Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

"In the beginning"

I've assembled some pertinent materials. Please feel free to suggest sources on the "beginning." , my suggestion on time span based on who and what are related to who and what would be leading up to the unsuccessful revolution of 1905. I'd request editors not set upon each other for their suggestions. We can all do with some quiet time: read more, talk less, demand not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda By Gérard Chaliand, Arnaud Blin, from pages 197 onwards, covers the early stages of the revolution and beyond. Also describes how Lenin was an apostle of terror, Tentontunic (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "communist terrorism" does not appear in your source.[1] If you want to conduct original research and publish it, then find a different forum. If the world takes notice of your original views, then they may be acceptable in an article. I caution you however that your views are unlikely to gain any acceptance, even in alternative media. TFD (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If the topic appears - even without the precise wording, as long as the normal reader of English understands the subject to be "communist terrorism" that is sufficient. Your wondrous use of Google proves absolutely nothing whatsoever, and your warning is ludicrous. Perhaps you should have a few cups of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Um -- the term "communism" appears 11 times in the book on terrorism, where you found zero references through Google. . "Communist" appears 22 times. "Marxist" appears 28 times. I fear that your "search" was a trifle deficient (I used the Amazon search engine). Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The normal reader of English does not understand the concept to be the same as what this article is about. In fact, a normal reader has no idea what this article is about. Could you please explain. What is CT? Got any sources that define it? BTW that is a disingenuous argument, as you are well aware. One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "my suggestion on time span based on who and what are related to who and what would be leading up to the unsuccessful revolution of 1905" Did I understand you correct that you mean Russian revolution? If yes, could you explain me please if this article is about the history of Russian revolutionary movement or about something else?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Peters believes that everyone who opposed tsarism was a communist. Again, I cannot find even fringe sources that support that view. Tsarist police however did try to connect communists and capitalists as both part of an international conspiracy. TFD (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then Peters need to read more. By 1905 the Russian Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) was not a major revolutionary party, and definitely not a terrorist party (by contrast to Socialist Revolutionary party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest everyone to read the History of terrorism article. Any attempt to write a story about the birth, rise and decline of CT as a single phenomenon will mean that just one thread will be arbitrarily taken from the complex and comprehensive description of the course of the events presented in that article, which de facto will make the CT article just a POV fork of the History of terrorism article, and will inevitably lead to the deletion of the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I requested suggested sources as a means to bring a wider range of sources into consideration. So far, I have one suggestion. I can read. @Paul, @TFD: What I have from both of you is yet more grossly inappropriate speculation on my beliefs and yet more grossly inappropriate speculation that I'm going to create content that at best is a "POV fork" of existing content. A more constructive approach would be to:

• simply suggest sources related to the time period in question; and
• resist the urge to continue to preemptively attack me for beliefs and motivations over narrative that I have not yet written.

Perhaps you'd both consider attacking me for my narrative after I've created it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

'Creating a narrative' is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A narrative is cohesive content that tells a story. All good encyclopedia articles tell a story about a topic. "Creating" means not "copying", i.e, plagiarizing, and does mean "fairly and accurately representing sources" and "summarizing sources for the purpose of creating an article." Perhaps you too might consider awaiting some "narrative" to appear before attacking me for foisting original research upon WP. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we all should wait for the narrative. My only request is that this narrative should be in accordance with the History of terrorism article. By saying that I do not imply that the narrative should comply with what the HoT article currently says: we probably will need to change the HoT article to make these two articles mutually consistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest Thou shalt kill by Anna Geifman. Tentontunic (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you find a source that connects Lenin, the Malayan insurgency, the Viet Cong and the Weathermen and calls them CTs. Otherwise you are conducting original research. Unless you can show that someone somewhere sees things the way you do, you cannot write an article. TFD (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has absolutely no such requirement. You appear to say that unless every single statement in the article is backed by a single source that the article can not be written. The term in general usage for that sort of logic is "Horsefeathers." In fact, very few articles are sourced to a single source, or could remotely be sourced to a single source. Uning multiple sources in separate sentences is not OR nor is it SYN - it is how WP articles get written. Collect (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research." There are lots of policies and guidelines that confirm the same thing - report what reliable sources say and do not create your own original research. If even your website the "Victims of Communism" museum does not recognize your theories, then they do even rise to the level of fringe. TFD (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there are plenty of sources which contend a view of CT which you do not. Since you're actually not contributing other than saying "NO," I don't see the purpose of further dialog with you at this point. Although I do say I must admire your chutzpah in the unabashed vigor with which you deny the existence of sources which do not fit your POV. Let's not forget "no sources" for "communist genocide" (786 matches in Google Books covering genocide by communists and genocide against communists), no universal definition of genocide, U.N. definition does not include socio-economic groups under genocide (as everyone is well aware, the only way USSR would sign—in part why scholars today are taking a wider view of genocide),.... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that the definition of "genocide" should include mass killing of socio-economic groups and that scholarship may widen its definition. But it is not our role to correct the errors of scholarship and that includes their failure to define CT they way one believes they should. We are supposed to report the views of scholarship, providing weight to the most commonly accepted opinions. If you insist on providing undue weight to minority or fringe views then you must expect opposition. TFD (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While political groups and social classes did not survive the drafting process, "national, ethnical, racial, or religious" groups have never really been defined. (Indeed, the initial draft only mentioned targeted groups with no distinction as to what types of groups.)

With regard to formal extension of the definition, in Rwanda, the tribunal there took the position that any stable and permanent group should be accorded protection under the Convention, also adding "bodily or mental torture, inhuman treatment, and persecution" and "acts of rape and mutilation."

It's really quite amazing that any scholarship that agrees with my view of the world is "minority" and "fringe." Both case law and attendant scholarship have already widened the definition of genocide. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that you and Tentontunic are wrong in your opinions about CT or in you new arguments about Race and crime and the British National Party, just that WP is not the place to right great wrongs, just to report what the experts say. It may be that the experts are elitists, left-wing, etc., but that is the nature of what we do here. TFD (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Drake

There is already a section above for this, lets keep thinks tidy by using that one. Tentontunic (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to see a quote from Drake where he defines what Communist terrorism is, not discusses what are the goals of Communist terrorists. If the quote will not be provided, this sentence will be modified accordinglt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Drake cannot be used as a source for this statement for the following reason. This author discusses terrorism as a general phenomenon, and it analyses how different ideologies use terrorism as a tool. In this book he never defined "Communist terrorism" as a separate concept. To demonstrate my point, let me use the following analogy. Ibuprophen is sold for treatment of arthritis, as fever reducer, analgetic, etc. However, it would be ridiculous to speak about "anti-arthritis ibuprophen", "analgetic ibuprophen" etc as about separate types of drugs. I admit that the definition of CT cannot be found somewhere (I myself saw such a definition in some non-peer-reviewed article, which verbatim coincided with the definition of the left-wing terrorism), however, Drake cannot be used as a source. It is also deserves mention that the link to the Definition of terrorism article must be provided in this case, and needed explanations should be given about the lack of any commonly accepted definition of the more general term, "terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

China etc.

