Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Renamed 'Origins, evolution and history' section

Given the refusal of certain editors to accept the normal Wikipedia standards for editing, I have renamed this section to more accurately reflect its content. Can I ask editors not to revert this change without discussing it on the edit page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i have reverted it given the obvious stupidty of the nameing, is there not a rule against such idiocy? Tentontunic (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, WP:POINT. Andy don't do that please. On the other hand, there is no need for consensus to remove synthesis from the article per WP:SYNTH and WP:BURDEN. (Igny (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

I requested semi-protection --Snowded ^TALK 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you ask for protection after putting back your version? typical commie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.108.198 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 October 2010

Also, please see MoS:HEAD: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article...." I will set up an RfC.

Ok, guys, I'll admit to being over-bold, if not outright provocative, but given the edit-warring that has been going on over the section, it seemed a way to at least break the stalemate. It has already been demonstrated that the section, as it was when I renamed it, was dubiously sourced and speculative. Given that some editors have argued that without consensus over reversions, any change is valid, I'd say that a renaming of the section was justified, even if my particular name wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for you people

OK, I've got a couple of basic questions here that will (hopefully) address two major concerns I have over this article in general. While they may or may not be discussed to death previously, I have no desire to separate a few grains of wheat from hectares of chaff and circular logic. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources discuss "Communist Terrorism" as actual Communist terrorism without being an apparent misnomer or subset of the more general topic of left-wing terrorism? Is the topic of Communist terrorism notable by itself or is it reliant on the notability of left-wing terrorism? (WP:N)
• Do any of the sources discuss actual evolution of this concept without the need to synthesize possible evolutionary traits? Are we dealing with published conclusions or are we making this up as we go along? (WP:SYN)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torinir (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 October 2010

In answer to the first question, I'd say that it has yet to be demonstrated that there is any particular theoretical distinction being made - clearly a book about the Red Brigades may label them 'communist', but this isn't the same thing as stating that 'communist terrorism' is a meaningful subdivision.

As for the 'evolution' of terrorism in general, never mind in relation to communism, I'm not aware that any sources cited really discus this, so yes, in my opinion editors are making it up as they go along. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If it's not even breaking the notability criteria for inclusion, the only place I see this heading is AFD again. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The solution would be to rename the article "Left-wing terrorism" which is a term supported by the literature, and to use those sources to explain the history and ideology. Those sources say that left-wing terrorism combines marxist and anarchist ideology and developed out of the 1848 revolutions. TFD (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, left-wing terrorism already exists as a disambiguation page. The problem is that two of the three linked pages ARE notable, Anarchist terrorism (AKA Propaganda of the deed) and Eco-terrorism. Communist terrorism is not. I could see the creation of a left-wing terrorism article with brief mentions of the two notable terms, with links to their main articles, and a brief mention of Communist terrorism as a subset. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may also see this deletion debate and this old version which was deleted in 2006. For a while, both left wing and right wing terrorism was a redirect until anti-communist POV-pushers came along and started this vicious cycle yet again. (Igny (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

The disambiguation page is a recent change - it seems from its talk page to be a revert. Until a day or two ago, 'left wing terrorism' was (illogically) redirected to 'communist terrorism'. Just to add further confusion though, I'd suggest that 'Eco-terrorism' isn't necessarily left wing, and that there have been forms of 'left wing terrorism' that were neither 'anarchist' nor 'communist'. Then again, whether 'anarchism' is 'left wing' is a contentious question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See the typology in Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism:[1]

There are seven basic types of terrorist:

1. Nationalist Terrorists
2. Religious Terrorists
3. State Sponsored Terrorists
4. Left Wing Terrorists
5. Right Wing Terrorists
6. Anarchist Terrorists
7. Special Interest Terrorists... These extremists are violent subgroups of otherwise well meaning legitimate organizations that have noble causes, such as right to life, protection of the environment and animal rights.

While there may be overlap, these categories appear to be generally used, treating anarchist and eco-terrorism separately. This source for example groups eco-terrorists under both 4. and 7. It groups the Workers World Party under 6. rather than 4.

TFD (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There are right-wing adherents of both ecology and anarchist movements, e.g., the Unabomber and National Anarchists. They appeal to their belief in blood and soil and to hatred of authority. TFD (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if by cherry picking quotes it is possible to establish "evolution" from white terror to the right-wing terrorism. Are there sources which juxtapose revolutionary terror with "reactionary terror"? (Igny (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

If you cherry pick enough quotes, you could probably say anything. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mix terror perpetrated by some state institution with terrorism of political extremist groups. Both White terror and Red terror belonged to the former category, whereas the present article discusses primarily terrorism.

Regarding your question, yes, some sources do compare these two. See, e.g. Helen Fein, Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823. The author analysed two mass killings (in Kampuchea and Indonesia) and saw both common and distinctive features.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the water gets even muddier. Really, the more I'm seeing this, the more I think this article needs to be scrap heaped, and the left-wing terrorism disambig be rewritten as its own article to discuss terrorism by the various political groups that make up the left-wing, according to left-right politics with the exception of anarchy. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A minor point TFD, but are there actually any allegations of links between the Workers World Party and terrorism? In any case, from what little I know about them, they were once at least nominally Trotskyists, and I don't see how they could be described as anarchists. On a more general point, I'd suggest that many, possibly the majority, of terrorist groups might fit into more than one category - I don't have access to the full text in the book you cite, so I don't know how such distinctions are being justified. A raw statement that 'there are N types of terrorist' isn't of much use as an analytic tool. So yes, we are looking at muddy waters here, and a well-argued reliable source is needed to find our way around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Click on the link. The reference to the WWP was about their involvement in the Battle in Seattle, and the book incorrectly calls them anarchists. The point though is that left-wing and anarchist terrorism are treated separately. (I do not know if these actions constitute terrorism, but that would be a concern in another article.) You can find the same distinction in other books they classify types of terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Objectivity of this Discussion is doubtful (non-existent)

(1) As indicated earlier, the section on Marxist leaders’ views is misleading:

(a) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on Trotsky, creating the misleading impression that other prominent Marxists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) did not advocate and/or practiced terrorism;

(b) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on the theoretical “rejection of individual terrorism”, creating the misleading impression that this is the main (only) Marxist position on terrorism.

(2) The discussion is not being properly monitored:

(a) no discernible attempt is being made to establish and maintain an acceptable degree of objectivity;

(b) important and relevant scholarly works such as the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism are being ignored or illicitly excluded from the discussion;

(c) though the only logical way to remedy the blatant imbalance in the above section is to include quotes by/on other leaders who are known to have endorsed and practiced terrorism all attempts to do so have been systematically blocked with impunity by the apologists for Marxist terrorism (in the period of from Marx to Lenin that is outside US or international anti-terrorist legislation) who have done their best to sabotage and wreck both the article and the discussion.

(3) Among the tactics deployed by the apologist wreckers and saboteurs the following may be identified as representative examples:

(a) it is claimed that Marx and Engels did not advocate terrorism despite the fact that scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism show that they did, and Marx himself was known as “The Red Terror Doctor”;

(b) it is claimed that Marx and Engels were not involved in terrorist activities despite the fact that numerous sources from The Neue Rheinische Zeitung to Isaiah Berlin and Francis Wheen state otherwise;

(c) it is claimed that Lenin does not refer to terror in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky and other works/statements despite the fact that Robert Service, IET, and other scholarly and reliable sources state that he does;

(d) it is claimed that the Russian word ‘’strakh’’ does not mean “terror” when:

i. the Oxford Russian Dictionary says that it does;

ii. it is evident from the context that this is the case;

iii. any educated Russian speaker can confirm that strakh may mean “terror” depending on the context;

(e) it is claimed that Marxism is “scientific” when in fact:

i. Marx was not a scientist;

ii. Marx’s background was philosophy and law, not science;

iii. Marxism is not recognized as a science by the academic world;

iv. virtually every one of Marx’s predictions turned out to be wrong, as became increasingly apparent during his lifetime and incontrovertibly so after his death (R. Pipes, Communism: A Brief History, 2001, p. 15) from which it follows that Marxism does not qualify as a scientific system by any accepted standards;

v. the evidence indicates that Marxism is closer to a religious sect than to science proper;

(f) apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism (in the period of from Marx to Lenin that is outside US or international anti-terrorist legislation), in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism (in the period of from Marx to Lenin that is outside US or international anti-terrorist legislation);

(g) it is claimed that Marxist terrorism is not rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle even though there are numerous sources showing that it is (please note that it is immaterial whether terrorism had already been justified in terms of a theory of class struggle prior to Marx, the point being that it was advocated/practiced on the basis of Marxist class-struggle theories BY MARXISTS):

“Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, IET, p. 138);

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right” (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203);

“… perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Robert, Stalins Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18);

this fact is supported not only by reliable academic sources, but by elementary logic:

“In 1907 Mehring published in the magazine ‘’Neue Zeit (Vol. XXV 2, p. 164) extracts from a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer dated March 5, 1852. In this letter, among other things, is the following noteworthy observation: … class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat …” (Lenin, The State and Revolution);

“The fundamental feature of dictatorship [of the proletariat] is revolutionary violence”;

“The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie”;

“Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain:

- to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie

- to inspire the reactionaries with fear

- to maintain the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie

- that the proletariat may forcibly hold down its adversaries”

[all of which amounts to state terror as per the IET definition]

(Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky).

When Lenin in 1905 “saw terror as having a role in carrying out the revolution once open resistance had begun”;

when in 1918 he gave orders “to secretly and urgently prepare the [Red] terror”;

when in 1922 he said, “It is a great mistake to think that the NEP put an end to terror. We shall return to terror and to economic terror”;

was he on all these occasions acting contrary to Marxist teachings or, rather, in agreement with them?

When Marx himself said “violence is the midwife of the new society” (Capital, Vol. I, ch. 31), was he contradicting his own theory of class struggle?

