Talk:Left-wing terrorism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article

This article was deleted in May 2006,[1] and became a re-direct to Terrorism. However, this topic has notablity and can be written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, and I am therefore recreating the article per Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages. Also, I have archived the talk page which related to the earlier article. TFD (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

All the Organizations in this article are communist terrorist groups, is there any particular reason why they are in this article? mark (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) In fact none of the major left wing terrorist groups are in this article? [2] see page 20 mark (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The history section says, "Modern left-wing terrorist groups in the United States developed from remnants of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and extremist elements of the Students for a Democratic Society. During the 1980s both the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO) and the smaller United Freedom Front were active." All five organizations are shown in your source on p. 20.[3] I did not add them to the list of organizations because not all of them were terrorist groups, e.g., the SDS was not although some of its members became terrorist Weathermen. Since I only listed non-U.S. groups, while your source lists only U.S. groups, there is no overlap. The organizations chosen for inclusion are all included in the history section and reliably sourced as "left-wing terrorists". I left out the Sandinistas because I wanted to check whether they were considered terrorists, just as in NI a distinction is made between Sein Fein and the Provos. As a book prepared by the Rand Corporation for the U.S. government in 1987, I would question the reliablity of the book anyway. TFD (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:LABEL is what I meant. The lists is not of officially designated terrorist organizations, but the accusations of one author. Thousands of people might call Barack Obama a terrorist, but he isn't listed. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LABEL provides advice and must be properly understood. 9/11 may be called an act of terrorism. Calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist and al Qaeda a terrorist organization is probably acceptable too since that is the consensus view. What we need to beware is calling insurgencies, nations and national leaders terrorists. The fact that the listed organizations have engaged in acts of terror is not "the accusations of one author" but the consensus of the academic community. The parallel to Obama does not work. An equivalent would be if one insisted on writing, "according to x, Obama was born in the United States". The qualification of the mainstream view would cast doubt on its veracity and imply that maybe he was born elsewhere, which would be presenting a fringe view. TFD (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW I do not see you commenting on Communist terrorism which has serious POV problems. TFD (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point about Communist terrorism is totally irrelevant. I've done a lot to keep unreferenced and unattributed use of the words terrorist out of wikipedia, but it's a big encyclopedia, and I have neither the will nor the ability to "police" every page. I disagree that there is a consensus among the academic community about all the organizations you refer to. You acknowledge that it's problematic to refer to insurgencies and national leaders as terrorists, but you're happy to call Sandinistas who launched a revolution and overthrew the government as terrorists. You include the 19th of April Movement, even though its wikipedia article doesn't even include the word terror. Even at an official level, there are numerous organizations designated as terrorists by the US government, and not by the European Union, and so on. Moreover, I think most academics would acknowledge that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and only with specific criteria can one differentiate one from the other. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of establishing criteria, we can only use other people's criteria WITH attribution. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that the article says, "groups that became actively involved in terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s included the Nicaraguan Sandinistas... and the... 19th of April Movement", and does not call them terrorists. All of this is attributed to high quality secondary sources, viz., books published by mainstream academic and university publishers. Facts presented in reliable sources are facts and easily distinguishable from opinions. If you wish to challenge what they say then please provide sources that contradict them. Other Wikipedia articles btw are not reliable sources for articles. TFD (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that there is only a semantic difference between saying someone committed terrorist acts and saying someone was a terrorist. They are both contain value judgments. I'm not disputing that your books make those statements, I'm suggesting they are opinions rather than facts, and should therefore be attributed to the authors in question. I'm not disputing that they weren't terrorists, I'm disputing that your two sources display an "academic consensus". All I need to prove that there is no academic consensus is a book describing the Sandinistas which doesn't describe them or their activities as terrorist(s). That would probably include 90% of books on Sandinistas, and 99% of the books on Sandinstas written before September 11th, 2001 when terrorism became a buzzword to be thrown around without any kind of criteria or definition. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist acts have been part of most insurgencies, but it does not necessarily mean that the organizations behind them were terrorists. It was used for example during the American revolution.[4] I would not consider the Sandinistas to be a terrorist group, although they did use terrorism as a tactic before they came to power, as did the Likud Party in Israel. Your view of academic consensus does not appear to be accurate. See the discussion pages for Climate change or Aspartame related articles for example. That someone may publish a paper opposing the orthodoxy does not mean that "scientists are in disagreement" and these articles may correctly state that there is a consensus. Your concern, which I share, is that the term terrorist has been applied in a very broad sense for political reasons, and actually was used during the Malayan Emergency and other anti-colonial conflicts. Of course these groups did use terrorism, as did the colonial powers, which was dramatically documented in the movie Battle of Algiers. The way to maintain neutrality is to keep to academic sources, rather than the very broad definitions that governments and the media use. Incidentally I agree with your removal of the Bayou of Pigs event which was not sourced to any text on terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between academic agreement in science (where by definition of the scientific method results are reproduceable) and the humanities. There is no possible dispute among scientists what "aspartame" is chemically. Professional historians would likely call your use of "terrorism" to describe acts not thought of as "terrorism" at the time, as anachronism. Even for the generous, the term is only traced back to the Reign of Terror. Since the American Revolution occurred before 1781, it would be inappropriate to use it in that case. The book you just cited was written by a criminologist and a lawyer, hardly authorities on history. TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources to support your view? Is this a general comment about social sciences that could lead to a change in Wikipedia policy or is it unique to this article? You obiously did not read Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy. The dispute is not about aspartame's composition, but whether case studies and isolated studies may be used to challenge the view that there is a consensus that aspartame has not been shown to be harmful. Climate change, unlike chemistry, does not allow for reproduceable experiments, neither does evolution. And yes social scientists often apply terms to periods before they were developed. We describe Marx for example as left-wing although the term was never applied to ideology (only where someone sat in the legislature) before Marx died. The term Communist to apply to an ideology distinct from socialism only arose following the Russian Revolution. The terms liberal and conservative were not coined until the 19th century. TFD (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You seriously don't get why scientific agreements aren't applicable here? One scientist could technically provide proof that aspartame causes breast cancer. A scientist could theoretically provide convincing evidence that climate change is caused by solar flares. But you can't PROVE that someone was or was not a terrorist, or that they committed terrorist acts. You can't prove it, because it's quite clearly an opinion. You can lay out your criteria for what a terrorist is, and say X fits these criteria, but it's not black and white like science. That's why attribution is required. People refer to Marxism as left-wing far more than they'd refer to Marx as a leftist. They also don't refer to Marx as a Marxist, for that matter. In trying to avoid anachronism, historians may use terms like "proto-communist" but they're unlikely to describe anyone pre-Marx as a communist. And where the words "communist" and "liberal" have negative value judgments associated with them rather than an accepted quality of identity, they should be avoided too.

