical doctrine about: (1) the processes of modernisation; (2) the essentialised cultural 'otherness' of peasants; (3) the parochial nature of peasant political movements; (4) the irrationality of Third world political processes; (5) the uniformity of Maoist thought; and (6) the assimilation of Maoist military strategy to Western historicist allegories about the struggle between barbarism and civilisation."

In other words, a direct connection between Maoism and SL has been proposed here. For those who are not familiar with the subject, let me explain, that classical Marxist-Leninist dogma is proletarian-internationalism, so it sees peasantry as an indifferent or slightly opposing force. By contrast, Maoism relies predominately on peasantry, which makes it a good ideological basis for non-urban leftist movements, and, for SL in particular.

"The all-encompassing polarities of modernisation theory encounter a similar fate in the work of another senderologist, Sandra Woy-Hazelton. Like Palmer, she sees Sendero's emergence in a 'democratic' country as a paradox which 'challenges conventional wisdom' and assumes throughout her article that 'violence' and 'democracy' are somehow mutually exclusive (Woy-Hazelton, 1990:21). She similarly reproduces the fundamental theses of isolation, Maoist encirclement and 'native agrarian communism' (ibid., 22, 29). She also argues for the exclusively urban base of Peru's electoral Left and the MRTA, and the reciprocally rural or peripheral base of Sendero (ibid., 25-26). "

In other words, Maoist SL is being directly counterposed to other Peruvian leftists. Although the authors (Deborah Poole and Gerardo Renique) do not support the ideas of other senderologists that SL was formed as a result of spontaneous organisation of peasant groups, they do not question their major thesis that SL is based on the Mao's "cadre doctrine" (which is specific for Maoism):

"This strategy of guerrilla warfare is based on Mao Zedong's theory of the cadre party as 'the conductor of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups'."

The authors describe in details the history of formation of SL:

"It was and is a political party and military organisation which is known and identified by its contested and far from hegemonic position within the Peruvian left. In 1964, the Peruvian Communist Party split into the Partido Comunista Peruano-'Unidad' (PCP-U) and the Partido Comunista del Peni 'Bandera Roja' (PCP-BR). This split reflected the division in the international communist movement between the Soviet Union and China. At that time Abimael Guzman was a militant of the Peruvian Communist Party and sided with the pro-Chinese PCP-BR. One year later, the youth branch of Bandera Roja split for internal political differences into the Partido Comunista del Peni 'Patria Roja' (PC del P-PR). Guzman remained as the leader of PCP-BR's Special Work Commission in charge of military affairs (Comision de Trabajo Especial). At the height ofthe Cultural Revolution, Guzman travelled to China to attend a cadre school. Upon his return to Ayacucho, he led a faction within the PCP-BR ('Fraccion Roja'). This faction was committed to armed insurrection. In 1969 the political positions put forward by Guzman's faction were defeated in the congress of the peasant federation controlled by PCP-BR, the Federation Departmental de Campesinos y Comunidades de Ancash (FEDCCA), as well as in the University of Huamanga student front, the Frente Estudiantil Revolucionario (FER). In these circumstances, having decided to privilege clandestine organisation and armed struggle, Guzman's Fraccion Roja consolidated in 1970 to become the PCP 'Sendero Luminoso'."

