Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

A policy change under discussion

[1] As PS is currently discussing a policy change based on a current conversation on this article talk page I am informing all interested editors of it. Tentontunic (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sections

I removed the sections about Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the Philippines and Africa. In order to be included they should be included in the literature used to define the topic and we should explain what makes them CT. Including them violates NOR. Please discuss the relevance of these sections. All the events described btw may be discussed in other articles. TFD (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See my restore and edit comment. Please adopt a more constructive approach in contributing to the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The source used for the "Africa" section that labels groups as "terrorists" is a document from the unrecognized illegal white supremicist government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. The attribution to Elain Windrich is misleading. She does not call them terrorists and says the term was used as a propaganda device. (pp. 277, 279)[2] Ironically the Rhodesian state does not call them CTs, probably because the term had become discredited by that time. This is an egregious example of representing the opinions of extremist sources as facts and misattributing them to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say, racist POV should not be expressed in Wikipedia. Incidentally, regarding South Africa, I found the source (A Theory of Categorical Terrorism. Author(s): Jeff Goodwin Source: Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 2027-2046) that explain that the main reason of another South African insurgent organisation, ANK, to abandon the tactics of indiscriminate attacks of civilian was the close contacts with SouthAfrican Communist party, which did not support such an activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

However the ANC's military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe was apparently designated a terrorist organisation by both South Africa and the United States. --Martin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WP is not supposed to reflect official positions of certain governments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, thank you for responding on at least one of the numerous sections you preemptively deleted. In deleting the content as requiring sources, were you contending that "Communist terrorists" do not engage in "Communist terrorism," that sources not only have to state that communist terrorists committed acts of terrorism but that they were, using "Communist" as a particular method employed per prior contentions--not terrorism driven by ideology as meant--engaged in "Communist (method) terrorism?" PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not following your logic, but articles must be based on reliable sources. The source that define opposition to white supremicism as "terrorism" is the white supremicist government itself. White supremicist sources are neither neutral nor reliable. TFD (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the reference to let it be know she was the editor. The source is fine and this continuing nit picking by a certain editor is disruptive. WP:SOFIXIT instead of constant whining would be a pleasant change. Their is noting in policy to prevent an editor fixing a reference they think is not attributed correctly. Tentontunic (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambodia

Could someone please explain what the U.S.-backed government of Cambodia (1975-1979) has to do with CT. TFD (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why it is included either, though I question it on the grounds that I do not see how their actions could be called terrorism, and that both the references which back it lead to the few pages in each book which are not available through google books so I cannot verify. Passionless -Talk 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the Khmer Rouge have been called terrorism in quite a few sources, The one used in the section was Valentino`s mass terrorist killings chapter. Tentontunic (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh, again the stated pages are just missing from goggle books, so I can not verify this, but the book did state the the US attacks on Cambodians were terrorist attacks so it would not be a surprise if he did also label the other events as terrorism. None the less, the article did read as if 2.5mil died due to terrorism by Pol Pot, I changed it to the more true that they died during his rule but it still needs to be made clear how many died as a result of whatever is being claimed to be terrorism as no doubt this number will be extremely lower than the full 2.5mil. Passionless -Talk 07:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Valentino has that number as total dead from mass terrorism, it does I believe cover all dead from the time of pol pots regime. Perhaps it ought not be in the article, I shall dwell on it a little. We have mention of this in the lede of course, Perhaps a section on actions which have been termed terrorism to include what are essentially state killings would be more in order. Tentontunic (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the KR activity was officially qualified as genocide, and not as terrorism. Secondly, the majority viewpoint is that three major factors affected the onset of this genocide, and only one of them had a relation to Communist (ultra-Maoist) ideology. Therefore, even despite the fact that this event has been characterised as CT by few sources, this viewpoint is minority views, and should be represented as such. I also expect Tentontunic to provide needed quotes from the sources they used. It is desirable to see extended quotes to make sure the phrases have not been taken out of context. If needed quotes will not be provided, the burden of proof will be considered not sustained, and the text will be removed as non-supported.

Although I think that the changes made by Passionless correctly reflect the real state of things, these changes created one important problem: it is not clear what is the connection of the described events with terrorism. Taking into account that some mainstream sources (e.g. EB) clearly distinguish between the actions of KG (partisan war) and terrorism, I see no reason to have this section in the article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Valentino has that number as total dead from mass terrorism" Page? Quote? In the table 6, page 88 Cambodia has not been listed. It is listed on the page 5 ("Counter-guerrilla mass killings") as an example of mass killings committed by the US.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it was Tuman, not Valentino. Try this link [3] Tentontunic (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the header per my thoughts above and have attributed the text to Tuman. Please let me know what you think of the change. Tentontunic (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is better. However, it should be clearly explained that these acts, which are seen as ...., have also been described as terrorism by some scholars. In addition, the same approach has to be extended to the article as whole: all these events are seen differently by most scholars, and only part (small part) of scholars see them as terrorism, and even smaller part as Communist terrorism. As a result, the scope of the article should be the history of the term, not the event, which would be perfectly neutral and correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to write "seen by some" As it is attributed to one person, Tuman has said it was an act of terrorism. This is his opinion on the matter. I see no reason for section bloat when the article is saying, this is what this guy thinks of the situation. Tentontunic (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding Tuman, his opinion hardly has significant weight, because he devotes not more than one page to the issue, and provides no detailed analysis of this event (" In general, 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.". By contrast, other scholars devoted specialised articles to this subject (e.g. Genocide by Attrition 1939-1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan: Links between Human Rights, Health, and Mass Death Author(s): Helen Fein Source: Health and Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1997), pp. 10-45 Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard College; Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966 Author(s): Helen Fein Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823 Published by: Cambridge University Press). They do not describe it as terrorism, and the reason was quite clear:

The social base of the KR regime was poor Khmer peasantry, whose economical situation was terrible, and who hated more rich non-Khmer urban population. There were no need in any special measures for KR to get a support from them, so there were no need in terror against them. As a demonstration of this fact, let me remind you that even after Veitnam troops entered Cambodia and stopped the massacre, KR continued to resist, and they did it very successfully due to a support of local population. That would be impossible, had their power was a result of terror. The second question is what was the need of the mass killings (which were in actuality a genocide)? The reason was as follows: firstly, the ultra-Maoist KR concept required formation of fully agrarian society, so all urban population has to be eliminated; secondly, the Khmer's hate of non-Khmer urban population (and Khmer intellectuals, who were seen as non-genuine Khmers), was so high that the only thing KR needed was just to remove all barriers preventing the outburst of hatred. In other words, the goal of these mass killings was not to intimidate, to create the atmosphere of fear (the necessary and the major trait of terrorism), but to physically eliminate a certain category of population, and to give to rural population an opportunity to manifest their hatred, which had been being accumulated for centuries. That is why it was not terrorism (which, however, makes that even more terrible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He deserves as much weight as Deery. And yes, it is terrorism. State terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Such official, state-based policies are commonly referred to as "terror" and are thus distinguished from terrorism, which is usually understood as violence emanating from non-state actors." (Moghadam, Assaf. The roots of terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006, p. 56) [4] Tuman also mostly refers to this as "state terror" and never uses the term CT. I fear that this section is moving the article farther towards OR, SYN and POV. If we want to write about the KR, then we should be adding all this into the KR article. TFD (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary goal of Genocide is to eliminate some category of population, not to create fear. Genocide is not terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cambodian genocide has been described as state terrorism in hundreds of sources, please do not even try to say it has not. As stated, it has been described as terrorism and is attributed to the person who said it. Further discussion on this is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not more than in 419. ""Cambodian genocide" terrorism"[5]