You seriously want me to post a list of books on the Sandinistas that don't refer to them or their actions as terrorist? That would satisfy you? You can spend the hours sifting through the books to double-check my sources. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If claims are made in peer-reviewed and academic literature that do not share consensus support then we can find reports that contradict them. Furthermore it is against professional ethics for an academic to represent a view enjoys consensus support when it does not. Your view of the scientific method appears confused. Scientists do not "prove" theories, they find evidence that supports theories, e.g., the theories of climate change, evolution and that aspartame causes breast cancer. You seem to believe that there is a problem with the use of the word terrorism, that there is no consensus that any such thing exists. However your views are inconsistent with academic writing and you so far have been unable to persuade me otherwise. If you wish to continue on this path, I suggest you use content dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I recommend merging Communist terrorism here as it is largely WP:POVFORK of this article. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

• Move No evidence has been presented that "Communist/communist terrorism" is a valid topic and most of the article is about groups described as involved in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Move, but to Revolutionary terror. That's what is really being discussed here (and that is certainly a notable topic). --Ludwigs2 15:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it not be moved to both - the sections about groups using left-wing terrorism, such as the Shining Path moved here, with the comparisons of actions taken by the governments of revolutionary France and the Soviet Union moved to that article? TFD (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Communist terrorism is a synthesis, so it must be split up. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly Leftwing terrorism obviously is broader than communist terrorism. There are leftist terrorist who are not in any way communist and conflating the two will lead to reader confusion. Also, the history of this talk page shows that the move is motivated by a POV pushing agenda - an attempt to get rid of communist terrorism. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any examples of "leftist terrorist who are not in any way communist"? For disclosure, Mamalujo created the article by writing a lead section with no basis in any sources, adding groups he considered belonged.[5] TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Move The 'communist terrorism' article was clearly a WP:POVFORK, and has never been justified with any significant WP:RS for its central thesis: that 'communist terrorism' is qualitatively different from other forms of leftist terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, really? THAT article is a POV fork? Forked from what article? If any article is a POV fork, it would be this one. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Response to comment Left-wing terrorism was created on 3rd June 2003, by '217.158.203.220'. Communist terrorism was created on 29th March 2007, by Mamalujo. I'm at a loss to see how someone could have created a POV fork to your article before you wrote it, Mamalujo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I had never read the article left wing terrorism. Indeed, at the time I created the article, this article was merely a redirect. So, plainly "communist terrorism" was not a fork. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, I may have misunderstood what you were implying, Mamalujo, if so, I apologise. Nevertheless, looking at early drafts of the communist terrorism article it is clear that it was being used to push fringe POV views from very early on - there was a long edit-war over attempts by yourself and others to include references to Hitler in the article on the (dubious) grounds that he was an atheist. Hardly indicative of an attempt to present a neutral article.

In any case, the central problem with the communist terrorism article remains: that it implies that 'communist' terrorism is qualitatively different from other forms of leftist terrorism, without providing any WP:RS that supports this thesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose "Left wing" is obviously too wide a term. It may even be applied to anarchist movements that clearly do not qualify as "communist" and even less as "Marxist". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The question isn't about how wide the term is, but about whether there in fact reliable sources for subdividing 'left wing terrorism' on theoretical grounds. If there are, I've not seen them cited. Articles should be about subjects, not arbitrary subdivisions of subjects. Unless 'communist terrorism' is shown by WP:RS to be qualitatively different from other forms, it should not have its own article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism advocated/perpetrated by Communists belongs to an article by that name. Otherwise you should have one article entitled "Terrorism" for all forms of terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

'Terrorism advocated/perpetrated by Men with Beards belongs to an article by that name. Otherwise you should have one article entitled "Terrorism" for all forms of terrorism'. And if not, why not, JM? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, wearing a beard is unrelated to politics, terrorism advocated/perpetrated by a political denomination such as Communists, IS. Other than that, you are free to include bearded terrorists in the article on Men with Beards, should you wish to do so. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving a part of Communist terrorism to this article