In other words, whereas this organisation does have a Communist origin, it appeared as a result of the splits of the Peruvian Communist party on the Leninist and Maoist parts, and subsequent consolidation of the terrorist organisation from the Maoist party. That reminds me a history of Bolsheviks (Russian Communists): their ancestor was a Socialist movement, based on which the Russian Social-Democratic Party was formed, which has been split onto Bolsheviks and Men'sheviks, and the Bolshevik party later took the name "Communist party", which radicalised during the Civil war. You must agree that, despite the Social-Democratic roots of Bolsheviks, it would be hardly correct to call, e.g. Red Terror a "Social-Democratic terror".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Left-wing terrorism needs more analysis rather than just sections about different organizations. There seem to be two types of organizations: one urban and middle class and the other rural and peasant-based. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since many terrorist organisations are explicitly called Maoist, and since the connection between Maoist and their terrorist activity is clear, we need a section "Maoist terrorist organisations".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling a Maoist party (self-identified as a communist party) not to be a communist party is an example of original research (although, yes, that was claimed by the Soviet communists after the Soviet-China split).Biophys (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument. I never called Maoists non-Communist. However, in this situation, when different terms can be used ("Communist" vs "Maoist") we should use the term which is more relevant to this particular issue, and which is used by scholars. The scholars use "Maoist", because it is more relevant and informative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking about the essence of the disagreement... There were many self-identified communist organizations involved in terrorist activities according to multiple RS. Among those are Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path), Unified Communist Party of Nepal, Socialist-Revolutionary Party and, yes, Bolshevik party. They did it themselves, not through the "proxies", as would be in the case of a "state-sponsored" terrorism. In fact, Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso used same strategies to terrorize the civilian population, in particular taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale. Biophys (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is called Left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every "left-wing" political movement is a communist movement. Hence we can have the both articles.Biophys (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"...taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale" is not something specific for Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso. What is specific for FS, as well as for other Maoist groups, is their adherence to the Maoist (not Marxist) idea of peasant Communism, and the Mao's "cadre party" doctrine. That is the features that distinguish these movements from classical Communism (and that probably form the theoretical basis for the terrorist activity).

Regarding self-identification, you should be perfectly aware of the fact that Zhirinovskii's LDPR identifies itself as liberal and democratic. Do you think they are liberals and democrats? Do you think North Korea or Kongo, that identify themselves as "democratic" are democratic states? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear is a standard terrorist activity. Are you telling that Maoism is not a variety of Communist ideology? Biophys (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "Taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear is a standard terrorist activity." Correct. Howevewer, in light of this your (generally correct) statement your previous statement ("Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso used same strategies to terrorize the civilian population, in particular taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale) sounds no more correct then: "in fact, D. melanogaster and E. coli use the same strategy to perform a template directed protein synthesis, which implies that they should be subdivided into the same category"

Re "Are you telling that Maoism is not a variety of Communist ideology?" As I already explained, Maoism is a variant of the Communist doctrine, which in turn is a part of leftist movement. Depending on the context, each of these terms can be used. For instance, if we discuss egalitarian aspect of SL ideology, as opposed to monarchic of oligarchic ideology, the word "left-wing' seems to be more appropriate. When we discuss strategic aspects, we need to describe SL as a Communist movement (because it declared the adherence to the Marxist idea of classless society). However, if we discuss tactical aspects, we should use the term "Maoist", because the idea to rely primarily on rural population, the cadre party concept, etc., which serves as a theoretical basis for SL's terrorist activity, are Mao's inventions, and that is something that is not immanent to all Communist fighting organisations and specific for Maoist terrorist organisation only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems we can agree that Maoists, Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso are different varieties/factions of communist movement (whatever slightly different tactics they could use), and they all conducted terror/terrorism activities according to multiple RS. Hence they all belong to this article. That is what I am talking about. Biophys (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the logic: Fifi is a cat, Fifi was born in Siam, therefore Fifi is a Siamese cat. TFD (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not so. There is a lot of reliable secondary sources which make "communism-terrorism" connection, as found even by a simplest Google books search: [29]. Hence this is not WP:SYN. Biophys (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...and even more sources which connect democracy and terrorism [30]. The very fact of connection means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That search is pointless, for instance the 5th result The roots of terrorism is a chapter on why democratic countries are attacked by terrorists. Tentontunic (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Great observation! Thank you for articulating my point. If the search for "Democracy and terrorism" sometimes gives irrelevant results, why can the same methodology be applied for "Communism and terrorism"? For instance, one of the the sources Biophys found (Ewing's "Killer Machine") in actuality refers to "Anti-Communism and terrorism"; another source, Hart's "The shield and the cloak: the security of the commons" contraposes Communism and terrorism (Both communism and terrorism might be evil. But communism was a rational evil, and terrorism—not an ideology propounded by a state—is irrational, suicidal evil. ), etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