Given that in Marx and Lenin’s own words, “class struggle necessarily leads to dictatorship” and “dictatorship is revolutionary violence”, how can anyone claim that revolutionary violence (which obviously includes terror/terrorism) is NOT a logical and necessary consequence of the Marxist doctrine of class struggle?

(See also my section on the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism)

It becomes evident from the above that the discussion cannot be brought to an acceptable conclusion unless measures are taken to enforce and maintain the required degree of objectivity. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point of view. However, since this page is not a forum, please provide a support for some of your strongest claims, e.g. that Marx was not a scholar. I expect you to provide a source that would demonstrate that that your opinion is shared by majority scholars.

Re Noemi Gal-Or. I already presented my arguments on that account, namely, that you simply did not understand the idea of this quote, but you fully ignored my post.

Re “The fundamental feature of dictatorship [of the proletariat] is revolutionary violence”. You should take into account that, according to Marxism, violence is a fundamental feature of all states. In particular, the fundamental feature of the capitalist state is violence against proletariat. Therefore, Marx speaks about violence mostly in the same sense as he understands the capitalist state's violence, i.e., as enforcement.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism (in the period of from Marx to Lenin that is outside US or international anti-terrorist legislation);" Since propaganda of terrorism is illegal in most countries, this claim can be treated as a legal threat. That is unacceptable in WP and may lead to your block or ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Roberts. His book is devoted to Stalin, not to Marxism. His conclusions about Stalin are generally valid, and I myself extensively used his works in other WP articles. However, since, as I already noted, Stalin's ideology was a revision of Marxism (which had been condemned later) the Stalin's case can hardly be extended on Marxism as whole.

Incidentally, I already pointed your attention at this fact, however, you seem simply unable to listen. That, along with severe violations of WP policy you already committed, is sufficient for your block or ban, and the only two things preventing me from reporting you are that I don't like to go to ANI and that you are a newbie. However, if you will not demonstrate your ability to be a useful WP contributor (at least potentially), I may consider such an opportunity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have complained about this soapboxing at ANI.[2] TFD (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL is a more serious issue. However, I would wait for the Justus Maximus' response before taking any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

please provide a support for some of your strongest claims, e.g. that Marx was not a scholar Please provide evidence that Marxism is a science. As that claim was yours it is for you to provide the evidence!

the Stalin's case can hardly be extended on Marxism as whole Nobody is extending anything. Stalin's case is relevant to Stalin as a prominent Marxist leader, and should be included as such.

As for "violations of WP policy" they were perpetrated by yourself e.g., by removing my posts, making false statements (e.g., that Lenin doesn't refer to terror), etc.! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?

Secondly, I did not remove your post, but restored it [3] (which probably was against the policy, because al libellous materials should be removed).

Thirdly, instead of apologising you continue to insult me resorting to straw man arguments ( "making false statements (e.g., that Lenin doesn't refer to terror)", I never made such a general statement). You are definitely intended to exhaust my patience.

And, finally, my point about Marx (not Marxism) was that he was one of the fathers of contemporary sociology. I provided the evidence for that claim and you haven't proved so far that my source was not reliable. By contrast, your statement is different: "Marx was not a scientist;" (which is probably correct, because he was a scholar) "Marx’s background was philosophy and law, not science;" correct, so what?, "Marxism is not recognized as a science by the academic world" The latter statement is yours, so I expect to provide an needed support for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats"

What “libelous statements”??? Aren’t you blatantly sabotaging the discussion and defending Marxist terrorism by styling it “scientific”???!!!

Didn’t you write “Marxism is a reputable scientific doctrine” in an attempt to justify Marxist terrorism?

Didn’t you also suggest that the expropriation of landowners was not terrorism when it is generally accepted that this was part of Stalin’s terror campaign against farmers?

Given that your statements do not appear to condemn Marxist terrorism, isn’t it the case that they are intended to defend and justify it?

"I did not remove your post, but restored it"

I’m referring to the fact that you removed my Marx quote from the Rheinische Zeitung.

You also removed the Lenin quote from The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky on the fabricated pretext that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all” (See Revision history, 16:41, 6 October 2010 and 02:40, 16 October 2010).

You also wrote:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it” (16:51, 6 October 2010).

The fact is that Lenin DOES use the word ‘’strakh’’ (“fear”) in the sense of “terror”:

(1) as is evident from the context;

(2) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(3) as is evident from the English translation;

and

(4) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In conclusion, it is YOU who have to apologize for your bizarre and offensive behavior! Justus Maximus (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are soapboxing Justus and basing your views on original research, or something I might better describe as your own misreading of the original texts. I suggest you pay some attention to the comments above or you are going to end up with a block or editing restriction of some type. --Snowded ^TALK 09:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc. stating that Marx and Lenin advocated terrorism, is NOT my original research. Until you produce evidence that all these sources are my research, please refrain from asserting that they are! Justus Maximus (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly PLEASE indent your contents (I have done it here for you), it makes it easier for others to follow. Secondly you keep writing these long screeds, when I look at mass of material in this section alone much of what is see is original research and your conclusions based on primary sources. I also think that any other editor coming to the page will come to similar conclusions. Please spend some time on other pages and look at how other editors provide summary type statements, use hot links, don't write long posts. Its impossible to separate when you are using a proper source from when you are indulging in drawing conclusions Make fewer more succinct points and it will be easier for other editors to engage --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its impossible to separate when you are using a proper source from when you are indulging in drawing conclusions

It wasn't impossible for others like Paul Siebert who obviously understood that the quotes provided were quotes from other sources and not my own words.

Moreover, you still haven't shown that the quotes I provided from the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc., are my original research. As for writing long posts, I was forced to do so when others started making false statements such as that Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution doesn't refer to terror when both the English translation and the context (as well as Robert Service) indicate that he does! Justus Maximus (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

READ WP:INDENT I've just had to do it for you again. You can take advise or ignore it, expecting editors to wade through these long posts is unreasonable. Summarise, make your points clearer. If you want, substitute "unreasonable" for "impossible" in your quote above --Snowded ^TALK 10:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lenin DOES refer to terror in the Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky and elsewhere. This is supported by the English translation, the context and the observations of scholars like Robert Service. This fact should be beyond dispute in any serious discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT Please or I will just start to ignore you. You also need to reference third party sources for ANY use of primary material. I suggest you take a day off and read up on how to edit, check out some other pages to get a sense of how things work. You are just digging yourself into a hole here. --Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"You also need to reference third party sources for ANY use of primary material"

What third party sources? The quotes I've provided are all self-explanatory:

"Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, IET, p. 138);

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right” (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203);

“… perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Robert, Stalins Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18).

As for you ignoring my posts I'm not going to worry about that since that's what you've been doing all along. That's one of the reasons why the dicussion is not objective! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT and less white space (again please learn). The above comments show improvement, now put together a proposed change based on them (but with more balance you are being selective) in a simple summary and propose it here for other editors to consider. --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is YOU who aren't paying attention. I already included such a proposal in the article earlier today and it was immediately removed without any kind of discussion whatsoever. This again demonstrates that the discussion isn't objective! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT (are you even bothering to listen). As to proposals they are lost in all the other verbiage. Summarise briefly in a new section and we can review. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The deleted section was as follows:

Terrorism in early Marxist theory and practice

Marxist terrorism has its roots in Marks and Engels’ theory of class struggle and the revolutionary violence associated with it. Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, 1997, p. 138.), and both Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities in 1848-49.

In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna” (1848), Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”(Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. [4]; see also Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848-49, Bernard Isaacs, ed., Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972, p. 150, online version at [5])

Later Marxist leaders based their own views concerning revolutionary violence and terrorism on those of Marx and Engels. Thus, as observed by the historian Robert Service, Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky(1920), advocated dictatorship and terror. (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, 1997, p. 108.)

In this work Lenin wrote: “To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries … One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition” … of revolutionary violence of one class against another.”

Similarly, Stalin’s motives for the Great Terror have been identified by some scholars as being linked with the Soviet communist ideology of the 1920s and 1930s, the leitmotif of which was class struggle. (Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, 2006, pp. 17-8.) Justus Maximus (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I included the above in the article earlier today. If it was "lost in the verbiage" it wasn't my verbiage since there was nothing else by me there! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets go through the process. You should have known that this was controversial and best to post here first. I have some questions. Firstly I cannot afford to buy the Encyclopedia so please provide the text that supports the quote. The final phrase of para one is unsupported by reference. The second paragraph is a primary source and really needs third party commentary to place it in context. You also can't argue Marx said this so it is universally applied in Marx's writing and to all communist theory. If you look at Catholic Marxism for example in the 70s you will see the doctrine of Just War being brought into play. Gramsci has another perspective and there are many others. Again for Robert Service I would like the full text in use please. The Lenin paragraph is a clear primary source. The Stalin paragraph represents a particular position adopted by some commentators, it needs to be more balanced. So it needs work, over to you --Snowded ^TALK 13:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Obviously, the text presented here should be considered in light of sources already quoted by me on this talk page, namely that other school exists that does not support the idea that ideology played important role in the policy of Communist leaders, that the approach to "find a quote from Lenin" is flawed, etc. In addition, the view of Marxist theoreticians who condemned individual terror as useless should also be noted. The proposed text mix "terrorism", "terror" and "violence" (the latter two words were frequently used by Marxist writers as synonyms of "intimidation" and "coercion"). As I already noted, Stalin's terror was based on Stalin's "theory" which was a deep revision of Marxism and all of that has a relation to a separate article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What "final phrase" is that? I've already provided references to Isaiah Berlin, Francis Wheen, and Engels' own statements. Even the Wikipedia article on Engels has something to that effect as I pointed out earlier. I also provided the quote from Robert Service a few times. It isn't my fault that you've been ignoring my posts all this time! And what do you mean by "providing the text" from the IET? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy" IS the IET text! Justus Maximus (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is "both Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities in 1848-49". If you have provided the Service quote before then provide the diff here. Text from IET, I want to see the full text which you are using to support the claim --Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Lenin's endorsement of terrorism is not "a quote from Lenin". The Proletarian Revolution is not "a quote", it's a whole book as pointed out by Service who is no fringe theorist but a solid and respected scholar. You yourself have admitted to not being a historian. So, on what basis should your opinion override that of historians like Service? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, of course I can provide the references/quotes again but your request looks like you are trying to make things more difficult for some than for others. And what do you mean by "full text"? Paragraph, page, article, or what??? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to be able to verify that the text supports your use of it. So a few paragraphs might suffice, ideally the whole article (free free to email it). Your failure to pay any attention to formatting requirements is becoming tedious, try please and stop being trying. --Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my earlier statement:

On Lenin, Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108, says: “Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror.” As source he gives “V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 37, pp. 244-5, 250.”