Importantly, it is not described as terrorism by more many sources ""Cambodian genocide" -terrorism" 943 [6].--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

595 "cambodia" "state terrorism" I am not getting into counting google hits. As I said hundreds of sources call this state terrorism. It is not a minority view. Tentontunic (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You continue to mix google with gscholar. Whereas the former gives all results, including pure junk, the latter searches within peer-reviewed and academic sources predominantly (~92% of the sources gscholar searches in belong to this category). I do not want to know how many sources support your POV, what we need to know is what majority views are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is described as "state terror", not "state terrorism". Some writers, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn do indeed call it "state terrorism", but they are a minority. The actions of the KR against the Hun Sen government (after the defeat of the KR) have been described as "terrorism", but it would be bizarre to describe U.S. backed terrorism against a Communist government as "communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, we had this discussion at Talk:United States and state terrorism. There some editors were trying to use the same sources your Google search returns to define American actions during war, including their attacks on Cambodia, as state terrorism. As I wrote there, "Here (again) is a link to an article in Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos"." Ironically, the first sources I looked at in your hit were writing about state terrorism by the United States against Cambodia. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge is listed as a terrorist organisation here, so its inclusion here is most proper. --Martin (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one source. Much more sources state the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

More than just one source, it is a consortium of researchers and leading social scientists at more than 50 academic and research institutions[7]. So listing the Khmer Rouge as a terrorist organisation on this site represents the consensus view of researchers from more than 50 academic and research institutions. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source is only a single opinion from START - "Based at the University of Maryland, START supports research efforts of leading social scientists at more than 50 academic and research institutions" This means START supports 50 others not that 50 others came together to create START or that everything stated as START is agreed upon by all 50 either. Even if it had been the other way around I feel it would still only count as one source as they are all very intertwind by START. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, you do understand what the term "Consortium" means, don't you? I hardly think this centre would publish anything that the majority of these 50 institutions would disagree with, particularly for something as controversial as designating a particular group as "terrorist". In any case they would carry more weight than an individual author. I would note that while this consortium lists the Khmer Rouge as a terrorist group, it does not list the Viet Cong. --Martin (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you need to show a source that describes the KR as CTs. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original views. Rather than rely on my view of your opinions, publish them and see what type of response they attract. TFD (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a link above, did you not see it? Here is another link to the Global Terrorist Database that lists the Khmer Rouge[8] --Martin (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, does not list them as CTs. Incidentally they were supported by the U.S. government which, unless you believe in the NWO, is not communist. TFD (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I am going to remove the POV tag from the top of the article, any objections? Tentontunic (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is gradually becoming a multiple POV fork of several articles, including the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, the POV tag must stay. For instance, the "terrorism" term is applied to what is known and Kampucean genocide, thus creating an absolutely false impression that the major term for this event was "Communist terrorism", which is obviously not the case, and which directly contradicts to how highly reputable sources (and Wikipedia itself) describe that event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been described as terrorism in quite a few reliable sources, if you think a counter to this is required to balance the article please add one. And I see not POV forks at all, everything in this article describes actions perpetrated by communists which have been described as terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to "counter" anything, because there is no direct dispute between these sources and the mainstream views. The situation is simpler: some writers sometimes apply the term "Communist terrorism" to different events that are known under other names: Kampuchean genocide, mass killings under Communist regimes, revolutionary terror, leftist terrorism, anti-colonial wars lead by Communists, etc. Accordingly, all of that must be clearly explained here, and the terminology should be used accordingly. For instance, when we speak about Viet cong, the primary term should be "partisans", or "querilla". The fact that they are being discussed in the article named "Communist terrorism" is quite sufficient to reflect this alternative terminology: we have a section in the article with the title "Communist terrorism" that explains that this term was applied, among others, to VC partisans, and then we discuss terrorist acts committed by partisans (a common and neutral term). In other sections the terminology must be changed accordingly. That would be a neutral way to apply the term "CT".

BTW, I am still not satisfied with the lede. It reflects minority views, because the mainstream view is that the term "terrorism" cannot be strictly defined, and, accordingly, that the term "Communist terrorism" is used just by some scholars. Instead of finding the sources to support one or another assertion, we need to think how to reflect mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With to regards to alternate terminology I refer you to my responses a few sections above which you have strangely not responded to. The lede does not express minority views, please point out that which you feel is a minority view. Tentontunic (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe these views are mainstream, prove that (it is not a request to prove negative, I do not request you to prove they are not fringe). The poof of the opposite is below:

"Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, in the United States the standard definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II."

"Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, the article about terrorism).

With regard to what this (WP) article calls "Communist terrorism" in Russia, EB uses quite different terminology:

"In the context of the Russian Revolution, the term “civil war” had two distinct meanings. It described the repressive measures applied by the Bolsheviks against those who refused to recognize their power seizure and defied their decrees, such as peasants who refused to surrender grain. It also defined the military conflict between the Red Army and various “White” armies formed on the periphery of Soviet Russia for the purpose of overthrowing the communists. Both wars went on concurrently. The struggle against domestic opponents was to prove even more costly in human lives and more threatening to the new regime than the efforts of the Whites." (EB, the article "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics")

In other words, most of what is called "terrorism" is this article is not considered as terrorism proper. Accordingly, it is quite necessary to explain in the article that the terminology the article currently uses is not mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the EB, what they have to say on the matter is neither here nor there. You still have not stated that which you think is minority view in the lede. Tentontunic (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Minority views in the lede:

1. That Stalinist repressions and Red Terror are usually referred to as Communist terrorism (EB does not use this term)
2. That Kampuchean genocide and guerilla war are usually referred to as Communist terrorism (EB and majority of mainstream sources use quite different terminology)

Neutrality issues in the article:

1. It portrays guerilla wars using terrorism as a primary term;
2. It gives undue weight to the "CT" term, whereas in actuality it is used much less widely as compared to the mainstream terminology.

The source have already been provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodness that makes me chuckle. There is noting in this article which says Stalinist mass murder, Red Terror, or the butchery in Cambodia are usually referred to as communist terrorism. It says these actions have been described as communist terrorism, quite a difference there. It does not define guerrilla war using terrorism as the primary term at all, as all sources used describe the actions as terrorism. Please point to a specific section in the article which you think does this, as that would be nice. You cannot give undue weight to a term, as has been pointed out to you a few sections above which, strangely you have still not responed to. Tentontunic (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the policy requires that all significant viewpoints have to be presented in a single article devoted to some subject, by omitting, or even by not giving a due weight to mainstream terminology the article implies that "Communist terrorism" is a mainstream terminology for, e.g.,"Stalinist mass murder, Red Terror, or the butchery in Cambodia", which is obviously not the case. Therefore, the last your post gives an example of glaring misunderstanding of the neutrality policy.

Regarding the post I haven't responded to, please, remind me what do you mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

[9] Here is the section were you have not responded to the very points you are currently debating. And as stated there, the usage of differing terms such as left wing, eurroterrorism and such are not an alternate view, an alternate view would be "these are not terrorist actions". The article implies noting, it clearly says the term has been used to describe certain actions. Which is entirely correct and is well sourced. Tentontunic (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

After brief examination of this section [10] I failed to find the question I left unanswered. Could you please reproduce it below?