As I have demonstrated on the Communist terrorism talk page, all terrorist groups discussed there are being more frequently described by the words "Left wing terrorism" than "Communist terrorism" in reliable scholarly sources. Therefore, neutrality requires us to move the content from the Communist terrorism article to this article into the section named "Most notable left wing terrorist groups".
Since neutrality criteria cannot be superseded by consensus, the outcome of this discussion is void. I would ask another question: "'Can anyone point at any flaws in the search made by me and presented on the Communist terrorism talk page?" If noone will be able to refute validity of the results of the google scholar search made by me, I'll move the sections about terrorist groups from the Communist terrorism article to this article per WP:NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with merging the articles is that it conflates distinct and distinguishable types of terrorism. For example, terrorist activities by anarchists, Sandinistas and other non-communist leftists would fall within this article, whereas they would not belong in the other article. Communist terrorism is a subset of leftist-terrorism. It is not an either/or. Both articles should remain. Suggesting that communist terrorism be merged here is analogous to saying the fascism article should be merged into the totalitarianism article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamlujo, you need a source that says "Communist terrorism is a subset of leftist-terrorism". Standard typology classifies Anarchist terrorism and [[Special interest terrorism}single issue terrorism]] as separate types from Left-wing terrorism as you would know if you read the sources provided in the article, or even the WP article on terrorism.[6] The Sandinistas who carried out terrorist acts during the civil war were marxists, which is why the sources for this article classify their actions under left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But once most of the terrorist groups are moved into this article per Paul's argument on RS calling them left-wing rather than Communist, and all the theoritization on connection of Marxism to revolutionary terror is moved to revolutionary terror, what is going to be left in communist terrorism? (Igny (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose Noting also the discussions aimed at this between two editors -- saying that this was their goal. Anyone miss those posts on user talk pages? [7] At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [8] Its nice to see that Collect quoted this in full at Talk:Communist terrorism#Merger. I wonder where he got the idea that Communist terrorism is POV crap. I have never said or implied such a thing. What I have said here is completely general. Maybe this needs to be expanded into an essay. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. – There is now a related essay at WP:ACTIVIST. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [9] ==Left-wing terrorism== I have re-created the article Left-wing terrorism. It would be useful to attract neutral editors which I will try to do through use of categories, etc. It often is better to start anew with a poorly written POV article, but we cannot create POV forks. In this case though "Communist Terrorism" is just OR, something combining different subjects including Left-wing terrorism, in ways that no one else has. TFD (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) and so on. The orchestration is contrary to WP policies and guidelines, and violates WP:CANVASS to boot. Collect (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with the question under debate, Collect? You seem more concerned with point-scoring than with the content of Wikipedia here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please redact those comments which are completely untrue. I recreated the article virtually in its current form 25th October.[10] Afterwards, Petri Krohn wrote to me, "I see now that you have started doing exactly what I was about to propose". TFD (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All I did was quote. Care to assert that the quotes are fabricated? Collect (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statements, "Noting also the discussions aimed at this between two editors -- saying that this was their goal" and "The orchestration is contrary to WP policies and guidelines, and violates WP:CANVASS to boot" are demonstrably false, as should be clearly obvious to you since you wrote it. Please redact. TFD (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean you did not have quite detailed discussions? That the words in the quotes did not mean what their apparent meaning is? Or that you simply disagree that coordination between editors amounts to CANVASSing? Or that you feel coordination of a strategy is proper under WP policies and guidelines? Which one? Collect (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Canvassing on Wikipedia means sending messages to Wikipedians informing them about a community discussion, with the intention of influencing the outcome in a particular way." Could you explain what community discussion was involved here? Also, you will note that Petri Krohn wrote to me after I created the article. I notice in your talk page you write about Alice - you may believe that discussions may influence previous events but in the real world it does not work that way. TFD (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly show me where I stated that you only created the article after Petri's post? Ah - since I did not say that, it is clearly a straw man argument on your part. I did not your post to Petri sating that you created this article. But I did not say you wrote the article after getting Petri's first post. So much for that. Meanwhile [11] appears to show coordination regarding an ill-formed SPI case. [12] shows more coordination on this topic. I think you will find rules on"coordinating" edits are strong by the way. Collect (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the place for accusations of bad faith against other editors and now you have brought up another one, a discussion about an SPI after the SPI discussion had been closed. FYI this "ill-informed SPI" has now been resolved, and many of the Tors have been blocked. TFD (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And the chief person accused? Seems that you elide that bit - which is werhe the "ill formed" fits to a t. Collect (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem ill-informed. The "chief person accused" used an IP in order to avoid a 1RR restriction. I opened an SPI. End of story. TFD (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting me verbatim! Due to an edit conflict I did not see your comments earlier, and ended up linking to the very same mini essay you quoted. As for your claims, the text is in no way an argument for any decision in this discussion. It is a general recipe for what to do if merge discussions like these fail due to WP:ACTIVIST positions. Also, it is in no way directly related to this article. The essay has been brewing for a long time and reflects experience in multiple topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I have now created User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bombs found in the Bolshevik explosives lab in Terijoki in 1907

• Merge Communist terrorism here. If Mamalujo or someone wants to create a more specific article on leftist of Marxist-Leninist terrorism that is not a synthesis, let him do it. One interesting topic would be to explain what are the "Bolshevik terrorist bombs" in this 1907 picture from Finland. If the merge now fails, start the normal Wikipedia processes for geting rid of incurable POV. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys missed my point. Although the fact that Communist terrorism is a subset of leftist-terrorism is obvious, that does not mean that everything what is described as left-wing/leftist terrorism should be placed into the Communist terrorism article. The search made by me demonstrates that the content that someone arbitrarily placed into the Communist terrorism article is characterised by majority scholarly sources as left-wing AND NOT Communist terrorism. Therefore, I do not need to know your opinion on whether this content should be moved to the more appropriate article, because editorial consensus in not relevant when neutrality issues are discussed. If someone wants to prevent the move of the content, s/he needs not to post various "opposes" in bold, but provide other neutral and objective counter-arguments that demonstrate that my search results were biased, or that I overlooked something.
Please, do that in close future, otherwise I'll move the content soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
By saying that, I do not propose to move the article. My point is that the major part of current content of the Communist terrorism article in actuality belongs to another article. Probably (although not necessarily) other facts, events or opinion do belong to the Communist terrorism article, however, that means that the proponents of this article must identify them, not place everything tangentially relevant to leftist terrorism into the Communist terrorism article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with your argument. I proposed the merge merely to merge histories of edit, which I can not do without help of an admin. Of course, if some admin closes it with no consensus to merge (resulting in no action by default), nothing really stops you or me or anyone else move parts of the article to this location if it is deemed more adequate, however be prepared that the history of edits will not be preserved. (Igny (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Try reading the GFDL requirements. You can't simply "move" anything without moving edit history. Collect (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it is a legal issue? What's next you will sue me for breaking the license which allows me to do whatever I want to do? (Igny (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

No way did I say or imply anything of the sort. WP does follow certain rules about GFDL, and following those rules required by the GFDL licence is not something which any !votes can override. Collect (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Collect, you are wrong. Two things are needed: 1) You must attribute the original article (as Igny did). 2) The edit history must be preserved somewhere, usually this means that the original article must remain at least a redirect. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What part of "All previous authors of the work must be attributed." is incomprehensible? " GFDL and CC-BY do require attribution" Note that Communist terrorism has not been WP:SPLIT. Nor does its size meet the criteria for such a split. As the material is likely to end up back in the other article, the copy here would violate POVfork rules. Collect (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you are wasting everyones time. What Volunteer Marek did here and here was here was wrong, as he did not credit the source article when "stealing" the material. What Igny did here was correct, as he attributed his "theft" to the correct article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – the relevant license today is WP:CC-BY-SA, so I am not even going to explain to you the complexities of WP:GFDL. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Which retains the requirement of full attribution. Collect (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you are saying that the Communist terrorism article is a WP:SYNTHesis. The way to deal with synthesis is to move useful parts of the content to other articles with a more appropriate topic. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There are legal issues when an article is moved, the edit history must be retained. I do not think this applies to mergers, though. You might want to ask an administrator. TFD (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. (Igny (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

The relevant policy is covered in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I have added the appropriate {{Copied}} tag to Talk:Communist terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD - there are no legal issues here, period.