I removed China, USSR, etc, from the lede, because, per MOS, the lede is supposed to reflect what the article says, and it says nothing about that currently. I suggest to wait for Peters' narrative to decide how the lede should look like.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Given your rather peculiar insistence that you do not remove reliably sourced content this is amusing. All the sources mention communist terrorism, there is also a section on the Sov block in the article. I shall restore this along with further article expansion. Tentontunic (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the lede is supposed to summarise the article. This text may be pertinent to the lede of the article that devotes significant attention to this subject. It doesn't so far, so I suggest to focus on the article first, and then to switch to the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, there is a section of the Sov Block in the article, why did you remove that from the lede? Tentontunic (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this section does exist now, however, I do not think the text that I removed adequately reflects what this section says. In general, the structure of the article is so poorly defined now that it is hardly possible to speak about more or less long lede. I suggest to focus on the article first (I am still waiting for the narrative from Peters), and then to discuss the lede. BTW, I see you made some changes to address my criticism. Try to address the rest instead of arguing over the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The section existed when you remove the content from the lede. What changes do you feel addressed your critiques? All I have done today is tweak a few things. I am going to do another tweak which will hopefully address a concern you mention below. Tentontunic (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Terrorists' target selection

Per the consensus here [2] I have yet again had to restore this source to the article. If anyone is of the opinion that this source suddenly does not have consensus then discuss it here, not slow edit war the source out. Tentontunic (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link says, "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". However, you have re-written this as, "Communist terrorism refers to acts of violence committed by regimes or groups subscribing to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist (communist) ideology". Different meaning. BTW Maoists are Marxist-Leninists, which is clear from the source (Drake, p. 19)[3] TFD (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The source supports the statement. Explain in your view how it does not. Tentontunic (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your original version contains two necessary conditions (viz., BOTH 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). In your latest revision, you have omitted the second necessary condition and turned the first one into a sufficient condition. That misrepresents the source. TFD (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever, "Communist terrorism refers to acts of violence committed by regimes or groups subscribing to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist (communist) ideology" Please explain how this sentence is not supported by the reference. Tentontunic (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And to save the trouble I have rewritten the lede to reflect the consensus achieved on the RSN board and which was also reached here. Tentontunic (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You omitted "and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change)." If you do not like the definition derived from this source, then find another one. TFD (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This shall be the last time I ask, please explain how the source does not support the taxt, as is currently written. Or as it was just before I changed it. If you have no actual reasons other than your dislike for the source then please refrain from wasting my time any further. Tentontunic (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It excludes terrorism committed by Communists that does not include "overthrow[ing] an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change". The most obvious example which is mentioned by Drake is "separatist terrorism" (e.g., ETA, LTTE, EOKA and IRA) (p. 17). Note that the Soviet Union (which was Communist) may have supported a whole range of nationalist, religious and right-wing terrorism. In Nicaragua for example, the Communist Party supported the right-wing Somoza dictatorship and terrorism aimed against the communist terrorism of the Sandinistas. TFD (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we acknowledge the obvious and source appropriately, that terrorism can be conducted by individuals, groups or regimes, that it can be with the purpose of overthrowing authority or consolidating/perpetuating authority. Postulating and sourcing does not mean sources are therefore POV "cherry-picked." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about "communist terrorism" not terrorism in general. You need a source that says CT can be conducted by "regimes...with the purpose of... consolidating/perpetuating authority". Note that your source says, "This study is concerned with the activities of non-state terrorist groups...."[4] TFD (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a quote from Drake where he defines what Communist terrorism is, not discusses what are the goals of Communist terrorists. If the quote will not be provided, this sentence will be modified accordinglt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Drake cannot be used as a source for this statement for the following reason. This author discusses terrorism as a general phenomenon, and it analyses how different ideologies use terrorism as a tool. In this book he never defined "Communist terrorism" as a separate concept. To demonstrate my point, let me use the following analogy. Ibuprophen is sold for treatment of arthritis, as fever reducer, analgetic, etc. However, it would be ridiculous to speak about "anti-arthritis ibuprophen", "analgetic ibuprophen" etc as about separate types of drugs. I admit that the definition of CT cannot be found somewhere (I myself saw such a definition in some non-peer-reviewed article, which verbatim coincided with the definition of the left-wing terrorism), however, Drake cannot be used as a source. It is also deserves mention that the link to the Definition of terrorism article must be provided in this case, and needed explanations should be given about the lack of any commonly accepted definition of the more general term, "terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011

What is this obsession with definitions? This is not a dictionary after all. The RSN board came to a consensus that this source supports this content, you are more than welcome to take your case there. Tentontunic (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No obsession. The RSN discussion came to a conclusion that this source is reliable, which is indisputable. There were no consensus that this source is correctly used. This issue is more relevant to the WP:NORN [5].--Paul Siebert (talk)

Drake's concern was defining the types of targets used by terrorists, hence the title Terrorists' target selection and did not present communist terrorists, liberal terrorists, conservative terrorists, etc. as types. As Paul Siebert said, he merely "analyses how different ideologies use terrorism as a tool". Some authors do classify terrorists by their ideological objectives. They describe terrorism with the objective of achieving communist revolution as Left-wing terrorism. They describe terrorism with the objective of independence nationalist or separatist terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And again it is wonderful that you know what drake meant, it is astounding how you manage to channel all these authors. The obvious response is of course, if he did not mean them as a type, then why would he actually write it to begin with? Use your common sense for once please. Tentontunic (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, try to be polite. It would be also helpful if you followed your own advise and used your common sense. Never in his book did Drake defined the term "Communist terrorism", he speaks about "terrorists" which use different ideologies. This idea has been essentially reproduced by

"A particularly useful way of mapping the different types of sub-state terrorist groups active in the contemporary international system is to classify them according to their underlying political motivation or ideological orientation. No broad categorization can do full justice to the variety and complexity of the modern phenomena of terrorism but a comprehensive review of the social science literature on terrorism reveals abundant evidence of currently active groups involved in terrorist activity motivated by one or more of the following: nationalism, separatism, racism, vigilantism, ultra-left ideology, religious fundamentalism, millenialism, and single-issue campaigns (eg. animal rights, anti-abortion). To obtain a useful preliminary map of the main types of terrorism in the world today we need to add to this list of sub-state terrorisms the phenomena of state terror and state sponsored terrorism." (Paul Wilkinson. The Strategic Implications of Terrorism in Terrorism & Political Violence. A Sourcebook Edited by Prof. M.L. Sondhi. Indian Council of Social Science Research. Har-anand Publications. India 2000)

The only exception is that "ultra-left-wing" is used instead of "Communist", which is normal for most articles I know. Again, although Wilkinson comes up with the attempt to define terrorism ("Terrorism is a special form of political violence. It is not a philosophy or a political movement. Terrorism is a weapon or method which has been used throughout history by both states and sub-state organisations for a whole variety of political causes or purposes"), he does not try to define different types of terrorism except sub-state, state sponsored terrorism and state terror. Since terrorism is a method, and not a movement, we cannot speak about the definition of this method, unless Communist terrorist groups used some quite specific and unique tactics, which was common for Communists, and was not common for other groups. The sources tell nothing about that, and we must stick with them. In other words,