Re "The article implies noting, it clearly says the term has been used to describe certain actions." Since every WP article is supposed to present all viewpoints on the article's subject (including all mainstream terminologies) the omission of any alternative information implies that the viewpoint presented in the article is mainstream. If the latter in actuality is not the case (and for CT it is not), this is a violation of the policy. However, if you see the article as a story of application of the term "CT" to various events that are usually seen as something different, I see no violation of the policy in that, provided that that will be a story of the term, not of the events this term describes (each of them has its own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how this article coheres. White supremicists called people who opposed white supremacy "communists" or "terrorists" as part of their propaganda. They did not call them "CTs" because use of outdated propaganda terminology would have made people laugh at them. But all ot this means that we should use this article to label opponents of white supremacy, colonialism, imperialism, etc. as CTs? Seemns to depart from NPOV. TFD (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to look again, at the end of that section I quite clearly made a point with regards to the differing labels used to describe groups, there is nada in policy which says different labels used for groups need be used. Please point to the policy were it says that all differing labels ought be used. As stated, a differing viewpoint on these actions and groups would be they are not terrorist acts. Not if they were called bandits, or left wing, or euro terrorists, these are just different labels used for the same groups, that is not a different viewpoint. I believe in fact it was the very conversation in the other section which has lead you to try and change policy. Tentontunic (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that call them CTs. The fact that white supremicists called them communists and also called them terrorists (but did not use the terms together) is irrelevant. We are not supposed to advance a white supremicist POV and even if we did, it would be sythesis to use the term CT. TFD (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Firstly, if several names are used for some subject, it is natural to conclude that policy requires that all of them should be mentioned. In any event, I see nothing in the policy what may justify their deletion. Secondly, and more importantly, we have here exactly what you write: we have different viewpoints, not only different labels. Majority of sources (and main WP articles devoted to each of these subjects separately) do not describe these armed groups as "terrorists", and that fact is absolutely necessary to reflect that in this article.

I see no need to change the policy in this case, because the policy is quite clear and needs in no changes. What is really need to be changed is your vision of this policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For "natural to include" you mean this is what you should like, it is not policy and as such need not even be discussed further. Again which armed groups? Please be specific that I might address your concerns directly. The VC section already says "they fought a guerilla war and continued this insurgency" All other content in that article describes certain actions of theirs as terrorism as this is what the sourcing says. Tentontunic (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean how our common sense suggests us to interpret what the policy says. Regarding the armed groups, I would say, each armed group discussed in the article is wrongly labeled as "terrorist" despite the fact that most sources do not do that. That is a systematic and persistent violation of the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Common sense would be to follow policy, not make it up on the fly. And again, please actually point out were an action depicted in the article is not described as terrorist in the sources. You cannot say that the NPA are not terrorist can you? So that is one out of the way, which other group is being depicted as terrorist? None that I can see, only actions which reliable sourcing says were terrorist in nature. Tentontunic (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the Rhodesian and South African governments referred to their opponents as terrorists. Acts of terrorism could include such things as stating that you supported majority rule, i.e., that non-white people should have the same voting rights as white people. TFD (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite for Ian Smith, or the Afrikaners calling any specific person a "terrorist" who only opined that non-white people should have equal rights? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Common sense would be to follow policy" I would say, to apply common sense is a policy. Please, familiarise yourself with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is naught in policy which says that all this differing terminology needs be used. Well done for agreeing on this. And for the last time, please point out the section were you feel a group is being described as terrorist. Either let it be known exactly what you feel is the issue or stop posting here about random policy`s which fail to back your claims. Tentontunic (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need a source that actually calls them "CT". The racist sources that you use never called them that. Even if they did, white racist governments are not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WP:RSN#Are white racist sources reliable?. TFD (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "there is naught in policy which says that all this differing terminology needs be used." No. Both WP:NPOV and common sense tell us that we cannot have two articles for the same subject, one of them describe the event as "anti-colonial insurgency" and another as "terrorism". To do that is a severe violation of the policy. To r5ead WP:LABEL would be also helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And there is naught in NPOV which says this either, give it up. There is no need at all to create a hideous hodgepodge of an article just because you want it to be so. Just because an article on a subject does not say they are terrorist. This article discuss the actions they took which have been deemed terrorism. And that is quite clear in the article as it is currently written. Your ongoing refusal to actually state which group is being labeled terrorist over partisan or insurgent shows you really have no point at all. Tentontunic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To present someone as terrorist or as freedom fighter means to express some concrete point of view. The policy requires to present fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Obviously, since WP articles are, by and large, independent from each other, these viewpoints must be presented in the same article. That is a direct quote from the policy you requested. I do not believe that it is possible to interpret it in some different way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good god man, just respond to the question put to you, which section in this article describes any group as just terrorist? I am not interested in the least over your thoughts on policy, just tell me which group which is not deemed terrorist in majority sources is currently in this article as being just terrorist. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All of them are not deemed as "Communist terrorists", and most of them are not deemed as terrorist in majority sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Last chance, either respond to my question or I will not respond in this section again, give a name saying all of them is not a response. Tentontunic (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "the Red Brigades, Front Line and the Red Army Faction" "Left-wing", not "Communist terrorists, per majority sources.
2. "actions carried out by states, such as acts against the populace by the Soviet Union,[1] the Peoples Republic of China,[1] North Korea[2] and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia" Neither "Communist terrorism", nor "state terrorism" per majority sources.
3. The "Communist view on the use of terrorism" confuses between the old and the new meaning of the word "terrorism". The latter is seen as "terror" by majority sources.
4. Vietnam. The primary term must be "partisans" and "guerrilla", and proper explanation of the onset of terrorist activity, and of its role in VC strategy should be provided.
5. Soviet Union. "State terror = Communist terrorism" only per some authors. Majority views are different.
6. Africa. "Freedom fighters", not terrorists.
7. Philippines. Guerrilla.
8. Cambodia/Kampuchea. See below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1. This is not an issue, I have in fact already made this quite clear twice. Also the source used says these are examples of communist terrorist groups.
2. The sources used describe certain actions as terrorism, get used to it. This is why it is written in the article as "some actions have been described as"
3. Not even a point, sources call these actions terrorism, that is it.
4. The section already says they fought an insurgency, the only time terrorism is used in the article is when a person has described as action as terrorism. It also says that terrorism was a specific tactic used by them.
5. See previous responses.
6. Sources describe these groups actions as terrorism, find an alternate source for balance.
7. See below.

Have you actually looked at the article recently? I have already enacted some of your concerns to compromise, yet you continue to demand more. None of the issues you are raising have any substance at all. Tentontunic (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. It is an issue, and, concretely, it is a neutrality issue.

Re 2. These actions, which are usually referred to as ...., has been described by X and Y as CT.

Re 3. It is a point, because the obsolete viewpoint should be represented as such.

Re 4. Yes, however, the stress on the word "terrorists" is still redundant. They were the insurgents who used terrorist tactics, not terrorists.

Re 5. Unsatisfactory. The article uses "terrorist" as the primary, if not the sole, term to describe insurgency in Africa.

Re 6. I'll do.

Re 7. The answer below is unsatisfactory.

Re "Have you actually looked at the article recently? " Yes, some sections are gradually improving. However, that is balanced by addition of more POV. For instance, by adding Valentino's views of Chinese events you fully omitted the fact that Valentino uses his own definition of terrorism, which, he concedes on the p.84, differs from the generally accepted one. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re 1, no it is not, as has been explained to you quite a few times now.

re 2, your point being?