I'm ready to go ahead with this merge. I'll do it myself, but I want to establish which sections specifically should get merged over so that we can contain the outrage from the people who are obviously going to get outraged by it. thoughts? --Ludwigs2 15:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would move over all the organizations except the OIRA which is generally grouped under Nationalist terrorism and is in fact mentioned in that article already. (If any are incorrect they can be challenged later.) The "Western perspectives section can also be moved here. The section "Origin of Revolutionary terror" can be moved to the other article. TFD (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear why the fact that the OIRA is included under Nationalist terrorism should prevent it also being included here. They, along with the INLA, have espoused supposedly 'Marxist' ideology while engaging in terrorist acts. If one was to try to eliminate groups that were not basing their actions on 'Marxist' ideology alone, one might find the article rather empty. The article is supposed to be about actual groups, not a theoretical model that attempts to force them into mutually-exclusive categories. Provided WP:RS can be found to demonstrate the OIRA for example were 'left wing terrorists', the fact that another source says that they were also 'nationalist terrorists' is of no significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While there is academic consensus for describing the actions of groups such as the Shining Path as left-wing terrorism, most scholars group nationalists separately. I assume it is because of the reasons they use terror, which in the case of the OIRA was to achieve the re-unification of Ireland, a nationalist goal, not the establishment of a socialist state. Mainstream writers on political ideology group nationalist parties separately from socialist and communist parties (see Left-right politics). Modern writing on left-wing nationalism explains it as part of nationalism, not the left. Their reasoning is that nationalists switched from right to left after traditional institutions, especially the church, declined in influence and they saw socialism as a way to organize the working classes through labor unions and as a way of removing foreign influence represented by foreign companies. The example given was Quebec where nationalism, which was represented by the reactionary Union Nationale, is now represented by the Parti Quebecois, which considers itself social democratic.

We might explain in the article that some writers use the term to describe any actions undertaken by leftists, even if not undertaken to achieve left-wing objectives, but I don't think that opens the article to have sections on all these groups.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs. As I already wrote, the sections for which the google scholar results show that they have more relations to the left-wing terrorism must be moved to here unless the proof of the opposite is provided. I see that, despite of my numerous reminders, no counter-arguments have been provided, and they hardly will be provided in reasonable future (if at all). I think, one more notification should be posted on the Communist terrorism talk page (to avoid any accusations in edit warring, which almost inevitably will follow after this move), and after a couple of days these sections, which are are listed on the Communist talk page, should be moved. The fate of the rest of the Communist terrorism article can be decided after that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is still too early to tell. It may however be going that-a-way. → Communist terrorism (disambiguation) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Proposed deletion already! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Google Scholar" is not a generally accepted rationale for such deletions from any article. Thus your rationale fails. Collect (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided for this article describe their activities as "left-wing terrorism". There are no sources that describe them as "communist terrorism", hence the move. TFD (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose There is no consensus for this. It is a highly controversial and major change. There is a good argument that doing so is a POV pushing edit. Mamalujo (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Some experst equate leftist terrorism, while others don't. Therefore I suggested a different intro, which combines both opinions, both referenced from sources. Gus Martin is a reputable exopert in terrorism, multiply cited in wikipedia. Please explain your reasons of reversal. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My version

[please don't edit this section]. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism, also called leftist terrorism or revolutionary terrorism is terrorism used as a tool of left-wing ideologies. The philosophical basis for this kind of terrorism was provided by anarchism and Marxism in the second half of the 19th century.

Anarchist ideology gave rise to the concept of propaganda by the deed, which, among other, included terrorism. However over time major ideologists of anarchism abandoned the idea of violence, such as bombings and assassinations.

Currently the leftist terrorism is mostly associated with communist terrorism, or Marxist-Leninist terrorism, as a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government.

The RfC on merging failed - but has now been relit per template on Communist terrorism. Once it failed, it failed. Collect (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

User:TFD wrote in my user talk page:

You should read the sources provided for Left-wing terrorism. They say that left-wing terrorism is also called "Marxist-Leninist terrorism". Although anarchism is also left-wing, it is grouped as "anarchist terrorism". Actions by left-wing special interest groups are classified as "speical interest terrorism". This is the terminology used by experts on terrorism, and my opinion is that we should use their categories unless we can find experts that use different categories. TFD (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC

I may answer in the same way: "you should read the source I cited with my changes". There is nothing unusual that different experts use similar, but different definitions. I think Gus Martin makes an excellent point by mentioning an often overlooked historical source of left-wing terrorism, i.e., anarchism. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article special interest terrorism is missing. See eg a FBI Congressional Testimony, "The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States" as a good starting point.

I would also to point out that terrorism, as many other things, may be chassified into severat, mutually-non-exclusive ways: domestic/international, by ideology, by goals, etc. "Left wing terrorism" is a high-level classification by ideology. Anarchism is traditionally considered as left-wing. Therefore I see nothing wrong in hierarchial classification, just like categories in wikipedia. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the sources for the article, anarchist terrorism is considered to be a separate type from left-wing terrorism, even though anarchism is left-wing and left-wing terrorism is influenced by anarchism. The other types normally recognized are right-wing, religious, nationalist, state-sponsored and special interest. Certainly there may be overlap but we should follow what is in reliable sources. If someone has reliable sources that contradict this typology then please discuss them rather than engage in original interpretations not supported by sources. And yes, there should be a special interest terrorism article also.