I will provide the IET text when I get a chance. You can't expect people to be glued to the PC (or books on Marxist terrorism) day and night. . Justus Maximus (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When you provide the IET text I will happily review it, and you need to address the comments I and others have made in respect of an article about communism; ie statements need to be balanced. I'd like a little more context on the Service quote as well --Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem.

Paul Siebert, when in 1918 Lenin gave orders “to secretly and urgently prepare the [Red] terror” and stated that "the more counterrevolutionaries we succeed in executing the better", this cannot be construed as intention to "intimidate", but to physically liquidate political opponents and terrorize the rest of the population into submission to Communist rule. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "a quote from Lenin". My words were merely a reference to my earlier post where I quoted the article from western peer-reviewed scholarly journal. This type sources are considered as the most reliable per WP policy and if you think they are Marxist apologist than you have to admit that majority of scholar community does not support your views. In any event, please, re-read this post. I reproduce it below:

(quote begins)It would be useful for everyone to read a really good source on that account. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce the whole article here for copyright reasons, however the quote below is sufficient to demonstrate how misleading superficial interpretations, which are based on few quotes, may be.

"The clash between these interpretations, between these Lenins, is in some cases a product of unscholarly technique—the "get a quote from Lenin" approach that served useful and various purposes in Russia and the west, but paid little attention to the context or the development of Lenin's ideas. A related problem that plagues interpretive work on Lenin is the effort-occasioned by a highly politicized scholarship-to find a Lenin, a single leninism (good or bad) and to impose consistency upon a person for whom becoming an "ism" was never a goal. And a third obstacle to understanding Lenin's approach to law is, in many cases, a reductive notion of "law" itself, in particular the assumption that law and legality are concepts with fixed and universal meaning. Lenin, however, and other intellectual participants in the politics of late imperial and revolutionary Russia were well aware of the unfixed nature of legal systems and were engaged in a long-term struggle over what law might become in their society" (Lenin and the Law in Revolutionary Russia. Author(s): Jane Burbank Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 23-44)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)(quote ends)

Re "on what basis should your opinion override that of historians like Service?" I do not override it. I just insist that the section should be added into the article only after opinions of all scholars mentioned by me will be taken into account along with the Servise's opinion. I already proposed you to think about that, however you seem to ignore my proposal.

Re "when in 1918 Lenin gave orders..." One has to separate ad hoc political decisions made in some concrete historical context from theoretical views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus could you provide the connection between the revolutionary terror in Russia in the 1st half of 20th century to the terrorist groups of the second half of the 20th century. So far, your findings (whether or not they are notable remains to be seen) belongs to Russia section in revolutionary terror rather than this article (Igny (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

The points I'm making are (1) that contrary to your (Paul Siebert's) claim Lenin's statements cannot be construed as "intention to intimidate" and (2) the section suggested by me is intended to explain the roots of Marxist terrorism which as pointed out by the IET and other sources are to be found in the Marxist theory of class struggle and the revolutionary violence associated with it. What happened after Lenin and Stalin is a separate issue. IMO the best approach is to sort out one issue at a time and issues that precede others chronologically should be addressed first. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IET is a valuable source for later Marxist terrorist movements as well and should not be ignored in this context. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly convinced that John Pimlott (the chap behind the IET) is a startlingly good source on the origins of Soviet Terror or on Marxist-Lenninism - he was a Sandhusrt military officer (who rather remarkably blew himself up with some hand grenades he was messing about with!) and a consultant to the British security services. Service of course has been much critiqued on the Left, notably for a series of well-known errors in his books on Trotsky et al, including on the issue of Trotsky's views on the use of Terror [6] - I also find it anachronistic to compare analyses of modern terrorism to discussions of Marxist revolutionary Terror, but that's another issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "the section suggested by me is intended to explain the roots of Marxist terrorism which as pointed out by the IET and other sources" As I already wrote I fully understand your point. However, you seem to fully ignore mine one, namely that other sources do not support these views or provide quite different explanation. How do you propose to reconcile your POV with what other sources say?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, here’s the material you requested.