Whereas we can speak about "Communist terrorist groups", we cannot speak about the definition of "Communist terrorism" using as sources the works of scholars such as Drake, Wilkinson and others.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is your convoluted method of stating 1 <> 1. You purport that in the phrase "Communist terrorism", Communist being of the adjective form is therefore a modifier, being a modifier it describes a particular type, being a type it alludes to a method; however, as Communists did not have a preferred method or defined methodology for killing people via terrorist acts we cannot speak of "Communist" terrorism, only terrorists who happen to be Communists but, coincidentally, are better called leftists, et al. I have to say, your line of reasoning by which you would stamp the very concept of "Communist terrorism" out of existence sets a new standard for the tactics of which you accuse other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You generally correctly transmitted what I wrote, thank you. Let me point out, however, that, since we have the source that clearly says that "terrorism is not a political movement", and we have no sources so far that state "Communist terrorism is a term that ...", we can speak, as you correctly noted, about the adjective, which, in combination with the word "terrorism" creates no new terms. I was honestly trying to find a definition of Communist terrorism, and I found one, however, the source was not too reliable to speak about it seriously. Again, we have tons of sources that state that no strict definition of terrorism exists, that terrorism is not a political movement, so, in this situation, we need at least several reliable and mainstream sources to support the text starting with "Comminist terrorism is a term ...". Instead of arguing endlessly, try to find them. I failed so far.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are looking for a "term" when you are looking for "acts", as I've already indicated. If you keep looking for the wrong thing you won't find it in all the right places. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the acts are something objective, the term are not. It is hard to deny that French, Yugoslavian or Soviet partisans during WWII, "forest brothers" of Malayan insurgents in 1950s, Viet cong partisans in 1960s or Rodesian insurgents is 1970s resorted to the tactics that lead to the death of civilians. All of that can be characterised as terrorism or banditry, and different sources in different moments of history used this terminology (correctly or incorrectly). Would it be correct to claim that the acts that lead to civilian deaths occurred? Yes. Would it be correct to claim that it was a direct linkage between all of them, or between majority of them? No. Similarly, if you want to combine all acts committed by various militant forces (governmental of non-governmental) that declared adherence to the Communist doctrine into a single narrative, you need either provide a single definition of the phenomenon you are going to discuss, or to use a single source that combined all of them together based on some more or less articulated concept.

Frankly speaking, I have not much hope that that is possible to do without serious violation of neutrality policy. I have, however, some ideas, and I can share these ideas with you when (I believe "when", not "if") your tone will become more friendly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of Forest's book

See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books:

Books

Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include:

• name of author
• the title of the chapter
• name of the book's editor
• name of book and other details as above
• the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional

Tentontunic has refused to correctly attribute his edit to the authors who wrote the chapter used as a source and instead insists on attributing it to the book's editor.[6] However before taking this matter to an appropriate noticeboard, I would hope that Tentontunic would agree to proper attribution. TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper procedure is to make the ref conform to WP:MoS -- not to find yet another argument to pick. Collect (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that wrong attribution is a minor issue. What is much more important is that Tentontunic refuses to adequately reflect what this source says. This is a real issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I have asked Tentontunic several times to change the reference. Misattribution is a serious matter. However I do not wish to edit war, but will take it to the appropriate noticeboard if it is not corrected. TFD (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say this - but trying to create controversy and to try berating another editor over the trifling issue of citation form is a total waste of time here. Collect (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So you think that misattributing authors is "trivial"? The whole issue would be over if Tentontunic would agree to properly cite sources. TFD (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the reference to indicate ", Ed." (editor). As for protestations of not reflecting what sources say, I'll take that with a grain of salt as right now this appears to be just another bash an opposing editor section. Page numbers are provided for source verification, no issues there. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(out) Please assume good faith. Remember that proper citations should be used and Tentontunic should have corrected the error when I politely pointed it out rather than reply as he did.

(Incidentally, Forest did not write the article you ascribe to him. You need to change the ascription.) TFD (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I shall respond to a post by you on this talk page, your intentions to derail all discussions with nonsense is all too obvious. Tentontunic (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forest in fact did not write the article that you claim he did. Please change this reference. TFD (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[Reply redacted by Tectontunic.]

If there is consensus I will correct the passage to identify the authors of the chapter "Insurgencies: understanding the use of terrorism as a strategy", Leonard Weinberg and William L. Eubank, who have also written books about terrorism.[7] TFD (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I can't believe you started a new thread for something as trivial as fixing attributions. Do you want us to vote on it too? --Martin (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth over some other source somewhere else in a similar situation. Forest IS the editor of the book, the book citation is proper. In this particular instance as any citation of any book by any individual is open to attack dispute, we might as well indicate a specific author of a chapter/section of any book which is a compendium of essays so that when sources are attacked disputed, we can be sure that editors are defending the direct authors of the specific words in contention. Of course, in such a case, there is additional weight to the noted scholar ("author") if they have been chosen to contribute to a work by another noted scholar ("editor"). Ultimately, however, responsibility for and attribution of the work lies with the editor. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So, NO, you do not remove the editor and mis-attribute the source. You can add, after the title, a chapter reference and author. There is no consensus to inappropriately remove Forest. (And your original request was not polite.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I really do not understand if this problem with Forest deserves any attention. Yes, he is an editor of the book that is a collection of chapters written by different scholars. Usually (for instance, when I write my own articles in my real life) the reference looks like (taken from my recent article, I just replaced real names and terminology):

Pooh, Winnie. Mixing apples with oranges: a classical demagogic approach, In Protocols for Demagogy and Bullshiting. Tresspassers W, editor. Totowa, NJ: Human Press; 1993. p. 33-61.

Therefore, I simply do not see why TFD needs to ask Tentontunic to change the reference, and what can prevent him from doing that by himself, using, for instance, the format I proposed: Wikipedia has no authorship, and everyone who sees an error is supposed to fix it.

By contrast, a really important thing is that, although the facts from this book have been taken for the article, the authors' idea, namely, that VC were armed resistance, who used terrorism just as one tool, has been ignored. That is much more important issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the reference, and, please, stop that. I got an impression that we all need some break, because this quarrel, which started from virtually nothing, is a demonstration that something is fundamentally wrong with all of us. BTW, Peters, when do you plan to present your narrative?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

As siebert has taken my last edits to this article to ANI might I ask if any other editor here takes issue with my changes? I shall ask about one section at a time, first up, the usage section. In my opinion the flow and style of writing is better, it retains some of PS content which he has insisted upon and I thought this would be a reasonable middle ground.

Usage text

In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens. In the 1940`s and 1950`s in various Southeast Asian countries such as Malaya, The Philippines and Vietnam, communist groups began to conduct terrorist operations. In the 1960`s the Sino–Soviet split also lead to a marked increase in terrorist activity in the region. Phillip Deery has written that the Malaysian insurgents were called communist terrorists only as part of a propaganda campaign.

In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) by Yonah Alexander rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. In western Europe these groups actions were known as Euroterrorism. The founders of the FCO argued that it would take violence to achieve their idealistic goals and that legitimate protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them. In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 Marxist/Leninist groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments. The Italian Communist Party were critical of local terrorist actions and condemned them.