Who says it is an obsolete viewpoint?

re 4 the stress is not on the word terrorist, in is on actions deemed by a reliable source to be a terrorist action.

re 5, this is what the source says.

re 6, good luck with that.

re 7, tough, if an action is described as terrorism by a communist group or regime then there is no issues with it rating a mention in this article.

You ought to have added Valentino`s definition, not remove to content.

It may work better if instead of complaining about everything you try to focus on one thing at a time, it ought to make things a little easier for me to explain to you why you are wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked me to outline major problems, and I did that, so you recommendation to try to focus on one thing at a time sound somewhat illogical. Your answers sometimes are just a repetition of your old replies where you totally ignore my points, hence the tag.

Re "You ought to have added", I believe that the reverse is even more relevant: you ought not to remove what I write. I hope, in future you will refrain from such steps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I ought not remove what you write? There`s that ownership issue again. If you write junk it will be removed. You did not outline major problems, you waved your hands vaguely all over the place. Quite simply your "points" have not been ignored, and have in fact been responded to quite a few times. I believe if you try to focus on one perceived issue at a time it shall be easier to address these concerns. At the moment your just saying "all of it" "I like none of it" even though I have compromised and utilized your proposals and some of your sources. I suspect you will not he happy unless you get the article back to the last mess you created. So lets focus on the VC, what exactly do you think is wrong with this section? I shall keep in mind you know little of the history of the region and shall let you know when you are in error. Tentontunic (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "There`s that ownership issue again." So far, you demonstrated such a behaviour more frequently and more openly. Re "compromised", remember, this word has two meanings, and what you have done is to "compromeze/undermine" what I proposed. The article still has major neutrality issues, and by refusing to to fix them you demonstrate misunderstanding of basic policy principles. You make some reasonable changes, however, this requires enormous efforts from my side, and importantly, is compensated with additional biased context you are adding. I give you some time to think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The only issues with neutrality are in your mind. Your refusal to actually point out any actual problems with the Vietnam section speaks volumes. I have no misunderstanding with policy, it is your attempts to label that you do not like as a NPOV issue which is the problem here. Tentontunic (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorist groups

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has a category for communist terrorism[11], making a clear distinction between that and leftist terrorism which has its own distinct category. Material on this site represents the consensus view of researchers from more than 50 academic and research institutions, so this is an excellent source which I think we can use for this article. -Martin (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a single source that can be used, but if other sources disagree, which they do, than their opinions may be treated as WP:FRINGE or at least require attribution to the source. Passionless -Talk 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you considers these institutions associated with the Consortium are all purveyors of WP:FRINGE theories? --Martin (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I was just saying that this single source cannot be used to state things in wikipedia voice, and that if many many RS were found which do not agree than START may hold a minority held opinion. Passionless -Talk 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, it is not a single source, many other sources state the same. However, much more sources describe these groups as left-wing terrorist groups, so in general you are right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact it does not have a category for "communist terrorism". Tammsalu, could you please read your sources before presenting them. Passionless and Paul Siebert, could you please check the sources that Tammsalu presents before responding. The Consortium is part of American security and therefore is unlikely to use the type of jargon promoted in this article. TFD (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does, see the drop-down menu "Or by ideology", there you find both "leftist" and "Communist/Socialist" categories. --Martin (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried this, and in the category "Leftist" I found, e.g. [12] (Communist/socialist, leftist). It seems to me that this site mixes leftist with Communist/socialist quite arbitrarily. In addition, it does not separate Communist from socialist, so your focus on just one word seems somewhat odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show where the site explains either "leftist" or "communist/socialist" and how the two are distinguished. Even if you cannot find it, do you have any idea what distinction they assume? TFD (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I failed to find anything. As I already explained, these two terms are frequently being used interchangeably, with "leftist" is more predominant. Therefore it is simply ridiculous to try to separate them. It seems to me that it would be more correct and neutral to speak about "Left-wing (aka Communist) terrorist groups". The only think we need to do is to add the explanation to the Left-wing terrorism article that "Communist terrorists" is an alternative name for them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Or add "Left-wing terrorism" as an alternative name in this article. This entire dispute, edit warring, and moves were only about words and not about meaning. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article with this name already exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to PS several times above now, there is no need whatsoever to add all the differing terms used by authors to this article. An alternate view would be they are not terrorist or they did not subscribe to some form of communist ideology. We already have left wing in the types section of the info box. Which is more than enough I believe. Tentontunic (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base provides separate statistics for 'communist/socialist' and 'leftist' groups, relying on DeticaDFI group taxonomy. See MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, 'TKB data methodologies', <http://www.tkb.org?DFI.jsp?page=method>."[13] The explanation is no longer available on-line and there is no evidence that it is in general use. Moreover, they made no distinction between CT and socialist terrorism. So the source is not really helpful. It is doubtful however that their definition would agree with definitions from the 50s, which used the term "terrorism" to describe non-violent actions. For example were one to write that people who were not Caucasian deserved equal rights, that would be an act of communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite for the claim that "were one to write that people who were not Caucasian deserved equal rights, that would be an act of communist terrorism. "? I can not find one after careful search, but trust you would not simply make the example up. Collect (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fascinating how you can conduct "careful research" and post a reply, all within 15 minutes. Any read for example, "Derfinitions that serve the interests of the powerful".[14] But we are drifting off-topic. The descriptions assigned by the post-UDI Rhodesian government are not reliable sources to define groups as "terrorists". TFD (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? When in doubt, attack the other editor? Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

A number of changes have been made to this article by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. We should revert to take out all the material that has been added without consensus. TFD (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, many people seem to have supported his edits, so I don't believe there is any consensus for a wholesale revert. --Martin (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us see what other editors believe. I would have thought that finding out that the editor whose opinions you trusted was untrustworthy might have lead you to question his views. TFD (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of trust and the viewpoints of particular editors, but what is verifiable in reliable sources. --Martin (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your preemptive attempt to remove content without having to discuss its merits. If what you contend were true, I could mass delete every article having to do with Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Please feel free to point out specific items you believe are in error. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to support articles. Are you claiming that a POV about minor republics is driving your motivation to bolster this article? In order to understand the situation in Transnistria (wherever that happens to be) we need to explain to the people about CT? TFD (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret my intent. What I stated was that if practice was to remove all content created by documented socks, I would be justified in deleting pretty much all content having to do with the frozen conflict zone, as an example of the application of your contention regarding normal editorial practice. Any wholesale removal of content without discussion of the content (not the author) is vandalism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ROLLBACK: "When to use rollback....To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit". The edits by mark nutley/Tentontunic amount to vandalism and should be reversed. Surely you are not advocating that we encourage sockpuppets? TFD (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is that some editors routinely accuse all those with whom they are in conflict of being socks. Should we encourage that behaviour? Best to deal with the content of edits, and not go witch hunting. Collect (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are editors who try to derail SPIs, as Collect successfully did with mark nutley's first SPI. TFD (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This page is not the place to make scurrilous personal attacks. Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Constructive approach?

@TFD, is there specific content—please provide diffs of what you wish to roll back and what the issue is with the content in question—you would like to discuss? That would be a more constructive approach than:

• you mass delete;
• I revert as vandalism and accuse you of using WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT content;
• you accuse me of being Tentontunic's et al. meat puppet, violating WP:POLICY, etc. and revert my revert;
• I open an arbitration request to topic ban you for incessant personal attacks and denigration of editors you don't agree with in the widely construed to be related to the portrayal of Soviet legacy article space.