Martin btw does not provide a typology of terrorism. While he does mention "left-wing terrorism" (exactly once) he does not define it or provide any examples, but does state that it has "ancestors" in 19th century terrorism.[13] We cannot synthesize a definition from this writing.

TFD (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While "Exactly once" is not an argument, still you are wrong here. Down the text he uses synonyms and expressions like "left-wing terrorist groups", "leftist terrorism", etc. Further, he repeatedly mentions, that Marxism represents vast majority of political flavor among leftist terrorists. He is careful not to say that alll of them are Marxist-Leninists. In particular, he mentions New Left, and possibly some other flavors, but I am just lazy to read it all in (expecially expecting that my opinion will be disregarded anyway). I don't care about the politics much (I will not even vote about the merge), and if you disagree to move towards a common solution, I will no longer waste my time. But if you see something useful in my opinions, I am willing to continue the dialog and the investigation of the issue. Lovok Sovok (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His lists are very much the same as the other sources used in the article. While he includes Irish nationalist groups, which other writers do not, he does say they are "included under the category of "left wing" because of their professed adoption of socialist ideology, it is important to remember that their primary goal is reunification with the Irish republic". Most writers include them as nationalists. The article terrorism provides a typology that is standard.[14] I realize that these are conceptual frameworks developed by academics and individuals and groups are sometimes stubborn in not conforming to them. Nonetheless they are helpful in understanding the topic. TFD (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently the leftist terrorism is mostly associated with communist terrorism, or Marxist-Leninist terrorism, as a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government

Exactly. Also, what is academically termed "Marxist-Leninist", etc., goes by the name of "Communist" in everyday parlance. Hence phrases like "Communist Bloc", and not "Left-Wing Bloc," etc. These things ought to be beyond dispute were it not for certain editors seeking to dissociate Communism from everything that may be politically inconvenient, e.g., revolutionary terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We use the terminology in the sources, and cannot make up our own. Notice for example that the Sandinistas, who were Marxist-Leninist and engaged in acts of terror were never called "communists". The Sandinistas are now part of the non-communist Socialist International. Ironically the defacto Communist Party, the Nicaraguan Socialist Party, supported the Somoza regime the Sandinistas were trying to defeat. The current Communist Party of Nicaragua joined with the Right in 1990 to overthrow the Sandinista regime. TFD (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Marxism" is a well-defined subset of Communism. "Marxist-Lenism" is a defined subset of "communism." "Maoism" is a defined subset of "communism." Thus any article on the greater inclusive set (Communism) can properly contain material on the subsets thereof. Collect (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, that is incorrect. European socialists remained Marxist even after separate Communist parties were formed. The Social Democratic Party of Germany for example remained a Marxist party until 1959.[15] But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists! TFD (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists

Of course they wouldn't. As stated in your WP article, "The Western Allies remained the ultimate political authorities in West Berlin" whilst the country was run by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). As the WP article clearly says, "The CDU was the dominant party in West Germany for the first two decades following its establishment in 1949." The Socialists only became dominant after 1969 by which time as per your own admission they no longer were Marxists. With "historians" like you, no wonder this discussion isn't getting anywhere. Justus Maximus (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the mayors of West Berlin were Social Democrats. Many of the states were also controlled by the SPD. But stop avoiding the question. Is it correct to refer to the SPD before 1959 as "communist"? TFD (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

West Berlin was not run by SPD, nor was West Germany, since the dominant party was CDU as evident from the WP articles you use to support your theory. If you've got evidence that "many of the states" were run by the SPD, why don't you give one of those states as example? Why pick West Berlin that's got nothing to do with your own theory? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase it. Do you think that the SPD mayor of West Berlin, Ernst Reuter (1948-1953) and the SPD majority in the city council were communists? Do you think that the SPD minister-president of Saxony, Hinrich Wilhelm Kopf (1946-1955) and his legislature were communists? Incidentally, it's not my theory, it's yours - that all Marxists are communists. TFD (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold it right there. If you read your WP article on Reuter, you’ll see that it states Reuter “formed a grand coalition government with the next two biggest parties.” So, West Berlin was hardly “run by SPD.” Regarding identity or otherwise of German Social Democrats and Communists it obviously depends on the criteria you’re using for classification. Some Social Democrats were opposed to the Communists. Kurt Schumacher, for example, called the Communists “red-painted Fascists.” Others were less critical. Reuter himself had been a member of the Communist Party (KPD) until he got kicked out in 1922. I think that speaks for itself. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to try once more. According to you, all Marxists are communists. I replied that many socialist parties were Marxist, but abandoned Marxism, including notably the SPD that abandoned Marxism in 1959. My point is that these parties, although Marxist, were not communist and therefore your view that all Marxists are communists is wrong. I provided examples and we became distracted by what positions of government the socialists had. Perhaps you can reply now. Was the SPD before 1959 a communist party? Is it normally described that way? Do you have any sources that it was considered a communist party? If it was not, does it not disprove your view that all Marxists are communists? TFD (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop misinterpreting what others are saying. It is not "my view that all Marxists are communists". My view is that some, including your Ernst Reuter, obviously are. Conversely, some Communists are Marxists. Why can't you understand such a simple fact??? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your fundamental premise “SPD = Marxist party” is false. That’s where all your other logical errors come from. The fact is that whereas the theoretical foundations of the SPD may have been largely borrowed from Marx, the party had many strongly non-Marxist characteristics from inception, e.g., it had already aimed at a kind of state capitalism from the days of its founder Lassalle. Ergo the SPD has never been Marxist stricto sensu and must be regarded as more of a big tent enterprise even before 1959. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lasalle died before the founding of the SPD, and he advocated "State Socialism", which became part of the program of the German Conservative Party, not state capitalism. The SPD adopted the Gotha Program at its founding in 1875, which was replaced by the more Marxist Erfurt Program in 1891. TFD (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The historical roots of the SPD do go back to Lassalle's party. "More Marxist" is neither here nor there. Your fundamental premise “SPD = Marxist party” is and remains false. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources that use this reasoning? TFD (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources that use your reasoning, e.g., that “SPD = Marxist party”, "More Marxist" = "Marxist stricto sensu", etc??? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here:

• "...the SPD was to embody the ideal Marx and Engels pursued in the First International: an independent Marxist party...."[16]
• "Even the SPD, the leading orthodox Marxist part, had not done so."[17]
• "Chief among them was the decision of the Social Democrats at their Bad Godesberg Conference in 1961 to renounce their claims as a Marxist party."[18]

TFD (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're flogging a dead horse there. "Claim as a Marxist party" is one thing. Being a Marxist party is another. That's why you're using rhetorical devices like "more Marxist". And, as expected, you failed to provide evidence that SPD supported terrorism and should be included in an article on Left-wing terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was whether or not all Marxists were communists and here we have an example of Marxists who were not. I did not provide evidence that the SPD supported terrorism because that was not requested. TFD (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Terrorism and attribution

I have suggested [19] that usage of the word terrorism/terrorist should include specific attribution, in line with WP:LABEL (formerly WP:TERRORIST). User:The Four Deuces feels that this rule should not apply in this article. TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with formulation of the RfC, its assertions, and its conclusions. Collect (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I included in-text attribution (as specified in WP:LABEL) without otherwise altering the text and it was removed. On what basis do you disagree? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree In this case the policy of neutrality takes precedence over manual of style guidelines. Where there is an academic consensus that an action, an individual, or a group, is terrorist, then we should not question it. Providing attribution in the text would bring the consensus into question. However, we must not label them terrorist unless a consensus exists. TFD (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that there an academic consensus that these groups are terrorists, or can you only provide evidence that some academics have referred to them as such? If it's the latter, you're arguing a point you can't defend. Moreover, your argument should be at WP:LABELS not here. TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I came here from the RfC notice, and I do not intend to follow this page. Although the question did not ask this, I'm surprised that the page does not include, for example, Eco-terrorism beyond a see also link. Beyond the question asked here, I would ask whether there is some WP:SYNTH in determining what this page does and does not include. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The typology used is fairly standard in the literature about terrorism, and can be found in the sources used and the WP article terrorism. Eco-terrorism is generally considered to be a subtype of single issue terrorism. There is no synthesis in the article because it uses the groupings in articles about left-wing terrorism. If a new group arose that matched the criteria for left-wing terrorism, I would oppose its inclusion until the academic literature was updated to include it. TFD (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

...and single issue terrorism is included in some general textbooks on terrorim in right-wing terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, when I asked for these kinds of categories to be deleted, [20], the basic rationale used for keeping was that the provisions in WP:LABEL served to ensure the article content was attributed. I'm not opposed to calling any of these groups terrorists with attribution, but I don't think it's neutral to simply state it as accepted fact. There are literally thousands of articles that use the terms terrorism/terrorist without attribution, and I can't be expected to comment on all of them in order to justify any particular comment. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: TMQ's edit looks reasonable to me, and labeling those groups as terrorists would, as noted above, require very solid sourcing. Individual commentators feel that e.g. the US Republican Party is a right-wing terrorist group, but there is no consensus behind that terminology and it shouldn't be used. --Dailycare (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Suport I cam here from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#RfC: Terrorism and attribution at Left-win terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. NPOV is clear on this "Avoid stating opinions as facts" ... "Opinions can be reported too, but they cannot be stated directly – they need to be converted into facts by attributing them in the text to some person or group." -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Frankly, I think this article as a whole raises a lot of WP:NPOV, WP:ATTACK, WP:COATRACK issues. Anything that can be done to qualify it is probably good. I'm somewhat familiar w/ User:The Four Deuces's editing history, and I'm guessing his motivation is simply to unambiguously mention "terrorism" and "left wing" in the same sentence. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Nick, but please don't resort to personal attacks. The article's content is highly problematic, but there are a lot of contributing editors. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't regard suggesting that someone is writing from a particular POV to be a personal attack. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Given that there isn't a consensus about the definition of terrorism, a (sub)set of sources that label something as terrorist can't be considered to be a well defined and meaningful consensus that would allow the use of an unattributed label in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So these issues remain. In fact, they are more numerous than before. Is it time for formal arbitration? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no arbitration for content disputes. TFD (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, mediation would be the next step. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD suggestion

Since y'all are versed in communism there, let me bring your attention to a page I accidentally noticed: Stateless communism. For me it sounds like a tautology and I intend to put it for deletion, unless someone proves (usig valid sources) that the term has reputable. (One reasonable usage is what is called "contrastive focus reduplication" in wikipedia, but this case does not call for a separate page. Another kind of usage is, like, "in the month of May"; Again, this tautology is for stylistic purposes only, i.e., there hardly be an article month of May oops!:-) month of April). Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another huge piece of original research is IMO in "Christian communism". It seems that communists are freely roaming in wikipedia to disseminate their studies unchecked. I guess, nobody really cares to look into these subjects but them. Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Christian communism article seems reasonable enough to me - it needs more citations, but that isn't grounds for deletion. The Stateless communism article needs expanding, but I'd say it is worth keeping too.

In any case, this is a talk page on a particular subject, and posting here about deleting other articles might possibly be taken as canvassing, since they are only peripherally related. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As you may notice, I am not suggesting to delete the Christian Communism. I am saying that IMO it is OR. And many parts look quite suspicious to me. And are you saying that "stateless communism" is a valid scholar concept? Well, [google scholar seems to disagree with you: in all cases the context in indirect, and the usage is just a shorthand for "communism, which is stateless" or "a stateless society, communism". Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stateless communism was created by User:Ed Poor. If he's a Communist, then Rush Limbaugh is a Maoist. Anyway, it probably is not helpful to discuss here. TFD (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did post a notice there. The notice here is merely an attention attractor. Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Ed Poor's text says "Stateless communism is an ideal future state of society which Karl Marx predicted", which is false. Marx predicted communism, not "stateless communism". Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Ed Poor to respond to this discussion.[21] TFD (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Marx predicted communism, not "stateless communism""