Link to the version PS created. [8] Tentontunic (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Unless Paul can somehow garner a consensus for his own version, I would suggest this is close to a consensus position. Collect (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that we do not have a source that traces the history of the use of the term CT. Vecrumba for example has mentioned that the Bavarian Soviet was called CT - but we have no secondary sources that mention this. Why do we mention that Alexander called left-wing terrorists FCOs? No one has picked up on the term even though his research is much quoted. The following is way POV: "there were an estimated 50 Marxist/Leninist groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain." This equates Communist with CT - in fact most Communists were really boring old people, while IRA types did not call themselves and were not normally called Communist. TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I used Alexander as his book covers all terrorist groups from the time. It is one of the most highly cited and praised books on the subject matter I know of. Your assertion that no one has picked up on the term is wrong, I know Post uses the term, as does Walter Enders & Todd Sandler. It is far better to use a single source to describe these groups rather than cherry pick ones whic hsupport a POV. Do you have a source for all communists were really boring old people? They may be now, but once upon a time they were young and excitable. Tentontunic (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've indicated, anyone not familiar with the topic would take this passage to mean "Communist terrorism" started out as label utilized by Nazi propaganda to (unfairly) create panic regarding the Soviet Union. It's worth noting that its direct antecedent/equivalent, "Bolshevik terrorism" is mentioned in sources discussing the first Soviet elections in Russia in the suppression of candidates and of free voting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating original research. Can you provide a source that documents the history of the term CT? TFD (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One bit of the article at a time. Wouldn't want to overwhelm you. And I can't take credit for other people's work as much as I'd like to pat myself on the back on my research. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

es|TFD]] (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peters that to start the story with Nazi would be misleading, however, I personally never opposed to the expansion of this section: if someone can add something about the earlier usage of the term, they are free to do that. What I oppose to is removal of the large part of well sourced content. In connection to that, let me explain the following:

According to WP:NPOV, the article must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This is a policy. I will not disclose the Secret de Polichinelle by saying that all terrorist groups we mention in this article are described using the terminology other than "Communist terrorism" by majority of reliable sources, and, by the way, by the WP articles that devoted specifically to these groups. Similarly, the articles about Malayan emergency and Viet cong also use different terminology. Therefore, all terms must be explicitly listed in this article. The situation when one article tells about, e.g. Vietcong as "insurgent", and another describes them as "terrorist" is a gross violation of the WP policy, which cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Therefore, the statement "Unless Paul can somehow garner a consensus for his own version, I would suggest this is close to a consensus position" is nonsense. In connection to that, I would like to know, what concretely is wrong in this version:

"In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups, usually referred to as left-wing terrorists, "leftist terrorists", "Communist terrorists", the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO), or "Euroterrorists" (the latter term has been applied to European terrorists only), rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. The founders of some of these organisations, e.g. Red Brigades, were ex-Communists who were expelled from their parent parties for extremism. Some national-separatist terrorist movements, such as ETA or IRA also used Marxist rhetoric initially. In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 such groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments; they were also condemned by parliamentary Communist parties."

Concretely,

1. which sources are unreliable? (The RSN discussions demonstrated that all of them are reliable)
2. which concrete statements are not supported by the sources?
3. which statements represent minority views? (Taking into account that all of them have been taken from mainstream sources, the burden of proof has been sustained, so if someone wants to question them, they are supposed to provide their evidence).
4. what concretely in this text has no relation to the article subject and therefore cannot be added to the article?
   In the absence of well articulated objections I do not see what can prevent me from adding this well sourced text into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You need consensus to add this, there is ongoing issues with your sourcing, your writing is disjointed, different people using different names need not apply, a different name is not a different viewpoint. Saying for example the RAF were also called euroterrorists is not needed, it is not a different viewpoint, it is a different name only. There is support for what I have written, there has been none for what you have written. Tentontunic (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will also point out you have misrepresented one source in your text above (this source is in my version but is accurate to the source) And this is not the first time you have used a source to cast too wide a net, you did the same with chalk. Tentontunic (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources can and should be fixed, and I have nothing against that, however, no consensus can override neutrality criteria. In connection to that, I need a clear and unequivocal explanation of why the suggested information, which is needed to provide an overview of all major existing POVs on the subject, should be removed form the article. If these explanations will not be provided, the text will be added to the article mutatis mutandis (to address all reasonable criticism).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And when you add content to that article with no support for it, shall you report yourself to ANI? Please explain why you feel why my rewrite is not neutral? I felt it a reasonable compromise, the sources you need in so badly are there after all. Please, show me were the content as written is not neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not neutral because it represents just one, and not the major, viewpoint (with small exceptions). In addition, some sources are misinterpreted. If you genuinely want to write a neutral content, and you are ready to collaborate (by that I in particular mean that you will not reject the sources I use under a pretext that they are "junk" and non-mainstream; the falseness of this claim has been persuasively demonstrated during last RSN discussions), just let me know, and we will start more productive discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point out were just one view is presented. And do not accuse me of misrepresentation of sources, none of my edits have done such. Tentontunic (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, do you agree that all sources I used by this moment (except one Penguin Book) were mainstream and reliable? Your silence will be interpreted as a confirmation that you agreed. If no arguments will follow, we can return to constructive discussion (tonight or tomorrow).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No I do not agree, given your misrepresentation of two sources and the NPOV board discussion drew one uninvolved editor who agreed with my assessment. And we are discussing my changes to this article, please point out were but one view is expressed in the article as it currently stands. If you do not wish to discuss the content that is up to you, but you may not reinsert your proposal with no support at all for it. Tentontunic (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, before we start to discuss the content (which is my a genuine desire), I would nevertheless get an answer on my, I believe, clear and unambiguous question:

"The RSN discussions demonstrated that the sources I use, except probably the Penguin Book, are reliable and mainstream. Are you still insisting that they aren't?"

It is absolutely necessary to resolve this issue, once and forever, before we started to move forward. Your silence would be quite sufficient.

With regard to alleged misinterpretation, this is a separate issue, and I also see several examples of misinterpretation of the sources in the edits you made. However, that is the second issue. Let's discuss it separately, when the reliability issue will be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of repeating myself, you had your response above. You have scoured the web to present your preferred narrative, and given undue weight to it. I would like you to show were I have misrepresented a source. And there is no alleged misinterpretation, you did misinterpret two sources, I have not looked at all of them. Now I ask for the final time given your refusal to respond, what views are not represented in my recent edits? Tentontunic (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see that you do not question any more the reliability of the sources I use. Now we can start to discuss the content. Since it were you who removed the text proposed by me, I expect you to start with the explanations of what was wrong with it. Let's start with the following:

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy, to locate the Malayan Emergency in a broader context of the Cold War and to preserve a British business interests in Malaya, which would be heavily affected had the British administration conceded that they faced a full scale anti colonial insurgency."

My questions are:

1. What is wrong with Deery? Why did you mentioned his name explicitly, whereas most statements in your edits are not explicitly attributed? Why did you remove "banditry"? Do you think that "Phillip Deery has written that the Malaysian insurgents were called communist terrorists only as part of a propaganda campaign" is a good English? In my opinion, this sentence is more pertinent to the school essay. In addition, by writing that you misinterpreted the source, which does not say that the term was used only as a part of propaganda campaign: according to Deery and others, this term was used by British administration, but he never says that it was used only by administration and only for propaganda purposes.
2. Why did you remove L Yew? He directly supports the same statement.
3. What is wrong with Stockwell? According to RSN, he is absolutely reliable mainstream source.
4. Why did you remove White? It is very important to explain that the term "terrorism" was also used in this case for purely economical reasons.
   You detailed and polite answers are appreciated in advance.
   Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That`s it, I am done with you. Your constant refusal to respond to my questions and your single minded approach to this article means it is quite simply not possible to work with you. I have made compromises, you refuse to do so. Even though your proposed content (which is still terribly written) has no support you continue to push it. Either discuss the current (supported) content which you went to ANI over or take a hike. Tentontunic (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So you have no arguments against addition of these sources into the article? If yes, I am ready to discuss your edits. BTW, I've partially done that: I commented on your text aimed to transmit what Deery says in his article, therefore I have partially addressed your questions. Are you going to address my questions?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You see, single minded. My arguments are right above in plain english. Your writing is terrible, it is disjointed due to your needing to use a different source for every sentence. You have misrepresented two sources that I know of. There is a partial consensus for the current version. If you refuse to comment on the current content we have noting to discuss. Your refusal to respond to my questions is another sign of your single minded drive to have it your way only. You accuse me of source misrepresentation, but refuse to show were (Deery is not misrepresented, I have given his view as mush weight as I feel it deserves, this is called compromise). You insist that not all views are present, but refuse to say which ones are missing. Last and final offer, you can discuss what you feel is wrong with the content I have written, I will not discuss your version as it has and will likely garner no support. Tentontunic (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly, using different sources for every sentence was dictated by the need to describe a wide range of subjects, and by no means that tells anything about the quality of writing. Secondly, the consensus was partial, and, I recall that the users who initially positively accepted your version accepted it as a good starting point, so that does not prevent this text from expansion. Thirdly, whereas significant weight has been given to Deery's views, I still do not see the need of attribution in this particular case (by contrast to others). In addition, I still believe that the Deery's thought has been transmitted not completely correctly (see my explanations above). Fourthly, I still do not see why did you removed the text supported by other sources, because you simply ignored my question. And finally, if you are not satisfied with my writing style, which is not surprising, because, as you probably correctly concluded, I am not a native English speaker, just fix it (Wikipedia has no authorship). However, that is not a reason for removal of properly sourced and relevant text.