lol - ooooOOoooo... burned. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Google book search [31] is not pointless because it produces a number of secondary RS that make the "communism-terrorism" connection. Here they are: (1) a whole chapter about this in Black book of communism, (2) Chapter 12 in book "An Encyclopaedic Survey Of Global Terrorism In 21th Century", (3) book "Terrorism and communism: a reply to Karl Kautsky" by Lev Trotsky (and of course there was a similar book by Karl Kautsky). And so on. This is all quite obvious.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys is correct. You search, then look at the sources to ascertain their reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose renaming this article "Communism and terrorism"? TFD (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise solution. I do not mind.Biophys (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The same idea was proposed long time ago, and I also supported it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work for me as well. we'd have to keep a close eye on synthesis, however, *and* type articles are prone to wandering. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly "Terrorism by Communist groups"? Preventing the "logical 'AND' issue" Collect (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, you wish to create an article 818 ghits on books over the more used term 3350 for communist terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are two slightly different subjects, "Communism and terrorism" and "Terrorism by Communist groups" (or better just "Communist terrorism"). I would go along with any reasonable consensus.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. I see no problem with the "AND", because interrelation between Communism and terrorism is much more complex that just "terrorism committed by Communist groups";

@ Biophys. I again agree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that where SYNTH might putatively be found in one, clearly the "committed by is rather incapable of being SYNTH. I had thought you raised SYNTH in the past, and would prefer the delimited title. Collect (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism" in NYT - should be enough to stop the denial that the term exists

[32] The police today arrested more than 250 known extremists and Communists in a campaign aimed at wiping out pro-Communist terrorism in Peru.

[33] Interior Minister Gonzalo Barrios announced today the arrest of three foreigners accused of having carried $330,000 from Italy to finance Communist terrorism in Venezuela.

[34] Communist terrorism, arson and murder, stepped up in preparation for tomorrow's election, hit South Korea this week-end, as expected.

[35] Byron Price, Acting Secretary General of the United Nations, has protested to Secretary of State Dean Acheson the recent action of a Senate subcommittee in publishing testimony alleging Communist terrorism in the Secretariat, it was announced today.

[36] A Senate report said today that ten years of Communist terrorism had failed to stamp out the burning desire of millions of Poles for independence.

[37] Communist terrorism was stepped up today with the appearance of dozens of bombs throughout Hong Kong

[38] Twenty-four police agents have been murdered in an upsurge of Communist terrorism in sensitive northeastern Thailand, it was announced today.

[39] The bombs exploded two weeks after the suburban police had warned of a return of Communist terrorism in Brazil to discredit the anti-Comnmnist revolutionary

I trust this is well enough to show the use of "Communist terrorism" in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you need a reliable source that explains how the term is used. TFD (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Collect (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:V, " the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". Whereas the source quoted by me devotes a special attention to the analysis of social roots of SR, its theoretical doctrine and strategy, the NYT articles quoted by you just mention them in a context of Communism. Therefore, even a single source provided by me outweighs all your quotes. In addition, I can provide another sources.