Personally, I'd prefer the constructive approach. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have patiently explained this to you as can be seen by reading through the dicussions above. Please be careful with the phrasing of your comments. I "mass deleted" content put in by a banned editor that was poorly sourced and not relevant to the topic. That is not vandalism and please read what vandalism means and avoid using the term except when done correctly. Also see the notice board for vandalism.[15] Do you think that any of my actions should be reported there? No one accused you of being a meat puppet, just that you supported their edits. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, being characterized as supporting an editor's edits is a guilt by association personal attack; do not conflated that with the benign characterization of supporting some piece of content based on the source. I have simply asked you to discuss any content issues based on the content and the source so we don't digress into unfortunate and irrelevant contentions about editors. If you insist on continuing to discuss the editor and not the edit, nothing good will come of it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one knows what topic this article is supposed to cover, it is hard to improve. I suggested using the definition to which you agreed (i.e., from Drake), which effectively excludes most of the article, and makes it identical to left-wing terrorism. Or we could follow Paul Siebert's suggestion that we explain the use of the term CT as propaganda. What do you think the topic should be? TFD (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I'm not confused. As I recall I expanded the lead beyond the Drake definition which (of the top of my head) did not include regime- or state-originated terrorism. As for "left-wing terrorism," IMHO that content should never have been removed in the first place, nor the upteen other variations on that theme dissecting this article into nothingness. "CT" is not merely a propaganda label, that is an over-the-top POV contention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You added a section from Chaliand and Blin's book called "Lenin and strategic terrorism" (pp. 197-202)[16] You then added a book on Cambodia.[17] Your first source does not use the term "communist terrorist", let alone explain the concept. Your second source says that an American congressional report used the term. Could you please find a source that explains what you think this topic should be. Otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing that we can have an article on Christian terrorism, that is, terrorism motivated by a particular ideology, listing groups so motivated and their actions whereas we cannot have an article on Communist terrorism, that is, terrorism motivated by a particular ideology, listing groups so motivated and their actions.

Perhaps the editors at Christian terrorism have missed that it is nothing but a propaganda term coined to slander Christians.

Parenthetically, the source cited in the lead of that article indicates "freedom fighter" is a propaganda term coined by terrorists to make themselves out to appear to be less terroristic. Yet at this article, communist terrorists who call themselves freedom fighters must be counted as freedom fighters, not as terrorists; "communist terrorist" is a pejorative created to slander those yearning only to be free. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I see this enshitcyclopedia, I am appalled.

• Definition of Christian terrorism: Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals which claim Christian motivations or goals for their acts.
• Definition of Islamic terrorism: Islamic terrorism is a term for acts of terrorism committed by extremist Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends.
• Definition of Communist terrorism: Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe actions carried out by states...

LOL. --Reference Desker (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact some editors believe that Christian terrorism should mean any terrorist act committed by someone who claims to be Christian, and want to include the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Irish terrorists, etc. As I have pointed out to editors on that article, ""Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring sweeping changes" (Aubrey).[18] The article should not be used as an attack page against Christianity. Islamic terrorism fortunately has not attracted the same sort of POV issues. Islamic terrorism has not attracted the same sort of POV issues. Although there has been extensive Arab nationalist terrorism, mostly carried out by Muslims, no one suggests that it should be recategorized as Islamic terrorism. I am afraid Peters that you have failed to persuade me that an exception should be made for CT. TFD (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, well of course, given your POV. Per Reference Desker's astute observation on groups and terrorism:

• 3rd place—re: Christians, we have no problem calling a spade a spade, no worries about offending anyone; Christianity is an instrument of death;
• 2nd place—re: Muslims, we must take care to differentiate the people from the faith, and to differentiate the faith from those extremists who invoke faith in the name of terrorism; we must lastly underscore that the name of a thing is not necessarily the thing itself;
• 1st place—re: Communists, per Paul Siebert, yourself and others advocating for same, a derisive propagandic term first [implied by chronology mentioned in article] applied by Nazis to demonize the Soviet Union, then in the Cold War era to freedom fighters et al.; the name of the thing applies to (denouncing) a thing which does not itself exist.

I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Re: Christian terrorism, terrorism by anyone claiming to be a Christian might be a slightly too large net. That said, anyone claiming to commit terrorism in the name of Christianity or motivated by or otherwise citing Christianity certainly fits. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not expressing a point of view, merely reporting what reliable sources say. As Aubrey wrote, "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing and anarchist" (p. 43).[19] Chaliand and Blin also discuss religious terrorism.[20] If you do not like what reliable sources say then you must provide sources that contradict them, rather than accusing the editors presenting them as advancing a POV. Note that Christian terrorism is not "terrorism by anyone claiming to be a Christian" That would obviously mean a POV article, which is against Wikipedia policy. I had initially supported deleting the Christian terrorism article because it appeared to be an attack page, but then sources were found for the concept. TFD (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW the complete version of Chaliand and Blin's book is available on-line.[21] See "A typology of terrorism" (p. 227). They make a clear distincition between "terrorist groups based on left- or right-wing political ideology" and "nationalist" terrorism. (p. 227) Note that they do use the term "CT" and classify Marxist groups that support national separatism under nationalism rather than left-wing, Could you please provide a source that coincides with your understanding of the term "CT". TFD (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are not Marxist terrorist groups therefore engaged in communist terrorism? Let's dispense with the absurd notion that "communist" is an adjective that refers to method. Nationalist, left-wing, or advocating for two chickens in every pot (i.e., goal) is not material. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I must take your contentions for what reliable sources say or don't say, exist or don't exist, with a grain of salt given your prior position on no sources existing for "communist genocide." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All sources provided by you, me, Mr. S. and others categorize terrorism in terms of its objectives. The types of attacks carried out as well as organizational structure are determined by this. Attacks by Irish Marxists, Catholics (and some Protestants), liberals and fascists against Britain for example are described as "nationalist terrorism", because the motivation was separation of the nation from Great Britain. Similarly separatist parties that draw members from across the political spectrum are referred to as nationalist. BTW no point in discussing other articles. The fact was that your colleagues decided to change the name of the article.[22] In any case it is incumbent on you to provide sources, not on me to prove that no such sources exist. And if you do not agree with my interpretation of sources, or direct quotes from them, you should explain why you disagree, instead of using arguments ad hominem. TFD (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, could you elaborate on your statement " The fact was that your colleagues decided to change the name of the article.[23]". --Martin (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article name was changed by a reasoned consensus before most of the AfDs ever took place - all of which failed. The primary position was noting that not all "mass killings" are reasonably described as "genocide." It was not changed out of a belief that "communist genocides" were a null set, nor did those discussing the move so claim. I discount Dittoheads need to blow off steam as a reason. Also the weird rational in opposition to the move The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency . Only two editors opposed the move (using the two really odd reasons), while everyone else (12+) supported the move. Under any normal definition of consensus, consensus was clearly reached. Was anything else of any rational relationship to current discussions here? Collect (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but totally irrelevant comments. The term "killing" by the way does not imply human causes, e.g., "people were killed in an earthquake", "people were killed in a storm". However, some people do believe that these events were caused by human agency - not the sort of viewpoint that we should be pushing. Also, see Wikileaks. The EEML discussed the article and agreed to the name change because they agreed that CG was "synthesis" and the article could be deleted. TFD (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall "agreeing" to anything. I suggest you strike references to private correspondence. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ TFD. I would be grateful if in future you avoided unneeded references to the EEML case.