BTW, can you explain me, does "You see, single minded" means something non-polite, or that is a commonly accepted and polite expression?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And right there is one of your problems "the need to describe a wide range of subjects" This article is about one subject, not a wide range of them. A partial consensus is better than none. I suspect you have not looked very closely at my edits, the vast majority of content is attributed which was suggested on the NPOV board. I remove some text because some was wrong, as was pointed out to you at ANI and some was not needed. Saying a person is single minded is I believe not a rude thing to say, if you feel it is then WP:SPADE applies. You have once again not responded to a single question put to you, again focusing on your edits, most predictable at this stage. Tentontunic (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You will be surprised to learn that the article is really devoted to a wide range of subjects. The major common trait of these subjects is that they all were described as "Communist terrorism" (or the perpetrators were labeled as "Communist terrorist") by some scholars, writers, politicians, or journalists. However, it is also important that other (majority) of scholars, writers, politicians, or journalists used different terminology for the same events or subjects, so, to meet neutrality criteria, to avoid POV-forking and to make the article consistent with other WP articles we need to reflect the later fact in this article. Your edits do not do that, which is a critical omission. Note, I directly addressed your question, namely, I explained what is dramatically wrong with your edits.

Re "Saying a person is single minded is I believe not a rude thing to say" Understood.

Re "I remove some text because some was wrong, as was pointed out to you at ANI and some was not needed." Please, explain what concretely is wrong with ##1-4. I've got no explanations so far. Failure to do so will mean that you have no arguments against this text.

Re "You have once again not responded to a single question put to you, again focusing on your edits" Currently your edits are in the article, whereas my edits are removed. Therefore, it is natural to expect some explanation about the problems with these my edits. However, assuming that I will get all needed explanations in your nest post I point at some concrete issues with your edits (as I already wrote, the major issue is not in what has been written, but in what has been left beyond the scope):

1. Carol Winkler in actuality wrote about the use on the references to terrorism in American propaganda, not about terrorism. You selectively quoted her thereby used this source to support the conclusion that has not been explicitly stated there.
2. Forest describes VC not as "terrorists", but as "partisans" who resorted to terror, along with another tools to wage a guerrilla war. You misinterpreted this source also.

That is enough for beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forest describes both the Viet Minh and the VC as terrorist on pages 81, 82, 83, says once on p81 that they fought a guerrila war, the term partisan is but mentioned twice in the book. The first mention deals with partisan politics, the second much the same but regarding academia. In fact Forest explicitly states that the VM & later VC did not follow the usual terrorism followed by insurgency, they stuck to terrorism throughout the conflicts. So no, there is no misinterpretation of the source. I have not selectively quoted Winkler, I have used what she said about VC terrorism this article is about terrorism. A great many of your edits remain in the article, they are written in a better manner for ease of flow. And again, differing terminology does not matter, if a group commits terrorist actions they are terrorists. I edited the Vietnam section yesterday to describe that there was an insurgency and guerrilla warfare in the Vietnam, that seems enough to me, their is no need to beat people over the head with a hundred different terms. Tentontunic (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

",,, if a group commits terrorist actions they are terrorists...." That is sythesis. Both the American rebels and the British committed terrorist acts but that does not mean that the founding fathers and the British government were terrorists. Both Soviet and American administrations supported terrorism, but that does not mean their governments were terrorists. And you need a source that groups the terrorism carried out by the VCs as CT. You cannot say it was T carried out by C, therefore it was CT. That is original research, and contradicts your sources. (Incidentally, Forest did not write the article you ascribe to him. You need to change the ascription.) TFD (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to be so pedantic as to say the Vien Minh & the Viet Cong were not communist then just go away. If you have no intention of actually discussing content to be added to this article and prefer to post nonsense about founding fathers then, go away. This is the last time I shall respond to a post by you on this talk page, your intentions to derail all discussions with nonsense is all too obvious. Tentontunic (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Forest, let me reproduce my old post on that:

"Interestingly, this source (page 81) describes VC, as well as other armed movements as armed insurgency, and separates different armed insurgencies onto three categories: one category (ETA, IRA, etc, used terrorism as a primary tool), others (Castro's "bearded ones") did not use it at all, and for the third category terrorism "is simply one weapon, one arrow in the quiver, at the disposal of armed insurgency"(p. 80-81, op. cit). This group, according to the authors, includes Viet Minh and Viet Cong. Therefore, according to the source courteously provided by you, VC should be described as revolutionaries who used terror, although not as a primary tool, and in that sense were different from IRA, ETA, and similar primarily terrorist organisations. Thank you for the source, I will use it for my future work on this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)"

Just a word count means nothing: Forest writes about the terrorist aspects of the activity of different armed groups, hence a high frequency of this term. However, Forest makes a clear reservation where he contraposes terrorists (e.g. ETA) and armed insurgency (e.g. VC). Therefore, your claim that "if a group commits terrorist actions they are terrorists" directly contradicts to what this source says. In connection to that, if Forest's book is used in this section, the text must say that "During their armed resistance (a primary term) against authoritarian Saigon regime, and later against the US Viet cong troops used a terrorist tactics as a part of their partisan warfare strategy". That will be a correct transmission of the main idea for this quite a reliable source.

Re Winkler, you removed the major idea found in this her chapter, and you haven't addressed this my criticism.

Regarding the rest, of course, all alternative mainstream terminologies must be presented in the article, they do matter, they must be in the article per neutrality polict, and they cannot be removed even if the text without them reads better (although the latter is a question of taste).

If needed explanations will not be provided, I'll add my edits to the article that reflect what the reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you create another hodge podge I will remove it. Propose your changes and get a consensus for a change. And again, neutrality says all differing viewpoints need be addressed, it most certainly does not say that just because a group is called by a few different names all names need be included. You are entirely wrong about Forest. He explicitly states the VM & VC used terrorism throughout their campaigns, the section already say they fought a guerrilla campaign and continued an insurgency against the French, that is more than enough. Tentontunic (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forest in fact did not write the article that you claim he did. Please change this reference. TFD (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is a is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised". Your "hodge podge" is hardly a legitimate concern, and consensus is not a right of veto. Please, provide serious arguments, because your "I-don't-like-it" is not an argument. I give you two days for that.