You also haven't addressed another argument: I never denied the term "Communist terrorism" to exist, my point was that another term, "left wing", or "leftist" terrorism is being used by scholars to describe the same groups, and this term is more common.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If something do exist (as you say) and described in RS [40] we can have an article about this.Biophys (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If two or more terms exists that describe similar events, the most common term should be used. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to a search for "communism and terrorism". I agree that that is a legitimate topic and would support a name change for this article. TFD (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well how about this search. 1,370 on google news. One of the dates is of interest, Aug 15, 1938. The term was used before the Malayan emergency it seems. 3,360 google books. I am entirely unsure as to why you think the term is not a legitimate topic for wikipedia. It has been used to describe actions worldwide by communist terrorist groups. Tentontunic (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In your search, most of the hits refer to Communist insurgencies during the Cold War. Do you want to say, "CT was a term used by Western countries during the Cold War to describe Communist insurgencies"? We could actually find a source for that. TFD (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You actually managed to look at most of the 4730 sources between 15:45 and 16:20 hours? And come to the definite conclusion that the majority refers to insurgencies? That is quite remarkable. On the first page of the search Dealing with Nepal. This is not an insurgency, it is terrorism. Another from the first page [41] A book I have cited above, this does not speak of insurgency, Would you care to revise what you have said? Tentontunic (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second page of results show much the same in fact. Italy, Germany, France and Belgium, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s Please explain when the insurgencies happened in Italy, Germany, France and Belgium. Tentontunic (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that google search retrieves all results found in the web, not only reliable sources. I recommend google.scholar.com, which better reflects what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the first ten hits which you presented (the page to which you linked). It includes articles about Communist insurgencies in Greece and Turkey (Mar. 12, 1947), Thailand (Jan. 17,1967), South-East Asia (Jun. 22, 1967), South Vietnam (Aug. 27, 1966), Korea (Jan. 21, 1951), Venezuela (Dec. 14, 1966), Guatemala (Jun. 15, 1954), and South Korea (May 9, 1948). 8 articles. Here is a link to Google News archive for use of the term in the press. Note the dates when the term was in style. TFD (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And what of the Books? You look at ten sources out of thousands and declare they all deal with insurgency. Please respond to the three book sources directly above. Tentontunic (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

well, we can't assume that they deal with anything else; have you looked through all 4300 links? TFD's summary seems good to me - in what way does it dissatisfy you? --Ludwigs2 17:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact he choose to ignore the results from the book search, and the cherry picking of dates. You can find the term used in news results up to the 1990`s. I should like a response to "Dealing with Nepal. This is not an insurgency, it is terrorism. Another from the first page [42] A book I have cited above, this does not speak of insurgency, Would you care to revise what you have said? The second page of results show much the same in fact. Italy, Germany, France and Belgium, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s Please explain when the insurgencies happened in Italy, Germany, France and Belgium" This Tentontunic (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No single definition of terrorism currently exist. Whereas some authors combine state terror and non-governmental terrorism in a single category, others do not; whereas some authors consider guerilla warfare as terrorism, others prefer to separate these two. Therefore, your assertion that "this is not an insurgency, it is terrorism" hardly reflects the mainstream opinion simply because no single mainstream opinion exists on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The terrorism in the article on Nepal is attributed to a "Maoist insurgency". The terrorism is also referred to as "Maoist terrorism". The fact that the term "communist terrorism" receives only one hit in a book called Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa is instructive. The book also uses the terms "left-wing" and "leftist" terrorism. Note that the book does not explain the typology used. TFD (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the book Terrorism versus democracy, the term "communist terrorism" is used only once. In the typology, the author distinguishes between "Ideological terrorists", who can be either "extreme left" or "extreme right", and "nationalist terrorists" (pp. 19-20). I suggest we use the typology suggested by Wilkinson. TFD (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

again, this is the problem with using goggle searches - they are devoid of context. While there is clearly a class of acts called 'terrorism', we have to be careful about ascriptions, because whether something is ascribed as an act of insurgency or an act of terrorism is largely a question of who's framing the issue. no doubt droves of newspapers in libya, iran, and saudi arabia have been referring to aspects of the current Egyptian revolt as terrorism, many non-US sources have referred to military interventions by the US as terrorist acts, and I'm sure that Pravda (the USSR's equivalent of the NYT during the cold war) had hundreds of references to 'capitalist terrorism' or some equivalent derogatory phrase. What this google search tells me (without a long painful process of digging through the sources) is that 'Communist terrorism' might have been used in a polemic, journalistic sense. that's useful, but it would be far better to find sources that use it in academia, since academia is far less subject to the ups and downs of polemics. note that the "terrorism vs Democracy" book you linked is a popular press book (Frank Cass publications) rather than an academic press, and as such is probably fairly right-wing. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And now you are saying Maoism is not communism. You people are beyond reasoning with. Tentontunic (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