In Marxist terms Communism entails the disappearance or "withering away" of the state. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I surprise myself by agreeing with JM here. As Marx saw it there would be an ongoing process which went from 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' to 'socialism', and then to 'communism'. Only at the final stage could the state cease to exist, as 'communist' society would no longer require a state which he saw as a mechanism of class struggle. The implication is that 'the withering away of the state' would occur in the last 'communist' stage. This is all rather off-topic anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. But whether or not there is an accepted term called "stateless communism" that deserves its own article or it is a term created by an editor is something to resolve in that article. TFD (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "Stateless Communism" would be a tautology had we restricted ourselves with the works of Marx and Lenin. However, the term "Communism" has two quite different meanings in contemporary literature, namely it refers to the classless society briefly in vaguely described by the classics of Marxism, and to the totalitarian societies in the USSR, China, etc, which have almost nothing in common with the stateless Communist society from Marx's and Lenin's dreams. The claim that "Stateless Communism" is tautology means that "Communist state" is oxymoron, whereas this term is being used very widely. Therefore, although, formally speaking, true classless society (Communism) implies disappearance of any state structures (which, according to Marx are needed just to suppress certain classes by the ruling class), existence of numerous "Communisms" (in the USSR, China, etc) makes the term "Stateless Communism" (or its equivalent) necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone move this discussion to the 'stateless communism' talk page where it belongs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I copied the discussion to Talk:Stateless communism. pLease continue the talk there, as I did. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is essential to understand that whilst Marxism does preach the abolition or “withering away” of the state, as explained by Lenin in The State and Revolution:

“The proletariat needs state power, the centralized organization of force, the organization of violence, both for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the exploiters and for the purpose of guiding the great mass of the population – the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie, the semi-proletarians – in the work of organizing Socialist economy.”

So, before the revolution could get anywhere near the promised land of “stateless communism”, there would admittedly be a period of “socialism” in which the bourgeois (capitalist) state is replaced by the “proletarian (socialist) state”. All communist states got stuck in the socialist state phase that is known as “communist state” in both academic and popular literature in the same way as a state might be referred to as “Christian” even though it has not realized (and perhaps never will realize) the aspired “Christian Kingdom of God on earth”. As pointed out by Pipes, Lenin himself was responsible for this by renaming his party from “Social Democratic” to “Communist”. Communist states, of course, were aware of the fact that they hadn’t achieved Communism, hence they officially referred to themselves by such names as “socialist/people’s/democratic republic”, etc. The term “democratic republic” is particularly amusing as according to Lenin, “a democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism” and “under Socialism all democracy withers away”. Which is probably why he renamed his party. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You should continue the disucssion at the appropriate talk page. TFD (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See

Communist terrorism (disambiguation) Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

I re-grouped the organizations by continent, which is how they are normally divided in academic writing. We still have to look through the list because not all of the groups listed engaged in left-wing terrorism, some may be too minor to include, and other groups that should be included have been omitted. TFD (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin and terrorism

I hereby provide further reliable sources linking Lenin with terrorism that can be included in the section on Ideology. Ronald D. Law (a respected historian and Professor of History) writes:

“Frustrated by the conservatism of Russian peasants and impressed by the emergence of a new urban working class, some Populists turned to Karl Marx’s doctrines (typically known to its practitioners as social democracy) in the 1870s and 1880s. Out of the Russian Marxists, came Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They embraced terrorism in a circumscribed fashion while in the underground, but became terrorists “from above” after seizing the Russian state in 1917 … In the wake of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin recognized that terrorism was appropriate in two circumstances: as a means of generating popular support among workers and peasants for the Bolshevik cause, and as a means of raising money necessary for the party’s operations” (Terrorism: A History, 2009, pp. 77, 91).

As indicated earlier, the above is supported by many other sources like Robert Service (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108), Richard Pipes (Communism, p. 39), and Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 141). However, should there be any doubt, here's another source:

“Lenin had stated that the party should not flinch from the use of terror in order to safeguard the Revolution and implement socialism. Thus he was able to justify his use of terror. The Cheka’s powers were expanded during the Civil War so that counter-revolutionaries could be eliminated. Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the view of Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, that it was better to overkill than run the risk of being overthrown. Terror was to be used against class enemies although it was also directed against elements within the party, such as ‘adventurers, drunkards and hooligans’. At the end of his life, Lenin seems to have developed an obsession over the use of terror. Letters he wrote in 1922 called for intensified repression against the Mensheviks, including the harmless historian Rozhkov. This seems to indicate that Lenin was developing his own, personal agenda for the use of terror” – Steve Phillips, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 2000, pp. 135-6. The book is published by educational publisher Heinemann for History students and is therefore as mainstream as can be. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The section in the book, "Marxism and terrorism", is clear that they opposed terrorism, yet used it when it was useful.[22] Unfortunately, Law does not provide a category for their terrorist actions. We could add a section "Marxism and terrorism" to the terrorism article based on Law's writing. TFD (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you "could", then perhaps you should. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your quotations of Ronald D. Law show how poorly educated he was in Russian/Bolshevik history, despite being professor. Since I see all wikipedia efforts on communism and terrorism as one big laughable mess, I see no point to go into detail here. And what can I do? Pitch one professor against another? And a random wikipedian will judge who is more professorish? All this terrorism is such an anacronistic nonsense here. Next thing you know and wikipedia will list Attilla and Genghis Khan as terrorists. And verily they will be right: if putting to knife whole cities to scare other cities shitless is not terrorism then funny definitions we have here in wikipedia. Lovok Sovok (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point (though Justus Maximus is currently unable to contribute to the debate). Can I add a further candidate for a list of historical terrorists: one 'Jehovah' a noted old-testament figure who regularly seems to have resorted to violence to achieve political ends. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed content

I did some Googleing and this is one of the first things that came up.

• Amy Zalman. "History of Terrorism: Where Did Left Wing Terrorism Go?". about.com.

It is not a reliable source, but could serve as a prototype for what we should have in this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Amy Zalman seems to be notable, maybe we could add this into an External links section. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We should stick with reliable sources. When reliable sources become available then we can enter their comments. However, using unreliable sources opens the gates to all kinds of crackpots. wait until the sources exist before adding. TFD (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I would always be cautious about using books published by Transaction Publishers, because it is today a publisher of fringe scholars outside the academic mainstream. While the Soviet Union and its allies sponsored left-wing terrorism in the third world, there are no mainstream sources that they supported terrorism in Western nations, although it was part of cold war propaganda. TFD (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That publisher has been criticized at RSN - and others have had a consensus that it is clearly RS. TP is RS by virtue of a number of posts at RSN. [23], [24], [25] and so on. It is RS, repeatedly found to be RS, and publishes a wide range of books, and is partnered with major international publishers to boot. Collect (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The first link I checked says, "I want to confirm whether Current Psychology a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Founded and originally published by the Transaction Publishers, journal is now published by the Springer Science+Business Media."[26] Please check links before you provide them, otherwise you waste other editors' time.

The author Brian Crozier is an ex-Communist who worked for the Association for Cultural Freedom, a CIA front organization, and is an advisor to Western intelligence agencies. He is a fellow of the right-wing Hoover Institution. He has no academic credentials related to the subject, and his career has been in journalism. His book did not go through an editorial review by independent experts. My approach to this is, if the facts appear in mainstream writing then use them.

TFD (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In every diff I provided, it is clear that TP is regarded as an RS publisher. Making comments about "wasting peoples' time" or the like is not helpful on any talk page at all. As the source is RS, that is all that counts - what you WP:KNOW is quite irrelevant again. Collect (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, why would you want to use this book when there are so many mainstream books available? TFD (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Try reading what I wrote -- TP is a "reliable source" publisher. I made no comment about any specific books, cites, pamphlets, poems, odes, theses, dissertations, or anything else other than a simple statement of fact - that Transaction is considered RS by WP editors. As for asserting that something which one agrees with is "mainstream" and that which one does not agree with is "fringe" - that requires that I would have to "know" what is "correct" and "truth." See WP:V for the reason why we are not to enquire for "truth." Collect (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the source. The Soviet Union and Cuba supported many insurgencies, including ones that used left-wing terrorism, but there is no evidence they supported W. European groups. Also, this statement needs explanation: "After the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been a marked decrease in left-wing terrorism." Was this because the Soviet Union no longer funded these groups or was it because left-wing ideology itself went into decline? TFD (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, it isn't a matter of what my personal viewpoint is - fringe writings are ignored by mainstream scholarship and are therefore best avoided. You seem to think that because someone can find a publisher for their work that their views should be given weight in articles. I notice that all the sources you recommend seem to come from fringe publishers. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to gain an understanding of how the views you seem to support should be presented.

TFD (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Try reading all my edits to the article. Show me where I made any improper edits. Thanks. As far as your statement that an RS publisher is "fringe" because you declare it to be fringe - I suggest you get WP:V extensively rewritten. And I suggest you get all those RSN discussions changed where others find TP to be an RS publisher. And until you get WP:V repealed, it is how WP works. Collect (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

David Icke has had books published by HarperCollins and Time Warner, both notable publishers I'd have thought. That doesn't make Icke less fringe, does it? Being 'fringe' is an attribute of a writer, not of a publisher per se. Some Publishers print no fringe material, some print only fringe material, and from the look of it, TP does both. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

An editor has requested mediation. This is just a heads-up for anyone interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Still awaiting statements for mediation, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

After studying this for a bit, I feel compelled to withdraw my offer to mediate. I have serious concerns about the very existence of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed that part of Communist terrorism be merged into Left-wing terrorism. Please discuss below. TFD (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support The passage indicated is from Understanding terrorism by Gus Martin, and is a description of leftist terrorism.[27] He does not use the term "communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and noting also that Communist terrorism was kept at the AfD. Collect (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support If a book includes the term used for this article's title, but doesn't include the term used for the other article's, it belongs here, per common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Best not to conflate one into the other, not all "left wing" are communists. V7-sport (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You should read the lead to this article. TFD (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - All of these <socio-political group> terrorism articles should be deleted, with any useful content merged into articles specific to any groups they seek to label. I am disturbed that Wikipedia's voice is now being used to label socio-political groups so freely. The evisceration of WP:WTA by merging it into WP:WTW has resulted in reduced standards. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think we should do about the fact that peer-reviewed articles and books published in the academic and university press discuss these topics? See for example the books listed at Left-wing terrorism#References. Should we also eliminate the terrorism article, because the literature on terrorism uses the categorization that these articles use? Have you read any of these sources? TFD (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with sources applying the "terrorism" label to groups. I have a problem with doing it in Wikipedia's voice, either within the body of an article or in the title. Such labels should always be explicitly attributed to a source. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My view is that if there is an academic consensus that a group or activitity is terrorist then that "label" should be applied. Citing a source inline detracts from the fact that a consensus exists. In the most extreme case, note that articles about 9/11 refer to it as a terrorist attack and do not say for example, "according to x, 9/11 was a terrorist attack". Notice also that in most cases the article does not refer to groups as terrorist, but for example says:

• The organizations listed below engaged in left-wing terrorism.
• In "Western Europe's red terrorists", Dennis A. Pluchinsky identified the following eight organizations as the most significant and notorious "fighting communist organizations"....
• In The new dimension of international terrorism, Stefan M. Audrey identified the Japanese Red Army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as the main left-wing terrorist organizations in Asia....
• Shining Path is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
• The United States Department of State includes the FARC-EP on its list of foreign terrorist organizations, as does the European Union.

But:

The First of October Anti-Fascist resistance Groups were a Maoist terrorist group in Spain.

The groups labelled in the article as terrorist were typically small, their main activity was terrorism, they are defunct, their members were convicted of crimes of terrorism, and there is academic consensus that they were terrorist organizations. I would never agree to using one writer's or one government's definition which would reflect a POV.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I maintain my view that all instances where individuals or groups are given the "terrorist" label should be properly attributed (at the end of a sentence is fine). In this instance, we also are applying the label to a rather nebulous "left wing" in the title, which seems to be wholly inappropriate. My opinion on this issue (concerning Wikipedia's voice specifically) will not change no matter how exhaustive and source-stuffed a response you might present. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)