Neutrality says that all mainstream viewpoints must be reflected, and the viewpoint that the groups we are talking about are called "Left-wing" is mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, left wing is just another name. There is nothing in policy which dictates that all such names be used. This article is about communist terrorism not different names for terrorist groups. A differing viewpoint would be for example, the red brigades were not terrorists, or did not adhere to a communist ideology. That is a differing view. Your idea that some authors use differing terminology to describe these groups is not a different viewpoint. Tentontunic (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The viewpoint that the group we discuss are "left-wing terrorist groups" is a significant viewpoint, expressed by majority of reliable sources, and, therefore, this view should be reflected in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a viewpoint at all, it is a name. A different viewpoint would be they are not terrorist. What part of this do you not understand? Does the article on Women also say they are called, Birds, chicks, ho`s, lassies or such? No because they are just names, not viewpoints. Tentontunic (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Another example for you to mull over, Ocean Does it also say it is called, the briny, davey jones locker, the sea, the big pond or such? Again no. These are names, not different viewpoints. Tentontunic (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

These are terms that are not generally used in academic discourse. Neither should we use vulgar opinionated language in describing political topics. TFD (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Valentino

This scholar says nothing about CT. To use this book here is synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you of the opinion that the VC were not communist? Tentontunic (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As the book clearly says Viet Cong terrorism - communist you are obviously in error, I have asked at the RSN board. [9] 08:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

They were indeed Communist and carried out terrorist attacks, but as your source says, they "utilized mass terror in their fight for liberation against France and the United States". TFD (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So? The page cited supports the content, Valentino puts X number of dead due to VC terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can find a source saying that a chimpanzee is a type of ape. It does not mean it belongs in this article. TFD (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More random nonsense? I am really of the opinion you will never post anything constructive towards this article. The source says what it says, it is both reliable and accurate. I shall not discuss this further. Tentontunic (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not discuss the actions of the VC in terms of CT but in terms of nationalist terrorism. I understand that you have made a connection in your mind which probably appears obvious to you because of the way you see the world. But unless you can find someone who makes the same connection, then it is synthesis to include it. Ironically it contradicts the definition you developed for this article. TFD (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, in this case Tentontunic seems to be right. Valentino does mention VC terrorism as a cause of the mass killings in Vietnam. This source seems to be used correctly, and I see no major problem with this source (which by contrast to some other sources does not claim that all 200,000-2,000,000 million civilian deaths were a result of Communist killings). What we need to focus on is to carefully explain in the article that, according to mainstream sources VC were partisans (see, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica), or partisans that used terror along with other tools (for source, see, e.g. [10], pp 80-82). For detailed analysis of the relative usage of the terms "terrorists" and "guerilla" in academic sources see the search results presented above. That is what we really should do. By contrast, to deny the fact that some sources use the term "Communist terrorists" would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, articles are written about concepts that have meanings, not terms cobbled together by editors. The article about CT should have sources that define CT and explain what groups are CT. Otherwise it is OR and synthesis. The source used to define CT (Drake) specifically excludes nationalist/separatist terrorism. Yet Valentino describes their activities as nationalist/separatist terrorism. Tentontunic and Vecrumba have opinions that are not supported by mainstream sources or even "popular" sources. Perhaps they will publish an article about CT that will change academic opinion. Until then their approach is just personal opinion. We should be discussing how best to represent rs - instead this conversation seems like a conversation on a blog. TFD (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have three facts, both of them are hard to deny:

1. The term "Communist terrorism" is widely used to describe a wide range of facts and events;
2. This term is used in parallel with other terms, and, as a rule, these alternative terms are more widely used than "CT" for each event taken separately;
3. No strict mainstream definition of this term, and the more general term, "terrorism" has been proposed so far.

We can neither delete this article nor write it if a form of a narrative about some concrete phenomenon. I have some ideas on this account, but I am still waiting for Peters' narrative, where, as I expect he will take into account, among others, the point that have been put forwarded by you and me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All we have is that the term has been used to describe many different things. If we had an article or book that described the various uses we would have an article. But it is not up to us to be historians. If you can provide a single article that documents the history of the term then the article can be written - otherwise it is just synthesis. TFD (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. To write that "In 19XX the term CT was used by YY to describe ZZ. In 19AA the term CT was used by BB to describe EE. ...etc" is not synthesis, it is just statement of facts. Of course, if we draw our own generalisations, or omit alternative POVs if would be a violation of the policy, however, I am sure that the article written in such a way would be in full accordance with WP rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

e has connected the dots before us. TFD (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys seem not to understand the Use–mention distinction or the Map–territory relation. If you apply the same kind of reasoning to "Communist symbolism", this would follow:

"The term "Communist symbolism" is widely used to describe a wide range of artifacts; This term is used in parallel with other terms; No strict mainstream definition of this term, and the more general term, "symbolism" has been proposed so far; We need to provide a single article that documents the history of the term "Communist symbolism" then the article can be written; There is a distinction between symbol and symbolism; To write that "In 19XX the term CS was used by YY to describe ZZ; In 19AA the term CS was used by BB to describe EE. ...etc" is not synthesis, it is just statement of facts. etc, etc"

Cleary this article focuses on the territory, not the map, i.e. the phenonema not the term.--Martin (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You correctly outlined the issue: we have phenomena, not the phenomenon. That is the root of all problems. Since all these phenomena have their own separate articles, and are described by their own terms (that are used in parallel to "CT"), we need some reason for combining them in the same article, and for telling about them here. I am trying to understand that reason. I see no reason so far other than common terminology that is applied to these different phenomenae by some authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No WP policy requires us to do more than make sure claims are sourced per WP:RS, and that the material is relevant to the title of the article (which you appear to acknowledge, as you agree that "common terminology" is found in the sources). For misch-masch see Dirty war or Anti-communist mass killings, or innumerable articles on political topics. If you wish to write a policy saying "not only must all sections be relevant to the title of the article, they must also use absolutely equivalent reasoning for their connection to the topic of the article" please try - either as a new policy, or tacked on one of the existing ones. Collect (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I see any contradiction here. You probably think I am arguing that such an article has no right to exist. However, that is not the case. Common terminology (i.e. that all these events have been called "CT" by someone) is quite sufficient to combine them together, as I already wrote. However, to avoid neutrality and synthesis problems, it is necessary to clarify that different terminology is usually used for each of these events. In addition, the explanations are necessary to provide about a real nature of these events, as it seen by majority scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, there really is more to writing a coherent article than using WP:RS, because the issue of synthesis isn't resolved by referring to sources that use "common terminology" (unless it is the terminology that you wish to write about -- in that case, you and Martin appear to be for completely different things). Easy analogy: Google Books can find many search results for Chinese terrorism and Chinese terrorists, many of them from reliable academic sources, but it would no doubt be pretty hard to weave that into a coherent Chinese terrorism article narrative. It's much the same here: there does not appear to be any coherent narrative about "communist terrorism" as one subject, although the term applies to many phenomena. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Usually called something else" is the blanket contention which causes issue here. Whatever else the perpetrators of communist terrorism do or advocate (alleged insurgents, freedom fighters, advocates for non-toxic finger paints,...) what binds them is their ideology; Paul, your explicit approach is all about what what specific circumstances or nuances make them just "different" enough to allow yourself and other editors to POV split content which belongs together under the mantle of improved "precision." As to "one subject", despite the contentions here we can't even write about terrorism because we are totally confused what it is, it can be so many different things, etc., the tie that binds is not "POV", not some amorphous phenomena, it is violence directed against authorities and civilian population--not finger painting, and in the case of CT, in association with a specific ideology/ideology with a common root. If Christian terrorism can exist on WP then certainly Communist terrorism can. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, the same can be said for "Chinese terrorists" "Whatever else the perpetrators of Chinese terrorism do or advocate (alleged insurgents, freedom fighters, advocates for non-toxic finger paints,...) what binds them is their ethnicity", so what?