@ Collect. All AfD's failed because the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by many sources. However, the fact that this concept is notable is not sufficient for filling this article with the content that belongs to other articles, or for turning of this article into a multiple POV-forks. The article with the title "Communist terrorism" must exist, and I fully agree with you on that account, however, it is necessary to decide what the subject of this article should be. This article cannot, should not and will not be a POV-fork of other articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul Siebert: Odd, it's been my distinct impression that Communist terrorism was POV-gutted and made into a slew of POV-forks (more accurately, fragments). To each his own. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, can you please provide a source that explains what CT is. Could you also please point to any terrorism article whose definition is not supported by sources and I will nominate it for deletion. TFD (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. No. If the article describes Vientamese or African national liberation movements as terrorists, whereas the main articles state otherwise, the CT article is a multiple POV-fork. These are just few examples demonstrating my point. With regard to the rest, could you please outline briefly how the article with the title "CT" should look like, because your vision of this article it is still unclear for me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Malaya

I modified the section, which has been added by the suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Marknutley/Tentontunic without any attempt to discuss it. I would like to made some comments on that, because this section is a demonstration of how the article as whole should be written. The structure of the section is as follows:

1. It contains the link to the main article;
2. It explains the historical background (two participants were the British authorities, whose goal was to keep their valuable colonial possession under control, and the Malayan Communist party, who had a previous experience of partisan warfare due to their active participation in the WWII on the Allied (British) side);
3. It explains the goal of the insurgence (to seize the power in Malaya and to liberate it from the British dominance);
4. It explains the connection between their activity and terrorism: they were labeled as terrorists by British authorities for clear political and economical reasons, and they resorted to the terrorist/sabotage tactics to decrease a value of this colony to Britain;
5. It explains the sides' tactics;
6. It tells about the conflict's end;
7. And, last but not least, this section does not contradict to the main article.

This version is dramatically different from many other parts of the article, because other parts do not explain the origin and motives of the communist insurgence, creating an impression that no explanation is needed for the Communist attacks ("since the Communists are an infernal force by definition, no explanation of the causes of the violence outburst is needed"), which, obviously, is completely unencyclopaedic approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

An IP has again removed the POV tag without discussion. However the article remains POV because no coherent definition of CT is used and therefore the article has become a coatrack. I would remind the IP that this article is under a 1RR restriction and will apply for semi-protection if there is edit-warring from the IP. TFD (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that people who have been warned under Digwuren specifically should be very sure about any edits to this or any article dealing with the Soviet Union and ethnic minorites thereof, as well as Eastern Europe topics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A connection between this article and the (broadly defined) Eastern Europe is highly questionable. With regard to this British IP, think it is a re-incarnation of Mark Nutley. If this will repeat, the total amount of the examples of sockpuppetry may become sufficient for community ban of this user. In any event, a revert of suspected sockpuppet is not edit warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I requested for the article's semiprotection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel socks are involved, provide evidence at SPI. Asking for semi-protection when there does not appear to be any substantial disruption might well be a misuse of semi-protection for the mere purpose of preventing non-vandal edits from IPs. Have you followed the discussions on "pending changes" at all? Collect (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes is a good idea. I forgot about that option. Thank you for reminding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI does not deal with IPs. TFD (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment - since you have used SPI on a great number of IPS. Collect (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. We are all well aware of your great effort to persuade SPI clerks that mark nutley was not responsible for socking. TFD (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Commenting that you've made a number of SPI reports about IP addresses is a personal attack how? Your reply seems to be far more a personal attack than his comment. Silverseren^C 00:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently opened an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33, saying that two accounts "both have been involved in editing the article United States and state terrorism and its talk page from a similar point of view, arguing that the US has been involved in state terrorism". Collect then made the gratuitous comment, "The routine use of the SPI noticeboard based upon two or more users disagreeing with TFD is part and parcel of the problematic behaviour from which TFD narrowly escaped a lengthy topic ban on all articles remotely related to Eastern Europe and Communism (Digwuren). Absent any actual evidence of socks being used, the record is that well under a third of these accusations have ever been found to be accurate. SPI is not a fishing hole, and ought not be treated as one". Despite support for the SPI from two other editors on the article, Collect has continued to comment, saying for example that the fact the IP came from the same city and used the same provider was irrelevant. I welcome any attempts by him to provide evidence pro and con, but argumentem ad hominem are unhelpful. Note that he was successful in derailing the first mark nutley SPI. TFD (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response is an ad hom against me once again. The "connection" you had was that they were Comcast users -- which is the single largest ISP in the US <g>. This talk page is reserved for discussion about this article, and I fail to see why you need a screed about me here. Cheers. By the way, note that there was absolutely zero evidence given in the accusation - which does rather seem to lead to a reasonable result - no socks were found. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Comcast, both from San Francisco, both making the same edits to the same articles, both being blocked for their edits, the new editor showing experience of WP, and two other editors familiar with both suspecting sockpuppetry. Could be a coincidence, but that is something for SPI to determine. TFD (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Silverseren^C. Although the Collect's comment is innocent per se, you should keep in mind that in actuality it is a continuation of an older dispute, during which Collect was insisting on the TFD's bad faith, and was not supported by others.

@ Collect. A recent AE discussion revealed no abuse of the SPI tools by TFD. By contrast, other users encouraged TFD to continue this his activity. Your persistent references to SPI as an indicator of TFD's bad faith can hardly be considered as a sign of your own good faith. The sooner you stop that, the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your repeated spirited defences of TFD. Alas - they seem more designed to continue personalization of issues that to clarify them. The sooner you stop that, the better. TFD has had an extraordinarily bad run at SPI - though he has gotten a few folks whome he has had disputes with banned as a result of "duck" allegations. And a few of those have, in fact, been overturned upon examination of "facts." I know "facts" are inconvenient, but I find it easier to accept that some folks have different views than to try getting them all banned. Your mileage apparently varies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

anyone here thinking i am a sock would be wrong, i read the article and see fuckall pov about it. This blocking of an article from unregistered users is just another commie joke.

why were my comments removed? please do not remove my comments again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.52.247 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather be blocked for breaches of WP:NPA instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The absence of capital letters, the language (especially "commie"), rudeness, anti-Communism and the British origin of this IP indicate that the edits have been made by Marknutley/Tentontunic. It is highly likely that the amount of the examples of disruptive sockpuppetry is sufficient for community ban of this disruptive editor. It is interesting to know what TFD, with their large experience in SPI, think on that account.