ROBERT SERVICE ON LENIN: EXTRACT FROM A HISTORY OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY RUSSIA (1997) [p. 107] “In Russia, violence intensified not only on the war fronts but also in civilian politics as Lenin widened the Cheka’s scope to suppress rival political parties. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were excluded from the soviets in June 1918 on the grounds of being associated with ‘counter-revolutionary’ organizations, and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were arrested in large numbers. Many Kadets were already in prison. Lenin, Trotsky and Dzierzynski believed that over-killing was better than running the risk of being overthrown. And so, as the anti-Bolshevik forces approached the Urals in the summer, the communist central leadership considered what to do with the Romanovs, who had been held in Yekaterinburg for some months. They opted to murder not only the former Emperor but also his entire family, including his son and daughters. On 17 July the deed was done. Lenin and Sverdlov claimed that the responsibility lay with the Bolsheviks of the Ural regions, but the circumstantial evidence strongly points to the Central Committee having inspired the decision. [9] On 30 August Lenin himself got it literally in the neck. As he addressed a meeting of workers at the Mikhelson Factory in Moscow, shots were fired at him. His chauffeur Stepan Gil bundled him into the official limousine and drove him away. A woman standing nearby, Fanya Kaplan, was arrested. It is doubtful that she carried out the shooting since she was almost blind; [10] but she was a sympathizer with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and may well have been involved in the plot in some form or other. Be that as it may, she [p. 108] was executed as the principal malefactor while Lenin convalesced at the government’s new sanatorium at the Gorki estate, thirty-three kilometers from the capital. The attempt on Lenin’s life was answered with the promulgation of a Red Terror. In some cities, prisoners were shot out of hand, including 1300 prisoners in Petrograd alone. Fire would be met by fire: Dzierzynski’s Cheka had previously killed on an informal basis and not very often; now their executions became a general phenomenon. Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror.[11] his confidential telegram to Bolshevik leaders in Penza on 11 August had contained the instruction: ‘Hang no fewer than a hundred well-known kulaks, rich-bags and blood-suckers (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people).’[12] Another such telegram went to Petrograd in October 1919 at the time of an offensive by General Yudenich: ‘If the attack is begun, is it impossible to mobilize another 20,000 Petrograd workers plus 10,000 workers of the bourgeoisie, set up cannons behind them, shoot a few hundred of them and obtain a real mass impact upon Yudenich?’[13] Terror was to be based on the criterion of class. Martyn Latsis, a Cheka functionary, was in favour of exterminating the entire middle class; and even Lenin made remarks to this effect.[14] The purpose was to terrify all hostile social groups. Lenin intended that even the regime’s supporters should be intimidated. His recommendation to the Penza communists had made this explicit: ‘Do it so that for hundreds of kilometers around the people might see, might tremble!’[15] According to official records, 12,733 prisoners were killed by the Cheka in 1918-20; but other estimates put the figure as high as 300,000.[16] Other prisoners were held in prison or in the concentration camps that were sanctioned by official decrees in September 1918 and April 1919.[17] [p. 562] [NOTES TO ABOVE CHAPTER] 9. RTsKhIDNI [Rossiiskii Tsentr dlya Khraneniya I Issledovaniya Dokumentov Noveishei Istorii], f. 17, op. 2, d. 1, item 5; GARF [Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii], f. R-130, op. 2, d. 1 (3), item 4 and d. 2 (2). See also Yu. Buranov and V. Khrustalev, Gibel’ imperatorskogo doma, p. 261 and R. Service, Lenin, vol. 3, pp. 37-8. 10. S. Lyandres, ‘The 1918 Attempt on the Life of Lenin’, pp. 437-41. 11. PSS [V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th edition, Moscow, 1958-65], vol. 37, pp. 244-5, 250. 12. Quoted in Komsomol’skaya Pravda, 12 February 1992. 13. Ibid. 14. G. Leggett, The Cheka, p. 114. 15. See note 12. 16. G. Leggett, The Cheka, pp. 464-7. 17. R. Conquest, The Great Terror. A Reassessment, p. 310.” Service’s reference to the Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Lenin’s Complete Works) shows that he actually read Lenin’s The Proletarian Revolution in the Russian original where Lenin uses the word strakh (“fear”) in the sense of terror: (1) as is evident from the context; (2) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary; (3) as is evident from the English translation; and (4) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm. I have given a reliable (and impeccable) source showing that Lenin advocates terror in The Proletarian Revolution. It is now for Paul Siebert to produce a reliable source showing that (a) Lenin doesn’t advocate terror in that book and (b) that he doesn’t use the word strakh ("fear") in the sense of terror. RICHARD PIPES ON LENIN AND TERROR: EXTRACT FROM COMMUNISM: A BRIEF HISTORY (2001) [p. 39] “They [the Bolsheviks] saw in the overwhelming majority of Russia’s citizens – the bourgeoisie and the landowners as a matter of principle and most of the peasantry and intelligentsia as a matter of fact – class enemies of the industrial workers, whom they claimed to represent. These workers constituted a small proportion of Russia’s population – at best 1 or 2 percent – and of this minority only a minuscule number followed the Bolsheviks: on the eve of the November coup, only 5-3 percent of industrial workers belonged to the Bolshevik party. [2] This meant that the new regime had no alternative but to turn into a dictatorship – a dictatorship not of the proletariat but over the proletariat and all other classes. The dictatorship, which in time evolved into a totalitarian regime, was thus necessitated by the very nature of the Bolshevik takeover. As long as they wanted to stay in power, the Communists had to rule despotically and violently, they could never afford to relax their authority. The principle held true of every Communist regime that followed. Lenin realized this and felt no qualms about imposing a ruthless despotism. He defined ‘dictatorship’ of any kind, including that of the ‘proletariat,’ as ‘power that is limited by nothing, by no laws, that is restrained by absolutely no rules, that rests directly on coercion.’ [3] He was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population. He did so in part because he was indifferent to human lives, but in part because the study of history had persuaded him that all past social revolutions had failed by stopping halfway and allowing their class enemies to survive and regroup. Violence – total and merciless (one of his favorite adjectives – had to clear the ground for the new order… [p. 162] NOTES TO ABOVE CHAPTER 2. Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (New York, 1995), 121 n. 3. V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works], 5th ed. (Moscow, 1958-65), vol. 41, 383.” RICHARD PIPES ON LENIN AND CIVIL WAR: EXTRACT FROM COMMUNISM: A BRIEF HISTORY (2001) [p. 40] “Aware that to establish a solid political base and carry out his revolutionary program he needed time, in March 1918 Lenin had his lieutenants sign at Brest-Litovsk a highly unpopular peace treaty with the Germans, Austrians, Turks, and Bulgarians in which he surrendered vast territories. [p. 41] And he unleashed a civil war in Russia as a prelude to the worldwide revolution, his ultimate objective. The Bolsheviks subsequently liked to blame the civil was that ravaged Russia for three years, claiming millions of lives, on Russian reactionaries and their foreign supporters. But, as we have noted, the transformation of the war from a conflict between nations to one between classes had been a central plank in the Bolshevik platform long before 1917. Trotsky admitted that much when he wrote, ‘Soviet authority is organized civil war.’ In fact, it may be said that the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in order to make civil war.” Justus Maximus (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC) PETER CALVERT ON MARX, LENIN AND TROTSKY: EXTRACT FROM “THEORIES OF TERROR IN URBAN INSURRECTIONS”, INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TERRORISM (1997) [As the article is not about Marx, I’m only reproducing the passages that are relevant to the article section under discussion. However, it is evident that the article is about terror in urban insurrections and it correctly mentions Marx in this context, this being the type of terrorism Marx advocated and practiced] [p. 137] “Revolutionary terrorism has been defined as the use of “systematic tactics of terrorist violence with the objective of bringing about political revolution.” This form of terrorism has four major characteristics. First, it is carried out by groups, rather than individuals, which have clearly defined leaderships. Second, it is driven by a clear ideology and intends to create new institutional structures. Third, the movement has a definite strategy involving the planned use of violence against victims who have been selected for their symbolic value for a wider audience. Fourth, the purpose of this violence is to change permanently people’s attitudes and behavior … For radical revolutionaries of the nineteenth century, the aim was mass urban insurrection. All modern insurgent movements have been influenced by the popular idea of urban insurrection … [p. 138] [There is a picture of Marx at the top of the page with the following text in italics underneath] Karl Marx believed that governments would use violence to prevent the workers from organizing a socialist economy. He felt therefore that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy. Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin The first important theorist of mass insurrection was Karl Marx. The objective of Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels was to create a mass movement capable of directing revolution to social ends. Other important contributors to the Marxist theory of insurrection have been Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky … [p. 141] … In 1902, Lenin attacked the Socialist Revolutionaries, (another Russian radical political group), for their enthusiasm for terrorist methods. Lenin argued that their use of terrorism was the result of their close political connections with the peasants. However, as a Russian, he saw terror as having a role in carrying out the revolution once open resistance had begun. As he wrote in 1906, “The party must regard the fighting guerrilla operations of the squads affiliated to or associated with it as being, in principle, permissible and advisable in the present period.” But Lenin was specific about the objective of all such guerrilla operations, which was “to destroy the government, police, and military machinery.” Furthermore, Lenin maintained that terrorism should always be under the control of the party to prevent effort from being dissipated uselessly. Lenin’s main contribution to the theory of successful insurrection was that it should be led by a relatively small and disciplined party in the name of the working class. The main purpose of the party was to prepare for urban insurrection. In the towns, where the working class was concentrated, the party could exercise the greatest influence on events. But the preparation of an urban insurrection under the eyes of a watchful secret police was not easy. Lenin solved this problem by basing his organization, the Bolsheviks, outside Russia and communicating with his followers through a secret newspaper. This was probably the only way in which the revolution could have been staged. Trotsky and the Red Guard With the outbreak of World War I, Lenin emphasized the importance of two tasks: the subversion of the armed forces, and the preparation of a revolutionary military force, the Red Guard. The latter, he argued, [p. 142] could be set up under the cover of being an ex-servicemen’s organization … Trotsky’s Russian Revolution Despite Lenin’s enthusiasm for insurrection, in 1917 it was Leon Trotsky who directed the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg) … Trotsky thought that only a global revolution could assure the Russian Revolution’s success … [p. 143] … Trotsky rejected terrorism in setting the stage for revolution. However, the assumption that the Bolsheviks were the true representatives of the working class led Trotsky to support the use of state terror against those who opposed the revolution: “A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents” … After World War II, the traditional Marxist process of slowly building popular support through mass organization demanded too much patience from some revolutionary socialists. Terrorism allied with Marxist ideology was adopted by such groups as the Italian Red Brigades (Brigate Rossi) and the Baader-Meinhof Gang in West Germany.” REFERENCES FOR MARX AND ENGELS’ INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN 1848-49 1. Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, 1995, p. 130. 2. Frederick Engels, “Elberfeld” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No 300, 17 May 1849, Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Vol. VI, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1959, pp. 500-2. 3. Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: A Life, 1999. 4. Wikipedia article on Engels. Incidentally, Berlin also says: “Two years later [i.e., 1845] he was known to the police of many lands as an uncompromising revolutionary communist, an opponent of reformist liberalism, the notorious leader of a subversive movement with international ramifications (p. 60) … While he approved many of the measures of the [Paris] Commune, he blamed it for not being ruthless and radical enough (p. 188) … ‘The Red Terror Doctor’, as he was now popularly known [following the publication of his The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working-Men’s Association in 1871], became overnight the object of public odium … the damage done to the International was permanent: it became indissolubly connected in the minds both of the police and of the general public with the outrages of the Commune (p. 190).” Berlin further says: “Engels, when asked to define the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, had pointed out to the [Paris] Commune as the closest realization to date of this conception. More than thirty years later Lenin defended the Moscow rising, which occurred during the abortive Russian revolution of 1905, against the criticisms of Plekhanov, by quoting the attitude of Marx towards the Commune: by pointing out that the emotional symbolic valueof the memory of a great heroic outburst, however ill conceived, however damaging in its immediate results, was an infinitely greater and more permanent asset to a revolutionary movement than the realization of its futility at a moment when what matters most is not to write accurate history, or even to learn its lessons, but to make it” (p. 189). Thus, the idea that Lenin quotes Marx and Engels on the Commune with reference to the Russian situation of his own time (as he does in The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky, The State and Revolution, etc.) is not quite my “original research”. Incidentally, Berlin is one of the first Marx biographies ever written and ought to be required reading for all wannabe historians of Marxism. In any case, those who are incognizant of elementary historical facts such as that Marx was known as “The Red Terror Doctor” on account of his extremist views, that he was regarded as a terrorist by both police and general public, and that he was personally involved in terrorist activities in 1848 (as was Engels in 1849), are not really competent to participate in a discussion of this kind. FURTHER WORKS OF INTEREST Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, Moscow, 1994. Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy, Moscow 1989. Robert Conquest, The Great Terror, 1990. Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow. Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine, 1986. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IET articles are not written by Pimlott. Besides, Marx's involvement in terrorist activities can be found in other reliable sources, as indicated above. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to reconcile your POV with what other sources say?

Paul Siebert, I suggest we sort out one problem at a time. You haven't yet provided a reliable source showing (a) that Lenin in the Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky doesn't advocate terror and (b) that the word strakh doesn't mean "terror" in that context - not to mention the footnotes which according to your own statements do have the word "terror". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, please read Wikipedia guidance on reliable sources. In particular, please note the following: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". Please do not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, as you have done above in reference to Engels. I'd suggest that other sources you cite may well arguably also be tertiary AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, you are right that we are approaching the roots of the issue, although very slowly and inconsistently. Please, note that per WP:BURDEN I am not obliged to provide any evidence that Lenin didn't do something, or that some word does not mean something.

In addition, there is absolutely no need to focus on the meaning of the word "страх" in this particular article, because the words "revolutionary terror" are found very frequently in other Lenin's articles and speeches written during the Civil war. The fact that both parties resorted to widespread terror during the civil war is undoubtful, however, you have not demonstrated the linkage between that fact and the Marxist theory, as well as the linkage between these two and this particular article. The fact that in 1930s Stalin developed his own theory and, based on that unleashed the unprecedented state terror campaign is also obvious, however, the linkage with this article is also unclear.

By contrast, many scholars believe that most decisions of Soviet leaders were in actuality ad hoc decisions that were not derived from any theoretical Marxist works (and most Stalin's decisions directly contradicted to Marxism).

Re Conquest, you may be interested to read the discussion between him and Wheatcroft, who proposed quite different explanation for some of these events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, regarding Engels and 'terrorism' you cites the Neue Rheinische Zeitung Neue Rheinsiche Zeitung No 300, May 17th 1849 which is of course a primary source. However, it doesn't even provide the evidence you claim it does. According to the article, he arrived at Elberfield carrying "two cases of cartridges which had been captured by the Solingen workers at the storming of the arsenal of Gräfrath". He was then empowered by the military commission to "inspect all the barricades in the town and to complete the fortifications", which he did.