Re "it is violence directed against authorities and civilian population" Not always. In the case of Nazi "Communist terrorism" there was no (Communist) violence at all; in the case of the Red Terror it was violence by authorities against political opponents and civil population; in the case of Malayan emergency it was an anti-colonial guerrilla war, which was not connected to the global Communist plot, in the case of VC it was an uprising against the most authoritarian regime Vietnam ever had (some scholars explicitly refuse to consider resistance to authoritarian authorities as terrorism); in the case of New Left terrorism it was a leftist movement that used Marxist slogans but had poorly articulated goals and was directed against the Vietnam War and the US. We need to have a serious ground for describing all of that within the frames of some single concept (at least, I've seen no such a concept in reliable mainstream sources so far), thereforfe, we cannot speak about a single phenomenon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are similar disputes in Christian terrorism. Drake wrote, "Members of a religious terrorist group use terrorism to promote their perception of the doctrines and political interests of their religion" (p. 17).[11] In fact Christian terrorism is rare. Yet some editors want to define Christian terrorism as terrorism carried out by Christians, and want to add the Ku Klux Klan, the Oklahoma bombing, the IRA, etc. I oppose synthesis and POV whether it relates to Communism or Christianity. TFD (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba says, "what binds them is their ideology". It may be that all Communists are working toward a common purpose and that they are given a set of instructions that say, "go forth and terrorize", thou shalt mass kill", etc. You need to show that someone has made the same conclusion that you have. It would seem perverse however that an IRA cell could carry send out two members - one a communist and one a Christian - to carry out similar actions, yet in your mind one would be an act of CT while the other would be an act of Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Paul and TFD. Terrorist groups may be grouped together where there is a certain common objective behind their acts, but we get a great deal of diversity when it comes to writing a narrative that includes every alleged terrorist group whose ideological context is somehow associated with some type of communist vision over the last century or so, however vaguely. Creating such a category should be done by scholars first, editors second.

The Christian terrorism article is actually a good example of what should not be done. (Is there a serious link between the philosophy of Jesus and the racist rape and murder of blacks by the Klan?)

The lede for Christian terrorism, at least, is written in a way that endeavors to create a link and make more sense: "Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals which claim Christian motivations or goals for their acts." The Vietcong guerrillas (or "terrorists" if you prefer) actually claimed national liberation (nationalist) motivations and goals for their acts in the context of the Vietnam War. The (then-communist) Kurdish separatists in Turkey who blew up Turkish targets claimed explicitly stated that they wanted national liberation. The Kurds have given up their unrelated Marxist views as far as their political philosophy, but not their battle with the Turkish state.

Essentially, an article aiming to discuss phenomena instead of terminology needs to be based on a non-trivial connection of phenomena - or do you want to basically say that "communist terrorist groups are terrorist groups that are communism"? If so, why not write an article about Chinese terrorism using the wealth of scholarly work written on it? Analogous to "communist" and "Christian" terrorism, such terrorism happens when the perpretrators are "Chinese." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what the communists sought was control of the government - which is "national liberation" in thatsense, but the aim of installing communism is held by such groups. I suppose all revolutions are viewed by the revolutionaries as "national liberation." It would be ridiculous to say "that particular group was not communist -- it only sought national liberation." Collect (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not how the term "national liberation" is used. It's used to refer to overthrowing imperialist powers (or proxies thereof). See Wars of national liberation for a succinct treatment. Such terrorism is normally classified as nationalist terrorism, which is carried out in the pursuit of national self-determination. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and other similar organizations never hide their communist affiliation and are widely described as terrorist organizations. Of course, all such forces also have a strong nationalistic component. There is no contradiction. Using communist nationalistic movements was long-standing strategy since times of Lenin who wrote a lot about this. As about China, yes, Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was described as a terrorist organization in a majority sources.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem to write about Communist groups that are described primarily as communist terrorist groups that they are communist terrorists. However, if other groups are described as "guerrilla", or "national-liberation movement", that sometimes used terrorism, I believe it is correct to use "guerrilla", or "national-liberation movement" terms as primary ones. Similarly, if the aim of some group was both national independence and Communism, it is not clear for me why the stress should always been made on the latter, notthe former. I think, in that case we should stick with what the reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Any group which self-describes as Marxist, etc. can certainly be called "communist." In fact, most of them do. Wikipedia does not count sources- the key is that a reliable source uses "communist" etc. regarding the group irrespective of whether thet are also called "left wing" or any other adjective. And since this particlular article uses Communist as an adjective - using 100,000 words debating simple English makes precious little sense. Adjectives modify nouns. As long as that adjective and that noun are associated with a group in a reliable source, that is the most we can demand as far as groups are concerned. Collect (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

CT is actually a multiword expression, viz., "a lexeme made up of a sequence of two or more lexemes that has properties that are not predictable from the properties of the individual lexemes or their normal mode of combination". A Dutch treat for example isn't where Geert Wilders buys you lunch. Otherwise this article would be synthesis and Collect would accordingly list it for deletion. Incidentally your comment "any group which self-describes as Marxist... can certainly be called "communist" is OR". The SPD (Germany) self-described as Marxist until 1959, yet were not normally described as communists. TFD (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that terrorism is typified by motivation, which in the case of the VCs was national liberation. PKK terrorism is also described as a nationalist rather than left-wing.[12] The Klan are not considered to engage in nationalist/separatist terrorism. While there are few examples of Christian terrorism, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Plot are usually mentioned. Of course Islamic religious terrorism has become prominent in recent decades, and there are Hindu and Jewish terrorist groups. While an editor has stated that there is no contradiction between being communist and nationalist, in fact there is a considerable difference between the two types of groups. Nationalists are less likely to enforce ideological conformity and only operate when their cause has broad support. When their objective (independance) is achieved, they lay down their arms and participate in electoral politics. Left-wing terrorists on the other hand consider themselves the vanguard, with smaller memberships and usually no popular support for their cause at all. The choice of targets of the two differs as well. Nationalists will attack infrastructure in order to undermine the operation of government, while left-wing terrorists will pick symbolic targets (such as the Weathermen bombing a Haymarket statue) which they hope to inspire the masses to rise up and defeat capitalism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, please provide a source specifically stating "communist terrorism" is a lexeme. Let's see, Christian terrorism = Christians committing ideologically (religion) justified terrorism; Communist terrorism = Communists committing ideologically (political) justified terrorism, where is the unpredictability in any of this? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, since "CT" has been used by many authors to describe quite different things, in different cases it is either lexeme or the term, so no generic statement: ""CT" is a lexeme" is possible to find. What is really necessary to find is the mainstream source that gives a uniform and commonly accepted definition of the term "CT". If this source will not be provided, the article should be written as a narrative about different examples of usage of this term to describe different events that occurred in different parts of the world. Since it would be incorrect to write that all of them were totally unrelated, to claim the opposite would be equally incorrect. Therefore, this story should be complemented with the brief explanation of the real essence of these events (as described in reliable sources specifically devoted to these concrete events and phenomenae), and with alternative (which sometimes is mainstream) terminology used to describe them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were not a lexeme then any definition would be a tautology. Also, it would mean Christians committing terrorism, regardless of motivation, were Christian terrorists. Some VC terrorists for example were Christian.[13] Sirhan Sirhan and many Arab nationalist terrorists were also Christians. In order to group VC terrorism as CT, you need to show that rs group them that way. But all the sources I have seen interpret their actions as motivated by the desire for independence. Note that the Viet Minh was founded as "a nationalist coalition, the League for the Independence of Vietnam.... The organization was again specifically designed to win broad popular support for independence, followed by moderate social and democratic reform".[14] --TFD (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles Tilly defines terrorism as a political strategy defined as "asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime", and he explicitly includes "intermittent actions by members of groups that are engaged in wider political struggles". Your contention that the certain groups cannot be considered "terrorist" because they were engaged in a wider political struggle, in this case national liberation, is irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And what specific features of this political strategy that has been used by various Communists staring from the eve of Soviet Russia through Malayan anti-colonial movement and ending with the Red Brigades (I would probably add to here, for example, Yugoslavian or Greek resistance during WWII) can you outline? Do the commonality between different variants of this strategy utilised by Communist allow us to discriminate between these cases and all other cases when terrorism was used by other political forces?