@ 94.12.52.247. If I am wrong, and you are not a marknutley's sock, please, create a user account, and you will be able to edit this article. In particular, I would like to know what concretely is wrong with the article in your opinion. However, before answering, please, read the marknutley/Tentontunic posts to avoid re-iteration of old arguments, which have already been addressed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@andythegrump just read that npa you linked to, I do not see were I have attacked any particular editor. @Paul Siebert, this is meant to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I should not have to create an account to do so. If you do not appreciate my language tough crap, If you do not appreciate the lack of capitalisation tough, I was in a rush. Removing my comments on spurious grounds that you might think I am a banned editor is bullshit, do an spi as the collect geezer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.52.247 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you are insisting, I addressed to the admin who analysed this case[24]. Hope this will help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is the verdict then? Does your spi investigation clear me of wrongdoing and allow my editing of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.33.212 (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No verdict so far. It is unclear for me, however, why haven't you created an account so far. There are many advantages and no disadvantages in that. If you are not a sockpuppet, you can do that freely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, when editors are suspected of socking using dynamic IPs, the correct approach is to request page protection. We already have page protection for the article and I will request talk page protection if the disruption continues. TFD (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created an account, however i fail to see the point of logging in only to get banned because you guys think i am a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.33.212 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ihave logged is but am still unable to edit this article, why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note The Last Angry Man has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley [25]. --TFD (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And I am still blocked from editing this article, would someone please explain why? I created an account as suggested and surely by now your investigation is over so why am I not able to see an edit article tab? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a "magic number" of edits needed to get past the bar (100). Collect (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Collect, it is good to see one take the time to explain such a strange rule. It will be a while I suspect before i amass 100 article edits though. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The rule is not strange. Since, as a result of the recent edit war, this concrete article is under edit restrictions, the article has been semi-protected, so only experienced editors can edit it. I also recommend you to carefully read the article's talk page discussion, including the archives, because you seem to reproduce the arguments that lead to the previous edit war, and eventually to the block of one user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Paul Siebert, I have been reading the rule over the last few days, most some very strange indeed but I am quite sure I shall get the hang of it. I have not actually produced any arguments thus far regarding the content of this article, but once I am able to edit it I shall quite happily argue with you all you want :) Thank you for the welcome on my talk page, I had not found some of those pages of rules. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall also remove the POV tag today given no actual policy based reason has been given for it to be there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is POV because it does not properly define CT and thereore implicitly advocates the theory that there is a connection between communism and terrorism. Also, it uses contemporaneous propaganda writing, including from white racist sources, in order to promote the connection. TFD (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see n racist sources used in this article, should you have an issue with a source then you need to post at the reliable sources notice board. An issue with a source is not a POV issue. I als osee no propaganda sources used, the majority of sources appear to be quite modern and not from the cold war. You should also add new sources if you feel there is a neutrality issue to create balance, not just demand that others put right that which you think is wrong. ~i`m going to remove the tag now. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot remove a POV tag unilaterally: we must have a consensus about that. I am also interested in removal of this tag, however, before doing that we have to made some changes in the article. Let's discuss what should be changed. For instance, you mentioned "racist" sources. They definitely should be removed. Which sources are racist in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not said there are racist sources in the article, your friend TFD did. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Another problem with the article is that it deals with multiple subjects, and it describes as "Communist terrorism" the events that are not described as such in main articles devoted to those events specifically. For instance the Malayan Emergency describe the events in Malaya as anti-colonial warfare, not as "Communist terrorism". According to our guidelines, we cannot have two articles that describe the same event differently: all viewpoints that deserve mention must be present in the same article. The multiple conflicts with other articles can be resolved if we convert this article into the story of the term, which has been applied to quite different events (each of which already has its own article). By doing that, we can write a good article, and remove the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk)

And in that you are completely wrong. This article is about terrorist actions carrided out by communists and as such ought to focus on that. What this article ought say is that the communists carried out actions which were terrorist in nature and which the British responded to be beating the shit out of them. What you have written is not even close to the truth and presents a very lopsided and highly partisan version of events. This is why I have said I shall rewrite it s it actually tells an accurate version of events and is not a pro communist propaganda piece. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you start to re-write the article, you should make the following. (i) Change the Malayan Emergency accordingly. This article describes the Communists as partisans, not terrorists, and, therefore, it is even more pro-Communist (using your terminology). (ii) Prove that the sources I used in this article are not mainstream and unreliable.

In addition, your attempt to present anti-colonial movements as "terrorists" demonstrate that your viewpoint is simply obsolete. That is a Cold War terminology, and no serious scholar use this term in this context. Following you logic, the US had been founded by terrorists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please abstain from idiotic comparisons. Please show me where American revolutionaries conducted slaughter of innocent civilians to wrest control from the British. "Anti-colonial" does not excuse achievement of aims be means of terrorism. You suggest intent which you paint as noble precludes someone being a terrorist. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"During the American Revolution, terrorism was used against the British and their colonial sympathizers". (p. 225)[26] if we followed mark nutley's use of Drake's writing, we would call this "liberal terrorism". TFD (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear Peters, if I understand this your statement ("Please abstain from idiotic comparisons") correctly, whereas you are trying to be polite, you nevertheless find my arguments unusual and inappropriate. Let me point out, however, that this argument is not my own invention. I took it from the following source: William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39. Anticipating the argument that I could take this statement out of context I provide an extended quote from this article:

"While these embellishments have identified and clarified important aspects of the terrorist enterprise, the concept remains unavoidably subjective, especially so in the case of anticolonial terror. Resorting to legalisms is not particularly helpful. Defining terrorism as the “unlawful use of violence”, for example, forces one to classify as terrorists the Americans who rebelled against the lawfully constituted government of King George III. One man’s terrorist will always be another man’s freedom fighter. Conor Cruise O’Brien, for example, refuses to attach the terrorist label to anyone resisting an authoritarian regime (Crenshaw, 1990, p. 13)."

In connection to that I expect you to either remove your good faith comment about idiotic comparisons allegedly made by me, or to prove that the source I used is fringe or unreliable. Your failure to do so nullifies the weight of your subsequent comments on this talk page and makes you vulnerable towards future sanctions. The latter is much more serious that you may think taking into account your user history. Although I do not plan to request for any sanctions against you neither now not in future, other users may be less tolerant. Take this my post as a friendly advise to be more careful in your comments and allegations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Malaya is dubious

I have been looking over the section on Malaya and see what can only be described as massive errors. For instance, the majority of material I have read on the subject says the British fought a brilliant campaign and the relocation scheme was a great success, but the article section says the opposite and seems to portray the British forces as having made major errors and committed massive human rights violations. I intend to rewrite this section to accurately portray the facts and not the opinions of a few left wing wackos. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)<

The section is not devoted to the campaign itself, just to the terminology and the actions of partisans. The whole campaign has been described in the main article. With regard of the British mistakes, these mistakes occurred at the first stage of the conflict ("initially lead to casualties among innocent civilians, with destruction of whole villages, population transfers, detainment and mass deportations"). With regard to the rewrite, please, do not repeat the mistakes of others: the sources used in this section are quite reliable and mainstream, and previous discussions on the WP:RSN demonstrated that quite persuasively. In addition, if you want to change anything, please, try to start with the main article ("Malayan Emergency"), which currently does not describe the actions of Malayan partisans as "terrorism". The main article and the section on the "CT" article must be consistent: that is a requirement of the WP policy guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such requirement that two articles must have the same consensus, so that argument fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CFORK. If you believe I am not right, we can put this dispute on the WP:NPOV talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on the majority of literature I have read on the subject", TFD (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, sorry but your sources do not appear to represent the mainstream views to be honest, i think you may have piked a few outliers. The Four Deuces, I am not here to give you a history lesson, it would be almost certainly be best if you would take the time to read up on that which you wish to comment upon. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We have had a discussion on the WP:RSN about that, and the consensus was that the sources are reliable and mainstream. If you want to contest that conclusion, please, familiarise yourself with the RSN archives, and, if you believe that you have new arguments, start a new discussion. I do not have to prove that the sources I use are not fringe, however, if you want, you may try to prove the opposite. The burden of proof is on you. Meanwhile, since the Malaya section is in accordance with what the Malayan Emergency article says, you may try to give a history lessons to the people who wrote that article. Try to persuade them first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I know what the Briggs Plan was, and I am familiar with the fact that it was crowned with a success. However, since we discuss mostly the activity of the partisans, we do not need to focus on the British tactics here. By contrast, to mention the British mistakes is necessary, because that partially explains the outburst of violence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that`s just plain wrong, you cannot say the communist party began actions based on violence from british troops as it is utterly incorrect. The communist party began terrorist actions before the british began to implement the Briggs plan, and to say what you have written is in accordance with policy is also wrong. You can`t pick a few sources which support your view and exclude what the majority of sources on this subject say. The British fought a brilliant campaign in Malaya and combined with the resettlement plan made the entire conflict a resounding success. Let me know what you think of it once I have rewritten it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not say that. The Communist party started national-liberation partisan war, which British authorities described as "terrorism". That is the only reason why this section belongs to this article. Regarding British atrocities, they were a reaction on initial Communist acts, however, since they were redundantly cruel, they contributed into the escalation of violence. Later, when the British authorities modified their policy, it became more efficient and less cruel, and eventually led to a victory. However, this article discusses not that, but the relation between the Malayan emergency and communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man, articles are based upon sources. The subject "communist terrorism" appears to be obscure indeed - no docs on the Beeb, no degrees at Oxbridge. So perhaps you could share with us this esoteric body of literature. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Go look for it, if you are not familiar with the subject then make yourself familiar before making comments which only serve to show your ignorance. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This your statement is supposed to be supported by serious evidences, otherwise it has zero weight. Please, provide some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism vs Left wing terrorism