Given concerns about Engels' politics "Engels was asked by Herr Riotte, a member of the Committee of Public Safety, about his intentions. Engels stated that he had come, firstly, because he had been sent there from Cologne; secondly, because he believed that he could perhaps be usefully employed in a military respect; and, thirdly, because, having been born in the Berg Country, he considered it a matter of honour to be there when the first armed uprising of the people of the Berg Country took place. He said that he desired to concern himself exclusively with military matters and to have nothing to do with the political character of the movement, since it was obvious that up to now only a movement under the black-red-and-gold flair was possible here, and therefore any action against the imperial Constitution had to be avoided".

The 'Committee of Public Safety' chose to ask him to leave: "While fully appreciating the activity hitherto shown in this town by Citizen Friedrich Engels of Barmen, recently resident in Cologne, it is requested that he should from today leave the precincts of the local municipality since his presence could give rise to misunderstandings as to the character of the movement". Engels then left Elberfeld.

Where exactly is the 'terrorist activity'? He was involved in an armed conflict (arguably an armed insurrection), but then so was George Washington for that matter. By the logic that makes Engels a terrorist, Washington is as well. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Justus Maximus response to you have not demonstrated the linkage between that fact and the Marxist theory, as well as the linkage between these two and this particular article

(1) I don’t need to demonstrate that as it is self-evident from Lenin’s own writings: “The doctrine of the class struggle, as applied by Marx to the question of the state and of the Socialist revolution, leads inevitably to the recognition of the political rule of the proletariat, of its dictatorship, i.e., of a power shared with none and relying directly upon the armed force of the masses” (The State and Revolution). “the fundamental feature of dictatorship [of the proletariat] is revolutionary violence” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky). “the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky), etc., etc. How can there be no linkage between revolutionary violence and Marx’s doctrine of class struggle, when Lenin himself says that the said doctrine as applied by Marx inevitably leads to dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence aimed at terrorizing the opposition? (2) My point, however, was that this linkage has been identified in sources like the IET and such sources ought to be admissible for the purposes of the article or section thereof. “there is absolutely no need to focus on the meaning of the word “CTPAX”” I wasn’t focusing on it at all except as part of the complete quote showing Lenin’s view on the subject. It only became an issue when you persistently claimed that it didn’t mean “terror” when in fact it does: (1) as is evident from the context; (2) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary; (3) as is evident from the English translation; and (4) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm. Incidentally, you are under obligation to produce evidence for your claims, particularly if you are using such claims to dismiss and delete other editors’ contributions. Speaking of which, if you are claiming that Service is wrong, why should I accept your opinion that your sources are right? Regarding Engels’ involvement in terrorist activities, we can hardly expect him to have gone into all the details in a public paper. The fact remains that the armed conflict he was involved in was an illegal armed insurrection which amounted to terrorism as far as he was concerned. It seems that you (deliberately?) ignore the fact that intent is not irrelevant to the classification of a criminal action. It must be remembered that Engels wanted to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat which according to him must be maintained “by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries”. The same intent to inspire terror is also evidenced by Marx and Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party where they state: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution”. If a person engages in any activity with the aim of committing, either in the present or the future, an act of terror, then his actions logically fall under the category of terrorism and he is criminally culpable in that sense. You may choose not to call armed insurrection aimed at establishing a rule of terror “terrorism” but then by that logic you would say that an Islamic terrorist belonging to a group calling itself “Islamic Revolutionary Army” or something to that effect is not a terrorist but a legitimate regular soldier. There can be no doubt that Engels had his own agenda, which is precisely why he was kicked out by the revolutionaries. As Mike Rapport puts it: “Nevertheless, there were outbreaks of revolutionary violence in the Rhineland: militia around Elberfeld, Duesseldorf and Solingen all mutinied. A thousand of them gathered in an armed camp overlooking Elberfeld on 8 May before barricading the centre of the city itself, successfully resisting an attack by regular troops the following day. In Solingen the revolutionaries included red-scarved women wielding revolvers and daggers. Democrats built barricades in Duesseldorf, but these were blown to smithereens by mobile artillery. The uprising spread to the countryside, where village democrats had agreed to ring the church bells as a prearranged signal for an uprising. On 10 May, several thousand armed peasants marched on Duesseldorf to help the beleaguered democrats, only to find that they had already been repressed. While the insurgents melted away and returned home, the uprising had stretched the capabilities of the local authorities to keep order to breaking point. First Elberfeld, then Solingen fell into the hands of the democrats, who established ‘committees of safety’ to direct the insurrection. These committees tried to maintain as wide a consensus as possible, cooperating with the liberal, constitutional monarchists. When Marx’s close collaborator Friedrich Engels joined the insurgents at Elberfeld, he was soon expelled because he was accused of trying to convert the revolution from a movement of the ‘black-red-gold’ (the constitution) into a purely ‘red’ (social, republican) uprising” (1848: Year of Revolution, 2008, p. 342). Moreover, the fact that Marx and Engels are discussed in an article on terrorism in urban insurrections, in a work on terrorism, demonstrates that this cannot be construed as original research on my part by any stretch of the definition. Regarding your comparison of Washington with Engels, it ought to be obvious that it would hold water only if you could establish that Washington intended to set up a dictatorship based on terror. If that is what you are arguing, I propose you take your argument elsewhere rather than waste our time here. Regarding my giving the Wikipedia article on Engels as a source, (1) I’m referring to the REFERENCE in the article that ought to be admissible here if it is so there. (2) I’m providing the article as proof that Engels’ involvement in terrorist activities is in the public domain and ought to be beyond dispute. Justus Maximus (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding Engels and terrorism - utter nonsense. You aren't merely engaging in original research, you are making assertions about what Engels thoughts were. And as for the ridiculous assertion that "I’m providing the [Wikipedia] article as proof that Engels’ involvement in terrorist activities is in the public domain and ought to be beyond dispute", this is not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, it is gibberish. There is all sorts of nonsense in the public domain, but fortunately the public sees through most of it. Either stop making half-baked assertions about Marx and Engel's 'terrorist' activities, or back them up with a reliable source that describes exactly what these actions were. This is a talk page for a Wikipedia article, not a blog for random theorising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC) So, you purport to know better than others? Well, I think your memorable failure to identify the Marx quote mentioned by Radzinsky and your rather lame excuse that “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna” is “obscure”, may be taken as a fairly reliable indication of your degree of knowledge on the subject. By contrast, for those of us who have taken the trouble to actually read what leading Marxists have to say, there is no need to guess what they thought as they themselves articulated their thoughts quite clearly in their own works. Moreover, if Marx was a scholar as has been claimed here, then his views on terrorism ought to be given in an article on Communist terrorism, don’t you agree? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just been through the above (and have collapsed it, if you are going to make these long posts please help other editors navigate the page) along with the material yo supplied earlier. I would make a general point that you are assuming that any advocation of violence establishes terrorism and failing to determine when in a civil war legitimacy transfers. We also have a lot of confusion here with violence against its own citizens by the state. The one thing which keeps coming through in all your posts is that you have not understood that you can't use synthesis and your own interpretation of primary sources to establish text here. Where you have sources (such as IET) you have not addressed the challenges to authority by other editors. Aside from WP:SYNTH and WP:OR I think you really need to read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Your proposed edits would be far more credible if they were balanced and you didn't draw from sources that support a particular perspective. This has been pointed out to you by multiple editors now. Until you get your mind around it we are going to make no progress. Your argument on Washington is particularly revealing as it seems to link an act "terrorism" to an intention--Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My posts appear to be "long" because they are in response to long posts by others.

Your proposed edits would be far more credible if they were balanced and you didn't draw from sources that support a particular perspective

Doesn't this apply to others here as well?

Your argument on Washington is particularly revealing as it seems to link an act "terrorism" to an intention

So, you are arguing that intention is irrelevant to the classification of a crime? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for indenting, helps a lot. In response to your question on others, yes it does. In respect of Washington I think you are getting yourself into a trap here. All terrorists think they are doing things for a good cause, Both Lenin and Washington rebelled against oppressive imperial powers, both used violence. The type of regime they intended to create the the means they planned to use it are both difficult to judge and not relevant. From the perspective of Native Americans or Slaves the US was not a particularity welcoming place--Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The type of regime they intended to create the the means they planned to use it are both difficult to judge and not relevant

I beg to differ. The means, intent and purpose are not difficult to judge as they are clearly stated by the perpetrators themselves (Marx, Engels, Lenin). Nor can they be construed as "not relevant". Justus Maximus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:We cannot rely on primary sources and say the meaning is self-evident, we need secondary sources that make that connection. We cannot provide our own translations where there is a dispute about the meaning of the words. We cannot conclude that "actions logically fall under the category of terrorism", we need a source that explains this. Whatever Marx's participation in the 1848 revolution we need a source that explains how this relates to terrorism as part of Marxist ideology. The theory that we should judge an act of rebellion not by actions taken during the rebellion but after it is completed is wacky and we need a source for that. Justus Maximus reply is purely original research and unhelpful. TFD (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The theory that we should judge an act of rebellion not by actions taken during the rebellion but after it is completed is wacky

That may be so. However, the theory isn't mine. Besides it is being equally applied by those claiming that intent, purpose and means are "not relevant".

We cannot provide our own translations where there is a dispute about the meaning of the words

That's exactly what Paul Siebert has been doing. See his insistence on his own translation of the Russian original of Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution.Justus Maximus (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Where you have sources (such as IET) you have not addressed the challenges to authority by other editors.