By the way, to avoid misunderstanding, let me point out that Tilly's definition is close to what I myself found in other sources: terrorism is a strategy (or tool), not a political movement. Let me also point out that the whole WP article Definition of terrorism exists which dissects the issue in details, and which contains the statement that terrorism cannot be strictly defined.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Marintg, I would be appreciative if you did not misrepresent what I wrote when you reply to me. I did not contend that "the certain groups cannot be considered "terrorist" because they were engaged in a wider political struggle, in this case national liberation". I wrote "that terrorism is typified by motivation, which in the case of the VCs was national liberation". Could you please explain how you reached your conclusion. TFD (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Drake, lede and consensus

This revert[15] was supplemented by the edit summary that refers to some consensus. I would not say it is justified, because at least two users expressed a legitimate concern about correctness of this phrase, this concern has not been addressed yet. No quotes that demonstrate that the definition of the term "Communist terrorism" has been proposed by Drake have been provided. I would say, the opposite is true, namely, that this scholar, who published many articles on this subject[16], does not use the term "Communist terrorism" in his articles [17], or books [18]. I admit that the search procedure used by me is incorrect and if someone can provide other search results that refute my conclusion, please do that. (Other authors with the same last name used this term twice[19], but that is hardly an argument).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus for this on the RSN board and on this talk page. The one editor to comment at the OR board said there is no problem with it, you are editing against consensus here, I shall restore the consensus version until such a time as a new consensus has formed per policy. Tentontunic (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor said "If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned. " However, no proof has been provided that it does summarise the Drake's views correctly. At least the fact that Drake in actuality never used the words "Communist terrorism" in his numerous books and articles suggests the opposite. In addition, in a situation when at least three users (TFD, Zloyvolsheb and I) expressed their concern, it is ridiculous to speak about any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Until such a time as a new consensus is formed then it shall stay as it is. Get a consensus to change it. Proof need not be provided to show drakes views, we use what the source says, and the consensus was that the content was supported by the source. Once you have a consensus for your change you are free to enact it. Tentontunic (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And to say he never used communist terrorism in his books is wrong, the source used says communist terrorists. Tentontunic (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus that was achieved on the RSN talk page was a consensus about reliability of this source for communist terrorism, not about this concrete wording. I didn't remove the source, I just slightly changed the text to more adequately reflect what the source says.

In addition, consensus may change. The fact that a legitimate concern has been raised means that even if some consensus existed about this wording, there is no consensus any more.

Re "the source used says communist terrorists". I already requested to provide the quotes that demonstrate this your point, but you failed to do that. BTW, I provided the proof of the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To educate you a little bit, let me quote the policy, which says "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.". Therefore, your arguments are in direct contradiction with what the policy says, so please, in future refrain from unneeded references to some consensus achieved in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Read what you posted, It clearly says it needs to be determined if consensus has changed, three editors whining does not change the current consensus, it challenges it. until such a time as a new consensus is arrived at then the consensus version ought stay. Tentontunic (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There never was a consensus and there is not one now. Any agreement was to use Drake as a source, not to misrepresent him. Notably Tentontunic removed the only part of the definition which could reasonably be attributed to Drake. Drake would never have written anything so pedestrian as "Communist terrorist groups are terrorist groups that subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology" and it is insulting to him to falsely ascribe that definition to him. TFD (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the latter phrase has been written by me, although I am not satisfied with that. What Tentontunic wrote is

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

Although this text is not pedestrian, it cannot be ascribed to Drake, who neither defined nor used the term "Communist terrorism" in his numerous books and articles. In the book the lede cites now Drake explains how different ideologies are used by various terrorists groups. Let's think how to transmit the Drake's thought more adequately.

Tentontunic, I suggest you to read the policy and use your common sense. The decision if consensus has changed cannot be a result of some consensus: immediately after some legitimate concern has been expressed we cannot speak about consensus any more. And, in a situation when several users have challenged the text it is ridiculous to refer to any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Until such a time as you show that a new consensus exists to replace the wording in the lede with your preferred version the consensus version shall remain in place. Tentontunic (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the current wording does not reflect what Drake says, feel free to remove it, without re-adding the old version, because the old version is not supported by consensus now. However, in my opinion, the Drake's idea that different terrorists use different ideologies in their activity, and some terrorists use Communist (or Marxist) ideology is transmitted correctly in this text. I have nothing against modification of this text, however, the statement that the term "Communist terrorism" has been proposed or used by Drake cannot be in the lede, because Drake's books and articles contain no such term, and Drake defines no separate terms for each ideologically motivated terrorist activity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. Since the article is under 1RR, and you cannot change the text more frequently than 1 time per day, I myself can change my text, if you will propose new wording which takes into account my comments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are of the opinion then that when Drake wrote communist terrorists three times in Target Selection he did in fact not mean communist terrorism? That position is so ridiculous as to not deserve a response. I have quite clearly stated my position, unless a new consensus forms to change the content then the consensus version remains. I have no further comment on the matter. You may set up an RFC to garner a new consensus. Tentontunic (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No consensus about your version exist currently, if you are not satisfied with the current text, feel free to remove it. If you believe that Drake defined the term "Communist terrorism", feel free to provide the quotes that demonstrate that.

Regarding the old consensus, I doubt if it ever existed. During the RSN discussion you refer to[20], two uninvolved users expressed the same concern as I, TFD and Zloyvolsheb did, namely, that, whereas the source is reliable, to derive a definition from it would be incorrect. Their opinions are quoted below:

"The source is a reliable source. The source, however, does not support the text that is being proposed. It does not contain a definition, nor even the term "communist terrorism". The cited passage uses the term "communist terrorist groups", not "communist terrorism", and makes statements about the aims of such groups, and provides some examples. It does the same thing with respect to terrorist groups that ascribe to Separatism, Religion, Liberalism, Anarchism, Conservatism, Fascism, Single-Issues, and Organized Crime. The real issue here is not whether the source is reliable; the real issue is an improper misuse of the source. By this logic, the source would also support definitions of "separatist terrorism", "religious terrorism", "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "conservative terrorism", "fascist terrorism", "single-issue terrorism" and "organized crime terrorism". It doesn't. Fladrif (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)"

"I think the source is both reliable and mainstream. It's just that definitions can be awkward things. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so this definition can be cited alongside others. Equally, it wouldn't be a problem leaving this one out. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)"

Therefore, I would say we could not speak about any consensus version from the very beginning, and, taking into account all said above, your version is not supported by consensus. However, as I already wrote, you may remove the text added by me if you want, or propose some new wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)