who's saying that? the issue here is to find the correct level of discussion. Maoism is a subset of communism, and communism is a subset of left-wing ideology. the question is whether sources are best used to point to the smallest subset (Maoist), the middle subset (communist) or the broadest subset (left-wing). --Ludwigs2 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces has said it above, Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa page 131 He says this book is on Maoist terrorism, not communist. Even though the source clearly states communist terrorism, and goes into detail on how the PWG and MCC engaged in an aggressive terrorist campaign against the civilian population. Tentontunic (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that the book is about Maoist terrorism. It is in fact about terrorism, instability and democracy in Asia and Africa. TFD (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you of course said it refers to Maoist terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "The terrorism [in Nepal] is also referred to as "Maoist terrorism" [in the book]". However, the author is not using either term as part of the typology of terrorism, but uses the term "ideological terrorism". TFD (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We are getting off topic. Can you provide a reliable source explaining how the term "communist terrorism" has been used? TFD (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? You repeat yourself when the query has been answered a number of times now. The facts are the term has been used and it is not up to us to "interpret" when the reliable source used the term. In fact, it is against WP policy to do so. Asking us to violate WP policy does not help this article one whit. Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is original research for us to search through seventy years of newspaper archives to determine how a word has been used at different times. If you want to explain the evolution of the use of the term, then you need a source that explains this. TFD (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You grossly misapply WP:OR. You asked for proof that a term was used. Providing proof is exactly what you asked for - so you are appear to argue "since it is OR to provide the proof, then that does not count, and if you did not provide proof, I am still right" which is blatant nonsense as an argument. I provided exactly what you repeatedly asked for. Collect (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see any logic here. How can someone admit that there is a definition of the term [43], but then deny the legitimacy of the subject? Biophys (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not "admit that there is a definition of the term", but said as your link xhows, "There are various definitions...." Either we use one of those definitions for the article or turn it into a disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you now agree we may use Drakes definition? This is excellent, it has only taken Eight Days to get here, wonderful news. Tentontunic (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)the "dab fiasco" should be over by now. The fact is that the term has been shown to exist, that at least one source gives a definition for it, and that there are incidents which would properly fall under that definition. That is sufficient by WP policy and guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems: (1) the definition Drake uses excludes the vast majority of the uses introduced in Collect's Google searches and (2) the definition is for a concept usually called "left-wing terrorism" which already has its own article. If we adopt Drake's definition, it would turn this article into a WP:FORK. TFD (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IPOF, the "fork" was, and remains, the LWT article which was created by removing most of the material from this article. Restoring what had been in this article in the first place is not a "fork" but simply responsible editing. As for denigrating Google, I would note your extensive use of it. So much for personal asides. :) Collect (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how Drakes work excludes anything please, as I actually fail to see how that is the case. Tentontunic (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It excludes acts of terrorism carried out by Communists that are not attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system, or where their hope is not that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution. TFD (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So exactly none then. So we are all agreed yes? Tentontunic (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you do not think that the ETA, LTTE, EOKA or IRA carried out terrorist attacks? You do not believe that Communist governments carried out terrorist actions against their citizens. You do not believe that Communists have ever carried out terrorist attacks in order to intimidate people, rather than rise them to action? TFD (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you ought to look a little more closely at what drake actually has written. I suspect you are in fact wrong, very very wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

again, Collect, the left wing terrorism article cannot logically be a fork of this article, except in some mindlessly procedural way that I will IAR as ludicrous. Either CT stands on its own as a separate article, or CT is merged into LWT: there is no other option. --Ludwigs2 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you yet looked at the sources regarding Vietnam? Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted your definition at the OR noticeboard in order to seek input on whether other editors have the same understanding of what you wrote.[44] TFD (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)