Yes I have. See my response of 10:07, 19 October 2010 to Jamesinderbyshire, etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you have not understood that you can't use synthesis and your own interpretation of primary sources to establish text here

Robert Service's statement "Lenin advocated terror in The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky" in neither my "synthesis" nor my "interpretation". It is the view of a respected historian. His view may be unpopular with certain pro-Marxist editors, but that is irrelevant.Justus Maximus (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Service has a perspective, others disagree and we need to show balance and you are cherry picking anyway. Basically you continue to insist on using primary sources and you are selective in which authorities you use, when you use them. Until you address this you are going to find it difficult to make progress. --Snowded ^TALK 12:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Service has a perspective

So has every other source on the subject. Ergo, if I am "cherry picking", so are others. It is difficult to see how we can "show balance" when all sources linking Marxist leaders with terrorism are systematically excluded from the discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, Service isn’t the only historian to confirm that Lenin advocates terror. Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39, says:

“He [Lenin] was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

Anyway, are there different sets of rules for different editors? If yes, how can we “show balance”? If no, why are editors like Paul Siebert allowed to edit the article as they please, whereas others are not? Also, you do not appear to be making any serious attempt to address my concerns in an objective and impartial manner, but are instead displaying a tendency to side with Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump. Could you please advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Pipes' book is a fringe source and should not be used. If you want to use Pipes as a source find something that he published in an academic paper or book, not some conspiracy theorist book. TFD (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Section heading in article

Which section header is more appropriate:

1. Origins, evolution and history
2. Dubiously sourced speculations on the origins, evolution and history of communist terrorism

TFD (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is odd -- I would suggest that such a "section heading" is not anything more than an extension of an effort to delete most of the material from the article, and to make what remains sound like it is non-encyclopedic. The purpose is to improve articles, not to destroy them, last I looked. Collect (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No longer an issue - closing. TFD (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RFCs remain open - the idea that an edit war makes the section non-existent is not valid. Especially when I proposed compromise wording thereof. Collect (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This "compromise wording" was hardly a compromise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It sought to remove language objected to by some, and to remove some actual OR or SYNTH, with the goal of stopping the walls of text all-too-often populating this page. It substantially altered the material with the goal of being seen properly as something in-between two positions. Unless your only compromise acceptable is elimination of the entire section, or naming it something silly, then I submit that it was, indeed, a compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that really your argument? Your version was a compromise because your opponent behaved silly? What do you call edit warring by an anon sock then? (Igny (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

I AGF - and do not call all IP editors "socks." Reread WP:AGF. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the 'Origins, evolution and history' section a synthesis?

It seems to me that we are rather getting off the central point of debate, which is whether this section is a synthesis. From what I can tell from a brief inspection of the sources cited, none of them are actually about the 'origins, evolution and history' of communist terrorism, but instead are each used to confirm a particular point related to an interpretation of the question by the editors involved. If that isn't a synthesis, then I don't know what is.

I may be wrong, as I've not had a chance to look at each source cited in depth, but I'd suggest that it should be down to those who argue that this in not synthesis should make clear which single source contains an overall analysis of the question, beginning with Marx (or even the Jacobins), and continuing to a discussion of contemporary 'communist terrorists'. If none of the existing sources can provide this, I propose that an administrator should be asked to remove it as contrary to Wikipedia policy on original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sections are not, per se, "synthesis" as long as no claims are catenenated to reach conclusions not found in the reference cited for the specific claim. Placing claims in some sort of order is not, moreover, synthesis under WP guidelines. The only real issues are - are the sources given reliable under WP:RS, and do the words in the sources support the claims made for the sources. There is no requirement that a single source encompass every claim made in a section. Collect (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is nothing but a series of concatenated statements built around establishing an 'evolutionary' link between Marx's philosophy and modern-day terrorism. Without a reliable source that argues that such an evolution has occurred, this is synthesis, by any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy.AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article". Couldn't be much clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reread SYNTH: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Editors are totally free to include the reliable statements A and B as separate claims, which is totally proper. As the section uses separate sources for each claim, and each claim is supported by the source given, no SYNTH occurs. There is no requirement that a single source contain everything in an entire section. Really. Collect (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Reread WP:NPOV. While that list of statements might have passed WP:IINFO, these statements presented as facts fail WP:ATT miserably, not to mention WP:CHERRY. And as a matter of fact the whole sections is pure WP:SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

"There is no requirement that a single source contain everything in an entire section". No of course not. There is however a requirement that a single source contains a conclusion which is arrived at (or implied) in an article. The conclusion in this case is that there has been an 'evolutionary' history between Marx's philosophy and contemporary leftist terrorism. Which of the sources argues this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in that section. The section says nothing that the sources themselves do not say. No conclusion is drawn. Mamalujo (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is 'no conclusion' then where does the word 'evolution' in the section title come from? Come to that, if there is no conclusion in the section, then it is just a random collection of cherry-picked statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me which sentence uses two or more sources to make a claim not found in either source. Simple. Collect (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You correctly pointed out that the policy states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." On the page 6, "The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda" says that the terrorist groups were closely linked to Marxism ideology. However, the preceding sentence tells about "historical and cultural context" of terrorism, not about its ideological roots, implying that Marxism was a context of terrorism, not its cause. Yes, these terrorists decided to take Marxism as their ideological base. Today terrorists use Islam for the same purpose. Does it mean that Islam is a terrorist religion? In addition, the same source, on the same page tells about the lack of continuity between each generation of terrorists. Therefore, the source cannot be used in the para about "evolution" of terrorism. My conclusion is that the source has been used improperly, and after reading the WP text the reader will come to conclusions that are not explicitly present in the original book. I am sure that similar analysis of other pieces of text will reveal similar problems.

Note, we left the neutrality issues beyond the scope for a while. However, as I already pointed out, the groups we discuss in the article are left wing, not Communist according to the majority scholars. Therefore, even if the SYNTH issues of this section will be resolved, the neutrality issues (which are equally important) will remain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you find that a source engages in synthesis? That does not qualify as WP:SYNTH as most sources engage in that sort of process. The rule on WP, moreover, is that is a source is reliable, claims based on the source are valid. If you wish to dispute the reliablilty of a source, the place to do it is at WP:RS/N, not by reverting here. Collect (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you don't. I thought I wrote clearly that the source, which states that Marxism was a historical and cultural context of terrorism in 70s and 80s, and which states that there were no continuity between different generations of terrorists, has been used improperly, namely, to create an impression that we can speak about some evolution of terrorism, and that Marxism was the ideological base for this terrorism. Are you able to see a difference berween the words "historical and cultural context" and "ideological roots"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 'evolution' in the section title, for a start? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Would "changes" be a valid choice for you? Collect (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of what word I think is valid. It is a question of whether it conforms to Wikipedia policy. Anything that implies a logical continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism is a synthesis, unless supported per WP:RS. Either the section implies such a continuity, and is a synthesis, or it doesn't, in which case it is just a cherry-picked collection of dubious 'facts'. Do you think the section is about anything? If so, what, and how is it supported by a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is garbage and an embarrassment. It should resemble what reliable sources say about left-wing terrorism, rather than be a collection of original research. It reads like a C-grade essay in introductory politics at the John Birch Society University. Once the name of the article is changed to reflect reliable sources however in all probablity it will lose its appeal for tendentious editors, and we will be able to write it from a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the name of the article is changed to reflect reliable sources ...

That may be the case. Problem is, who decides what constitutes reliable sources, and why do these "reliable" sources invariably exhibit a curious tendency to reflect a pro-Marxist bias? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You can read up on the criteria on reliable sources as well as anyone. If you want to take a position that majority academic opinion is pro-marxist I am happy to be amused by the naivete but I don't see any reason to take account of that perspective here.--Snowded ^TALK 10:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why "a curious tendency to reflect a pro-Marxist bias"? Possibly something to do with academic integrity not permitting the use of cherry-picked half-quotes and a theoretical perspective based on reading history backwards to support advancing a conspiracy theory that holds Karl Marx personally responsible for the Jacobins, the Red Army Faction, and everything else in between? If that is 'pro-Marxist', how does it differ from 'pro-objectivity'?

Justus Maximus, as Snowded says, you are fully entitled to find reliable sources, study the subject, and contribute to Wikipedia. I'd recommend doing it in that order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Condescension avails naught. If you dislike what a section says, then find sources which contradict the claims made by the cited reliable sources, rather than seeking deletion of the section. See WP:NPOV Collect (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Collect, but to add to a section (or even an article), it does actually have to be about something. There seem to be two arguments put forward here so far for keeping the section: (A) it is about some supposed evolutionary continuity from Marx's philosophy towards contemporary terrorism, or (B) it isn't actually about anything beyond its content. (A) could be a valid argument, if based on a reliable source, but none has been put forward. (B) is just nonsense. Either way, it is not the responsibility of others to find evidence to support for or against a fringe viewpoint, or make sense out of random cherry-picked data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You misapprehend NPOV. I suggest you post to the noticeboard and state your belief that a secion you dislike can not be made less POV by adding other sources. And that reliable sources can not be found to support your position, even though you aver the sources included are "fringe." As for your hypothets, I dispute that they are of any value in any NPOV discussion. At least you do not even claim the current sources do not meet [WP:RS]] and WP:V. Collect (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We can rewrite this section to represent reliable sources. This book from NATO for example explains that, "Leftist terrorism in its modern context originated after the 1848 revolutions in Europe. Anarchism and Marxism provided the philosophical basis for revolutionary violence and many who adopted these ideologies engaged in acts of terrorism". Unfortunately, the source used for this paragraph, Martin's Understanding Terrorism is unavailable. on Google Books. (It appears in the 2009 edition on p. 231.)[7] Sorry, Collect but I do not see where in NPOV it says WP is a good place to publish original research based on our own interpretations of primary sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim was made that the sources are "fringe" but without providing other sources, we are stuck with what WP states are "reliable sources." WP:NPOV states that adding other material is a means of reducing any POV problems - but if no sources are provided, then NPOV does not require removal of reliably sourced claims. As for OR - we pretty much had removed OR in the compromise edit as much as possible. Perhaos you had not noted that? Collect (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) The implication that revolutionary terror began with the French Revolution is false. In fact revolutionary terror was used during the American Revolution as this source and others make clear. Some people of course believe that there is a secretive malevolent conspiracy that is responsible for all the evils in the world from the French Revolution to forging Obama's birth certificate, but we cannot use primary sources in order to present this view in this or any other article. TFD (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I do not recall any "implication" in the edit I proposed. Might you explain where the wording runs afoul? "Terror" goes back to ancient times - the sources given do not contradict that fact, as you seem to imply. Nor is "some people believe" meaningful as a means of discussing article content on WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky traces the origins of revolutionary terror to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution." If you believe it goes back to antiquity, then this statement is misleading. TFD (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What counts is what the reliable source says, not what anyone "believes." The book used starts with sections on the French Revolution - which rather implies that that is where the book starts. The book does not start with a section on ancient Rome, hence it would be absurd to claim that the books traces anything to ancient Rome. Is that clear? Collect (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As for what Kautsky says: In order to make the Commune comprehensible I had to refer to the Paris Commune, and afterwards to the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror. This gave me fresh means for another parallel to the Soviet Republic, hence an examination of the Commune led to an examination of Terrorism, its origin and its consequences. seems clear enough (preface to book cited). Collect (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"At least you do not even claim the current sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:V". Collect, please do not make claims about what I'm arguing on the basis of what I haven't written. For something to meet WP:RS it needs to be a reliable source for what is being argued. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider this to be true. It is not my responsibility to provide evidence either way for an attempt to use an article about contemporary terrorist groups to coat-rack a discussion about the supposed inherent evils of Marxist philosophy. This synthesis has plagued the article for a long time, with no real attempt by its proponents to provide a WP:RS for the argument. Unless this is done, there is nothing to refute except data that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. I suggest you look at the article history for some of the ridiculous topics that have been 'added' to this article over the years, and explain whether you think they all should have been left in. At least this section gives an indication of what its proponents are trying to prove, though I consider that it fails miserably to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK then - just go to the RS/N board stating why you believe a specific source does not meet WP:RS. See whether others agree with you. All I do is suggest compromise language. Absent a finding that a source does not meet WP:RS, the argument that it does not meet RS is absurd. Collect (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, will you please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have stated clearly that I believe there is no reliable source given for the central argument being provided in the section, namely that there is a meaningful continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism. As for whether the sources given within the section are WP:RS for what they purport to show, that is another matter, though I think at least some would fail to meet this standard as well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out precisely what your problem is. Are you asserting that the references given are not reliable sources per WP:RS? Are you asserting that any specific cited claim is not supported by the reference given? Are you asserting that you do not like the general tenor of the section, but that the sources and claims are properly cited? Are yo claiming that somehow a claim is being made by the very existence of the section which you are in dispute with? I have tried to deal with all of these possible choices in the edit - but do not understand, at this point, why you do not simply use the appropriate noticeboards. Collect (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect is well aware of how articles should be written but for some reason sometimes argues positions that he knows are indefensible. I suggest that we just leave the discussion as it is. Any reasonable reader can pick up the disingenuousness of the arguments presented by Collect. TFD (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, my main problem at the moment seems to be to get through to you that there is no such thing as an abstract reliable source. A source can only be reliable in regard to a specific claim. Now can you please tell me which of the sources given asserts a continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism. I see no point in involving noticeboards, appropriate or otherwise, in debates over non-existent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect is able to argue endlessly in defense of positions that are clearly against the principles of WP. Here is a link to one example. I suggest that any attempt at reasoning will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The claim was made that the sources are "fringe" but without providing other sources, we are stuck with what WP states are "reliable sources."" Well, what about another claim, which you fully ignored, namely, that the sources are not fringe, but used incorrectly? I reproduce my previous post and request you to comment on it:

"I thought I wrote clearly that the source, which states that Marxism was a historical and cultural context of terrorism in 70s and 80s, and which states that there were no continuity between different generations of terrorists, has been used improperly, namely, to create an impression that we can speak about some evolution of terrorism, and that Marxism was the ideological base for this terrorism. Are you able to see a difference berween the words "historical and cultural context" and "ideological roots"?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is 'pro-Marxist', how does it differ from 'pro-objectivity'?

Your conclusions would be more credible (and less blinkered) if you didn’t conveniently forget some important facts, such as, that: (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed. Furthermore, if you believe that Marx was a “scholar”, why do you and your associate vehemently oppose the inclusion of his statements on terrorism in the article? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"[I]n the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories". Complete hogwash. As usual, you fail completely to distinguish fact from opinion. Can you offer the slightest evidence to back up this supposed Marxist domination of 20th century scholarship? I very much doubt it. And if you really think 'socialist' necessarily means 'pro-Marxist' I suggest you study the subject more closely.

Until you have something positive to add to this article and/or discussion, conforming to Wikipedia standards of verifiability and civility (starting with an apology for the numerous insults you have peppered about this talk page), I see no reason to waste my time responding to your posts. You suggest "the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed". True enough. But I've seen no evidence of objectivity from you either, and scholars at least attempt to back up their arguments with evidence.

And by the way, I don't have any 'associates', except in your conspiratorial fantasy world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We are required to give greatest weight to the theories that are most widely held by the academic community, regardless of our opinion of them. TFD (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I explained above, this approach is obviously flawed. Also, it unreasonably makes mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and sets it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "Your conclusions would be more credible (and less blinkered) if you didn’t conveniently forget some important facts..." You definitely have to familiarise yourself with the policy. It says: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." In other words, if in "the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories", then the only neutral way to write an article is to follow this "bias". Of course, the situation may change in future (in either side), and as a result WP articles will change accordingly. However, currently you have to either accept this "bias" or to switch to other articles, not connected to these ideological issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "Furthermore, if you believe that Marx was a “scholar”, why do you and your associate vehemently oppose the inclusion of his statements on terrorism in the article?" Because his words are taken out of context. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of objectivity from you either, and scholars at least attempt to back up their arguments with evidence.

I dare say that applies first and above all to yourself. For example, you failed to provide any evidence as to what the intended meaning of the Marx quote supplied by me was, how I distorted that meaning, and why it had been my intention to distort it. Nor have you apologized for your discourteous and offensive statements.

by the way, I don't have any 'associates', except in your conspiratorial fantasy world

I don't recall using the word "conspiracy". All I'm saying is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between your behavior and that of Paul Siebert. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While the approach may be flawed, it is part of Wikipedia policy. If you do not like that policy then you should either change it or go somewhere that has a policy more acceptable to you. In the meantime, I have posted your comments at the NPOV noticeboard, where I hope other editors will have greater success in explaining this to you than other editors have.[8] TFD (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"[Y]ou failed to provide any evidence as to what the intended meaning of the Marx quote supplied by me was". On the contrary, assuming you are referring to the Marx quote from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, it was me that provided the full quote in the first place, as is shown here [[9]], thereby making the intended meaning more clear.

As for your comments about Paul Siebert and myself, since both coordinated editing and use of multiple accounts to edit are against Wikipedia rules, I'll ask you to withdraw this suggestion immediately, or provide evidence as to what it is you are implying. Should you fail to do this, I may well decide to raise this with the administrators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you to withdraw this suggestion immediately

The fact is you did suggest that my quote was "distorting the intended meaning" without providing any explication or evidence whatsoever. Should you refuse to immediately retract your offensive remark I will have no other choice than to take the matter to a higher authority. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, we have an editor who by his own admission thinks his moral and ethical views have priority over academic opinion and further is living in some fantasy world of marxist domination of academic thinking in the 20thC. Its time to realise that said editor has no intention of working within Wikpedia policy and we should stop [[ feeding this particular nonsense--Snowded ^TALK 03:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, boy

Ok, I just read through the 'Origins, evolution and history' section, and as far as I can tell it is filled with pure synthesis, violations of wp:UNDUE, and misapplications of the concept of terrorism (which had a distinctly different meaning pre-9/11 and would not have been applied to even half of what it has been applied to in this sections). I don't know whether to address it under wp:SYN, under wp:COATRACK, wp:RS, and I don't know why I should bother deciding. so, two quick straw polls, and if the results are as overwhelming as I suspect they will be I'll put in an editprotected request.--Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

---

straw poll 1: Shall the 'Origins, evolution and history' section be deleted out of hand, due to numerous and grossly unencyclopedic errors? bits and pieces might be retained and farmed out to other sections if desired. Please respond with a {{tick}} (Y), {{cross}} (N), or {{hmmm}} (?) as appropriate.

---

• Y --Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Been the object of absurd commentary here - all of which admits that the claims are backed by WP:RS sources. Collect (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A better course would be to point out what you think these numerous and grossly unencyclopedic errors are mark (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It is an embarrassment. TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Y This section screams for deletion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Y Delete section and move relevant content to new article titled Marxism and revolutionary violence. There is no need for it as it is already a copy / POVFORK of Revolutionary terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

straw poll 2: Shall this article be (re-)renamed to 'Revolutionary terrorism'? Communist terrorism is a neologism, and doesn't even apply: whoever wrote this seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between communist and socialist systems, and distinguishing each from Marxist theory. In fact, socialists have a proclivity for executing Marxists and Communists when they find them, which adds an unfortunate irony to the concept of communist terrorism. Please respond with a {{tick}} (Y), {{cross}} (N), or {{hmmm}} (?) as appropriate.

---

• Y --Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Straw polls" moreover are deprecated by WP. Collect (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per collect + Communist terrorism is a neologism No it is not there are thousands of sources which cover communist terrorism mark (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Re-name but use the term used in the literature, "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on "No it is not there are thousands of sources which cover communist terrorism". As I persuasively demonstrated, the number of sources that use "left wing terrorism" is much greater.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And has been pointed out plenty of times left wing does not = communist. mark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you should publish a paper explaining how all the experts are wrong in calling it "left-wing terrorism", and knock some sense into them. TFD (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Mark. As soon as you started to use math terminology, let me remind you that "communist" is a subset of "left wing", so every "communist" is "left wing", but not every "left wing" is "communist". In addition, you cannot deny the fact that more sources describe the activity of the terrorist groups discussed in the article as "left wing terrorism" than "communist terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul your argument is irrelevant, we have sources which discuss communist terrorism. We have sources which discuss left wing terrorism. But they are not the same thing, there are plenty of sources about communist terrorism, more than enough to justify a wiki article mark (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I realise that due to your block you probably didn't monitor the discussion during last week (although the syntax and punctuation, or, more precisely, the absence thereof, of the anon's 72.20.28.7, who was active during your block, strangely resembles your manner of writing). However, after reading some of my recent posts on this talk page you can easily see that the term "left wing terrorism" is much more frequently applied specifically to those terrorist groups discussed in this article. Therefore, not only my argument is directly relevant, this argument cannot be superseded by any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The term is a neologism because it has only come into use in the last few years (neo-logism = 'new word'), and is still puttering about to see if it has a place in scholarly discourse. I doubt you will find many references to it before 2005, and I would be surprised if you found more than one or two prior to 2001. plus (as I noted) the term flies in the face of scholarly understandings of the word communist. it's just plain silly. --Ludwigs2 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Strange then that Sarasota Herald-Tribune - May 9, 1948 Aug 15, 1938 or look for a few yourself [10] obviously not a neologism mark (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The main use of the word "Communist Terrorism" was by the British in the Malayan Emergency to describe the insurgents.[11] TFD (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re neologism. Scholar results for 1900-1970: 58 [12]

The same for 1971-2010: 171 [13]

In other words, it is hardly a neologism.

However, it is much less abundant term: "Left wing terrorism" is used 823 times [14], whereas "Communist terrorism" only 259 times [15].--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you would have to show that these sources used the term in a similar way. Notice that these are all old sources and are mostly using the term "terrorism" to refer to insurgency. If we want the article to be about that, then "communist insurgencies" would be a non-POV term. TFD (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don`t have to show anything other than it is not a neologism, which i did mark (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you have to. Concretely, you have to show that the words "left wing terrorism" are used less frequently to describe the terrorist groups discussed in the article than the words "communist terrorism". You failed to do that so far, whereas I persuasively demonstrated the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And again no i do not. The sheer amount of sources pertaining to communist terrorism means it is notable enough to warrant it`s own wiki article, that`s all she wrote really. If you wish to create an article on left wing terrorism then go ahead, there are more than enough sources for that article also mark (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume I accepted your advise. However, by doing that I would have to move each section of this article to the new left wing terrorism article, because each article's subject taken separately (from FPLF to GRAPO) are more frequently described as "left wing" than "communist". In connection to that, my question is, what the present article will be devoted to? My question is not idle, because it obviously cannot be devoted to the same subject per WP:CFORK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not an issue for this article but for your left wing terrorist article (which BTW would also encompass eco terrorists) mark (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, Mark. Eco-terrorism does not follow a political "side" other than its own narrow focus. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. For instance Peta, Elf, Alf, allf are described as left wing but all are eco terrorists as well. mark (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources needed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure "Patricia D. Netzley Terrorism (Greenhaven Encyclopedia of) page=117|the terrorist groups that engage in ecoterrorism are typically left-wing, single-issue groups" There you go mark (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reflist format doesn't work on talk pages. Please restate in the form of a clickable link. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Redone it so you can see it, along with a little quote from the source mark (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I really believe this should be brought to AFD. The concept of communist terrorism is not notable on its own and instead relies on the notability of left wing terrorism to stand. Notability is not inherited. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

I explicitly request everyone to comment on that (I reproduce the expanded version of the search below):

1. Origin of Revolutionary terror discusses Reign of Terror, i.e. Leftists, not Communists. Conclusion: belongs to Leftist terrorism.
2. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine: [16] [17]. Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 [18] vs [19]
5. ETA (already discussed) Conclusion: "Left wing"
6. Communist Party of Nepal Frankly, I doubted, but even in this case ("Communist" explicitly included in the name) "lef wing" wins 24 to 4 [20] vs [21].
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 [22] vs [23]
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" [24] and only 4 for "Communist" [25].
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 [26] vs [27]
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: [28] vs [29]
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: [30] vs [31].
12. Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201[32] to 2[33].
13. ERP ERP "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs ERP "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 33[34] to 2[35].
14. Irish Republican Army "Irish Republican Army" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Irish Republican Army" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 179[36] to 6[37]
15. Red Brigades: "Red Brigades" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Brigades" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 271[38] to 6[39].

In connection to that, can anyone explain me, what concrete in the WP policy can be an excuse for not renaming this article immediately to Left wing terrorism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. It is not an attempt to insult anyone, however, let me explain what I did. I looked for the sources that contained the words, e.g. "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Left wing terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Communist terrorism" (the first number). Then I did the same search for the sources that contained the words "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Communist terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Left wing terrorism". In the case of Red Brigades the ration was 271 to 6 (you may do the search by yourself to make sure I am not cheating). That means that for all terrorist groups discussed in the article the definition "left wing terrorism" is much more common that "Communist terrorism", and, therefore, the article simply must be renamed per WP:NEUTRAL.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favour and tell me exactly what part of WP:NEUTRAL is not being met with this article? As stated, communist terrorism is notable enough for it`s own article, please explain why you think this is not the case I`ll also point out Red Brigades left wing terrorism on google books yields 3,900 hits with communist it yields 7,490 hits, google hits are easily massaged and are not an indicator of anything really. mark (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, WP:NEUTRAL requires us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (which implies that only reliable, not all sources must be taken into account). In particular, it refers to the WP:Article titles policy that says: "Most generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." In connection to that, let me point out that by contrast to google books, google scholar searches only within academic sources, which, as a rule, have been wetted by the scientific community, by contrast to various books, including dubious, propagandistic, self-published or fiction, which can be found in the google books data base. According to the Scholar search made by me, reliable English-language sources call the phenomenon discussed in the article (i.e. the activity of the groups the article lists) "left wing terrorism" and much less frequently call it "communist terrorism". Therefore, the article's name simply does not reflect what reliable English-language sources call the subject of this article. You reference to notability of the term "Communist terrorism" is irrelevant per se, because even if the term is notable, another term may be even more notable (see, e.g. Lorentz distribution vs Cauchy distribution); alternatively, the per se notable term "Communist terrorism" might be less relevant to this particular article than "Left wing terrorism" (That is exactly what I demonstrated). One way or the another, bare notability of this term is not an argument, we must prove that "Communist terrorism" is more notable than another terms, and that it is more relevant to the article's subject. You failed to demonstrate that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Most generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." Exactly, and what else should an article about communist terrorism be called but communist terrorism? You must have realized by now your google hits count for naught? I can do searchs which yield far different numbers to yours mark (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your belief that the article is about Communist terrorism. However, since after we analysed reliable sources we found that the sources call the article's subject "left wing terrorism", we simply must accept what the sources say.

To be perfectly honest, "Communist terrorism" is a term that, despite of its notability is hardly used by majority scholars to describe some concrete set of events. As soon as we speak about individual/group terror the term "left wing" is more dominant. When we speck about "State terror", the suffix -ism tends to disappear. When we speak about state sponsored diversions and sabotage, "Communist terrorism" is also used rarely. I cannot say that Communist terrorism as a phenomenon never existed, or that the term is not notable, however, in each particular case other terms are more notable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I can do searchs which yield far different numbers to yours" As I already wrote, I didn't choose a search phrase to get a result I wanted, I just took the keywords people used during the discussion on the talk page. I am not cheating. However, if you believe you can do a more adequate search, please, try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the history at Mass Killings and elsewhere I don't think Mark is going to change his mind on this one, regardless of what search or other material is presented. I think this needs to be a formal proposal for a merge/redirect and/or an ANI or other referral given tendentious editing on this subject over a range of articles. --Snowded ^TALK 02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. I would suggest you not to draw so premature conclusions. IMO, the present dialogue between Mark and me can lead to some positive results. Let's wait what for his answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll believe it if I see it, and its not a premature judgement its based on behaviour on a couple of other articles. But if you think you can get somewhere ... --Snowded ^TALK 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I still hope...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Search Terms used "Group name" + "communist" and "left wing" like this "Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" "communist" thus we get x number of hits which says this group is in a book or paper about both subjects.

• Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Communist 2,240 hits left wing 630 hits
• Shining Path communist 7,700 hits left wing 1,940 hits
• FARC communist 6,300 hits left wing 2,820 hits as you can see just from these the hits for the groups with communist far exceed those with left wing, it is the same on scholar btw, communist always beats out left wing mark (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what about the result for the same search on Google Books, substituting 'leftist' for 'left wing' though? This seems to give another 4,070 results. In any case, your results are meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a theoretical distinction (in a WP:RS) between the broader 'left wing' category and the narrower 'communist' one is being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am glad I was right, and you are prone to dialogue. However, let me remind you again that google, by contrast to google scholar gives a results for whole Internet, not for reliable sources only. Your second error is that the search made by you does not take into account the context the word "communist" is being used. For instance, your search results could equally include some hypothetical article that contained a phrase like "Communist governments condemned terrorist activity of "Shining path"".

In addition, if we use google scholar and make similar style source for, e.g. FARC, to compare "Communist" and "Democratic", the results will be:

1. For FARC and Communist: 174[40]
2. For FARC and Democratic: 527[41]

Since, obviously, it would be absurd to propose to move the FARC section to the Democratic terrorism article, the search results imply that something is wrong with your search method.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)