In terms of common usage in books, this settles it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your source also shows that the term "leftist terrorism" became more popular than the term CT since the late 1970s.[27] That settles it. TFD (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Or alternately [28] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. The content from this article was moved to the Left-wing terrorism article based on gscholar data. The reliability of google scholar results, and their good correlation with the popularity of one or another topic in scientific or scholarly literature has been confirmed by several researchers who published the peer-reviewed articles devoted specifically to that subject. I have no idea about relevance of ngrams data, and I suspect that they reflect all, not only reliable sources. Moreover, the idea to choose the search engine that gives the results supporting one's POV is hardly a good idea.
Moreover, the ngrams results just demonstrate that the words "Communist terrorism" are frequently found in general literature. However, these results do not demonstrate that that term is more popular in the context we discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The content was moved as a deliberate POV fork, IMHO, as was pointed out at the time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should recommend a merger. TFD (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the LWT article as a POV fork is my recommendation. Glad you agree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The gscholar results suggest that if someone wants to get rid of one of these articles, the opposite should be done: this article should be merged to the LWT article. That is not what I support, however.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Iterating "Gscholar results" as though they are Dei verbum for naming articles has been not adopted by any policy or guideline on Wikipedia. And iterating it another dozen times will not make it Wikipedia policy LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We have some sources that use the term "LWT" to describe the activity of terrorist groups in 60s-00s, and we have some sources that use the term "CT". The first type sources are more abundant, as gscholar says. In that situation, to advocate merging LWT into the CT article is against NPOV. Nevertheless, I am ready to discuss your arguments in favour of merging. The problem is that you provided no arguments so far, others that you discgree with this move. Obviously, the statement that the term "CT" is also being used to describe LWT is hardly an argument, because you are supposed to demonstrate that this term is used by majority reliable sources. You failed to demonstrate that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the concept of left-wing/leftist terrorism is well understood, and does not include for example terrorist activity by Communist parties (which is probably why sources do not call it Communist terrorism). TFD (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for the sources which do so - or say it is terrorism by Communists or aimed to advance Communism. Cheers - but I have read that too many times and iteration does not change fact. Honest. Collect (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show us these sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean all the sources which say Communists used terrorism? Sheesh - a lot of them have been shown already. Or is it that I need to find an "exact match" for a phrase as TFD keeps insisting - even though that is not part of any Wikipedia or guideline, and iterating it does not make it part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline? Cheers. And might you read all the archives lest you inadvertantly repeat the gist of a prior post? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The fact that X uses terrorism is insufficient to speak about a category "X terrorism". We need a definition (from some mainstream source, not from The Balck Book) of what "CT" is, and of what concrete manifestations it includes. This definition is supposed to be different from the definition of LWT, otherwise that would be just a synonym of the latter, and in this case the article should be converted into the redirect to LWT. This definition should include all subjects the article discusses, including national-liberation movements (Vietnam, Malaya), state terror (which is not considered as terrorism by many sources), KR genocide, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SYN. I could find sources for American conservative politicians who committed buggery but could not create an article called "American conservative buggers". BTW the Global Museum on Communism makes no mention of Communist terrorism. If it were even a fringe theory one would expect to find it there. TFD (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, yes, then you would support an article on the Communist holocaust in Eastern Europe. If their not using a using "Communist terrorism" to refer to a phenomenon is good enough for you, then certainly their using "Communist holocaust" to refer to a phenomenon should be good enough for you, too. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not oppose an article about "Communist holocaust", it is mentioned in books.[29] But you would have to present various views, including, "Frequent reference is made to the “communist holocaust,” in which Jewish leaders were allegedly involved." (Antisemitism). TFD (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting assertion, that. Recall your post of Delete The term trivializes the Holocaust and use of the term is therefore widely considered to be implicitly anti-Semitic. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) not all that long ago? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"This definition is supposed to be different from the definition of LWT, otherwise that would be just a synonym of the latter, and in this case the article should be converted into the redirect to LWT", well that didn't stop the creation of LWT as a fork after a proposed move failed. As I recall there was no consensus to move the article from CT to LWT, so a minority decided to do a backdoor cut and paste move. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you looked at the Left-wing terrorism article's history you would find that that article was created before the Communist terrorism article was created. Therefore, it is a big question what is a POV fork of what.

Let me point out, however, that I do not think these two terms are synonyms, and I do agree that these two articles should exist in WP. However, that does not mean that this article ("CT") should tell about some single concept, because no such single concept exist in mainstream sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Tammsalu, LWT has a specific definition. What is the definition of CT? If you provide a source for this we could determine is they are the same concept or different concepts. TFD (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For outsiders -- all of the above has been posted circa 100 times now -- see the talk page archives. And, amazingly enough, the article has survived the iterations without incident. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(3rd_nomination) are also "must-reads" for those brave enough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. A part of the content of this article that had a direct relation of left wing terrorism had been moved to the LWT article (because the terms "CT" and "LWT" in a context of leftist group terrorism during 1960s-2000s are synonyms, the latter being more popular among scholars, and we cannot have two separate articles for the terms meaning essentially the same). Currently, the debates are not about the deletion of this article (at least I am not a proponent of this idea), but about what this article is supposed to be about. In my opinion, it should focus mostly on the history of the term, because this term was applied during different historical periods by different authors to quite different and poorly connected things. No evidences of the opposite have been provided by Peters or you despite our numerous requests. In connection to that, my question is what concretely do you have against this my proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple assertion of "incorrect" does not change the repeated iteration of the same arguments over and over by the same editors, again and again. Reprtition does not alter the fact that "Communist terrorism" was found to be a suitable title for this article three times now. Cheers - and I accept what people read far more than what people assert as to what they WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Reprtition does not alter the fact that "Communist terrorism" was found to be a suitable title for this article three times now.. If you refer to 3 AfDs, then you'd need to understand that "no consensus" =/= "keep"

Repetition in this case showed absolutely no consensus to Delete. That is a term of art on Wikipedia which translates into "default is to keep." Cheers. Did you read all the archives and note the repetition therein? Collect (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Did you read all the archives and note the repetition therein? Yes, and that means that lack of consensus is apparent in the archives and that no consensus has ever been reached. Nothing in the archives validated the title contrary to what you seem to be asserting. (Igny (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC))