Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

comment

The whole piece is a tissue of unsourced allegations. A fine example is the set of assertions by Lunev, which, when investigated, turned out to be unfounded. Similalry, allegations by 'terrorism experts' and 'Soviet defectors' should not be accepted at face value - they have their agendas and careers to justify. And if there were all these terrorist crimes planned, how come none were ever carried out? Of course, foiled by the brilliance of 'our' CIA MI5, etc! I don't think so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Should former terrorist groups be included

Should former terrorist groups advocating Marxism or some variant be included? If so the Irish National Liberation Army, Official Irish Republican Army, Red Brigades, Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, Japanese Red Army and German Red Army Faction would all be great additions. Although one has to be careful not to include EVERY past communist guerilla group (such as the FSLN, FMLN, MPLA, FRELIMO, 26th of July Movement, National Liberation Army of Bolivia, and Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity) because not every armed Marxist group has engaged in military acts generally considered to be terrorist. So if past groups are to be included, POV must be excluded for posterity!

Of course we should name all Communist terrorism groups here if reliable sources define them as such. As about the past, this is relevant. Actually we need a "History of Communist terrorism" section that would start at least from 19th century.Biophys 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But I did not realized: there are so many of them :[1]. This is not feasible. See MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base. Biophys 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to include Action Directe, the Front de libération du Québec, the Alex Boncayao Brigade, the Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao, the Khmer Rouge, and others. However if that's not an option, isn't there a specific list of communist terrorist groups somewhere. ----DanTD 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on Red Army Faction needed

A section for the Red Army Faction (RAF) active in post WWII West Germany should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.254.122 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza quote

Someone keeps adding this inane quote about Atheists being responsible for terrorism. The quote blames Hitler for mass murder, which is correct, but Hitler was not a communist, nor did he publicly indicate that he was an Atheist, so this is irrelevant to this wikipedia page. The quote also compares secular people citing religion as the cause of the terror of the crusades with Atheism causing the terror of totalitarianism. The quote is moronic because the two historical situations are completely different. The crusaders killed because of their belief in religion. Their specific beliefs lead directly to mass murder. No one has ever killed anyone because of lack of a belief! Killing for Atheism is like killing because you don't believe in ferries or ghosts or roman gods (Athiests don't believe in any of these mythical things; they treat which ever god you worship the same way). The mass murders perpetrated by Stalin and Mao were the result of totalitarianism, not atheism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delirium of disorder (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.79.100 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support the revert as Dinesh D'Souza would seem to be a minor (though shrill) conservative view packaged for the US market. It is partisan and uninformed of such evidence that Hitler actually persecuted atheists (along with Jews and everyone else who didn't match up). See [2] for a long history of Hitler and Nazi use of "God" as opposed to "Godless" to further their ends.

Communism is traditionally promoted as being atheistic but this isn't fully true (as one reverter has tried to imply) as the Christian Communists in Italy show today. A core ideal of Communism in Italy is the opposition to the Vatican. Again a full loop that Communism isn't primarily interested in atheism i.e. opposition to god or gods but it is usually antireligious i.e. opposition to religion. Thus one can be communist and believe in god though you may not be part of a formal religious group.

We need not add every minor view into Wikipedia even if it is reliably sourced. Ttiotsw 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, the quote is generally well know and by a notable person, just because some people are unconformable with it- is not reason for censorship it could be shortened and parphased if one objects to the length.. Hardyplants 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Their specific beliefs lead directly to mass murder. No one has ever killed anyone because of lack of a belief! Killing for Atheism" This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of communism and Nazism, both of which are based on replacing God with the state or some type of Naturalism, a number of people get confused when they see some Nazis or communists using the terms God or religion, forget the words but look at the meaning they are applying to the words. The problem might also be related to this idea "because of lack of a belief" which is some type of weird convolution of logic, atheism is an active belief system that motivates actions, so its not hard to see why it has played a role in so much mass murder in the last 100 years. Hardyplants 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing how well known it is or how notable they are but it is synthesis to stick such a quote into this article as the quote is not about "Communist terrorism" but about three well-known despots. The quote does not mention "communism" at all and clearly includes Hitler who no-one I know of would deem to be "communist" - he was a Fascist and opposed communists. This clearly makes the target "despots" rather than "communists". Now if we had an article called "Despotic terrorism" then add the quote BUT we're talking "Communist terrorism" so sorry the quote just doesn't fit here. Ttiotsw 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was not a communist. Discussion of him does not belong in this article. He also wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian. The quote isn't factually accurate. I agree that fascism and Marxist-Leninism tried to promote faith in the leadership of the State above all else. This was a sort of political religion and can hardly be called atheistic. Unquestioning faith in God or Stalin or Hitler or anyone else is irrational and against the skeptical approach taken by atheists. Delirium of disorder 22:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...so your argument is that Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were NOT communists and Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong did NOT use terrorism, or sum such pairing...Ok there is lot of articles then that need to be changed. Hardyplants 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being obtuse - I am saying that the quote does not call them "communist terrorists". It doesn't mention either communism nor terrorism. The quote is about despotism. It is a dubious quote anyway as it considers Hitler to be an atheist and that is clearly nonsense.

The article is also more focused towards non-state actors (i.e. "group") as opposed to the despotism of sovereign leaders or nations. So in the end you have a quote that neither mentions what this article is about and has factual inaccuracies. We're building a encyclopedia here ! Ttiotsw 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor [1], Dinesh D'Souza maintained that violence perpetrated in the name of God pales by comparison with the violence committed by those who reject religion:

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness. These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

I have removed D'Souza again. Please don't keep adding this in without some good reason as it isn't clear why this is stuck in.

• It does not mention "communism"
• or "communist"
• It does mention "Hitler"

It make no sense at all and it certainly feels fringe to consider Hitler a communist. Ttiotsw 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that the inserted text is more about "believers" versus "atheists" rather than about communist terrorism. So, it is only remotely relevant here. There is a lot of better content to include.Biophys 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be here. Possibly in an article criticizing atheism. He's got a point about atheism not being the solution to war and democide, but the assertion that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious. <<-armon->> 11:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum, removed again. Same reasons i.e. It does not mention "communism" nor "communist" so D'Souza not exactly relevant to an article on Communism. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And removed again. Same reasons i.e. It does not mention "communism" nor "communist" so what D'Souza says is not exactly relevant to an article on Communism is it now ? ps: D'Souza also mentions Hitler. Now last time I checked Hitler was not a communist. Ttiotsw (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! but mao's on there. he's checked in. Lihaas (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is synthesis - D'Souza doesn't mention communism but mentions Mao and to join the two because Mao is communist is synthesising content. D'Souza just doesn't like Atheists. D'Souza raves on about Hitler in the same text and yet Hitler wasn't even a communist nor an atheist. D'Souza can't be used and with Hitler in there even if he mentioned Communist it makes it dubious. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to "ps: D'Souza also mentions Hitler. Now last time I checked Hitler was not a communist." But Mao's grouping and Stalin's are sourced with communism on wikipedia itself. (im not supporting inclusion, but those grounds mentioned above didn't hold for removal) Lihaas (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They do hold for removal as it is still synthesis. If the "communism" was important then D'Souza would have mentioned communism and would not have had Hitler in the text but would only have had Mao and Stalin. He's talking about a completely different thing unrelated to communism. As another example, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all men; does that mean we can put this quote into a section on Feminism ? It doesn't mention feminism or men but you are saying that doesn't seem to matter. So given D'Souza does not mention communism, then that is not the attribute that D'Souza cares about. Thus the D'Souza's quote is not relevant to this article on communist terrorism. The synthesis is that you are joining two facts together to create something else, in this case Mao/Stalin = Communist, and D'Souza says Mao/Stalin killed lots of people ergo they did so as communists. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

State Sponsored Terrorism section removed

This section seems to be completely out of place. This article is about terrorist organisations i.e. non-state actors rather than states. State terrorism has its own article (it fails to mention Hitler, China etc). The quote by R.J. Rummel is extracted from a book titled "DEATH BY GOVERNMENT" has nothing intrinsically wrong with it but it highlights the state focus of the section verses the non-state focus of our article. On another matter, the section by Dinesh D'Souza has been added even though this reference fails to mention "communist", "communism" or "terrorism" - well duh!. This time though it was added with a touch of original work conflating "atheism" with "communism" to kind of make it fit. This is synthesis to try and pack Dinesh's partisan views (on atheism) into this article because you feel it fits here. Ttiotsw 01:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My change was reverted without any discussion. It is creeping the scope of the article to add random partisan quotes that support some POV. It is certainly stretching reality to add Dinesh D'Souza back given he doesn't even mention "communist" etc etc !. Ttiotsw 12:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the title of the text in question was wrong. State terrorism can be committed by any states: US, Russia, China, whatever. However, Communist terrorism (or simply "terror") can be committed or sponsored only by Communist organizations or by Communist states. Then it belongs here, being simulateneously a state terrorism (if committed by Comminist states) and a Communist terrorism.Biophys 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A person who inserted this segment wanted to tell that "Communist terror", as definined for example in the Black Book of Communism, also belongs here. Does it? Let's take a look at definition in WP: "Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants." Well, then "Communnist terror" (even if directed by a state against its own population) is indeed "terrorism". More common term however would be "political repression", which does not preclude to consider this as "terrorism".Biophys 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article?

I suggest to rename this article as Communist terror. This is a more common term (28,000 Google hits and 216 hits for Google scholar) versus 1,100 Google hits for "Communist terrorism".Biophys 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC) However, there is an important difference betwen these two terms. Communist terror is usually applied to Political repressions in Communist countries, whereas Communist terrorism is usually used in a more narrow sense. So, maybe Communist terror should be a separate article?Biophys 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a separate article. The terms are both distinct and broad enough in scope to merit two articles. Biruitorul 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure. For example, one would need to describe the history of communist terrorism, starting from French Revolution, and Russian revolutionary movements of 19th century, as stated by Bakunin, Sergey Nechayev and others. Where it would belong? May be a more conservatiove approach would be to start from extending this article and see if the material fits... I will try to do this, which does not preclude creation of a second article. No renaming. Biophys 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Communist terror" shows up a lot because it is a propaganda term that was popular among the right wing here in the US; it doesn't refer to actual terrorist groups but rather to Soviet domination of east europe in particular and to the threat of Soviet expansionism more generally. "Communist terrorism" gets almost no google hits because it is a bogus term that is not evident in any real scholarship on these topics; this entire page violates WP:SYN and should be deleted or merged (see my comment below). csloat 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! If communist terror is a propaganda term, how then do you explain away the Red Terror?!--85.165.91.156 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a citation needed for the comment that the alternate name for communist terror is revolutionary terror. I believe Leon Trotsky uses the terms interchangeably in his book Terrorism and Communism, the text of which can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/intro.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.179.125 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

merge and AfD

Useful parts of this article should be merged to state-sponsored terrorism. There isn't a category such as "communist terrorism" explicitly recognized in terrorism scholarship, to my knowledge, and most of this article seems like a venue for red-scaring rather than an encyclopedia piece. csloat 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that the article is a "venue for red-scaring" is altogether too facile. "Communist terror" turns up over 30,000 google hits (and the fact that much of it is state terrorism does not diminish the point), "communist terrorism" turns up almost 3,000 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1440 hits. In the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic. It has been used in the mainstream media, see here and here, by major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (here, here and here. Merger or deletion don't make sense and would not likely succeed. Mamalujo 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. This article should be significantly expanded, not reduced or merged. It also seems to be a consensus not to rename this article.Biophys 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Communist terror" does not refer to terrorism at all; the fact that it has a lot of google hits comes from the fact that it is a propaganda term in wide use during the cold war. But as I explained above, it refers to Soviet expansionism generally, not to terrorists with communist ideology. "Communist terrorism" turns up about 2600 google hits that refer to all kinds of different things; the only pages using it the way it used here are copies of this very wikipedia page -- the concept is a pretty clear violation of WP:SYN and I am surprised such a page has existed for very long. A much stronger case can be made for "Maoist terrorism," which refers to something more specific and connected, and doesn't raise the same WP:SYN problems that this page does (though as you note, it is not really that notable). But this page as it is is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy on original research. The citations that you offer actually support the point I am making here - you have a hodgepodge of unconnected articles that you are synthesizing with this concept -- a CBS report from 1970 and Time article from 1967 using the term to describe the Viet Cong, an encyclopedia article describing Singapore's government in the 1950s, a book review describing the North Vietnamese government, an article about Malaysia that doesn't actually use the term at all, and a random bibliography that cites a single self-published article with those words in the title. WP:SYN explicitly prohibits stringing together unconnected sources in this manner. Again, there is no such term in the actual scholarly literature on terrorism; the fact that the phrase is sometimes used in many unconnected places does not make it a distinct encyclopedic entity. I can't see how this page would survive an AfD if the people voting take WP:SYN seriously. (And I think it's a little early to be declaring a "consensus" when we've only been discussing the issue for a few hours). csloat 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate this article for AfD, but this is not going to work. Not only this is a notable subject, but this subject should be described in many articles. How about Terrorism operations by Russian secret services, for example? There also numerous Categories in WP on the subject of "Communist terror".Biophys 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there should be articles about the various terrorist groups, but the non-notable neologism "Communist terrorism" needs to go. It's quite simple, if you take Wikipedia policies seriously. csloat 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

totally disputed tag

I've added the "totally disputed" tag and it should stay until this article is significantly cleaned up. First, it is factually inaccurate to claim that this neologism "communist terrorism" is actually used in the comprehensive way suggested here. Second, the history sections link together anarchists, Nihilists, and Bolsheviks willy-nilly without any real evidence. Third, the article runs together distinct notions such as "Red Terror" and Soviet expansionism with this dubious neologism. Fourth, numerous questionable claims are made here such as the KGB funding the PLO and the like. This may have happened but we can't take a prevaricator like Pacepa's claim at face value - if we're going to make these claims, let's have evidence. Fifth, we need evidence actually connecting various groups under the same umbrella -- it is pretty dubious at best to link the PLO to FARC to RAF to Revolutionary Nuclei to Shining Path... these are very distinct groups with distinct social, cultural, and ideological significance. Finally, and this is most important, we need a clear statement from a reliable source - preferably from within mainstream counterterrorism scholarship rather than from an opinion piece or political magazine - that defines the phrase "communist terrorism" in the way that it is used here. I don't think such a source exists. csloat 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you provided no any valid arguments. No questionable claims was made. If you think one reliable source with regard to PLO, etc. is not enough - that is not a problem. I can provide more scholarly sources. This is well established. I am using reliable mainstream sources, such as scholarly books writen by notable experts. Why did you delete them? Biophys 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the six valid arguments above. csloat 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted material

Please do not restore the material I deleted without explaining why it belongs here. I did not delete things willy-nilly; I explained each removal and I was careful to look at the citations on each one. The fact that a source exists does not mean it is relevant here or that it supports the claim being sourced to it; I explained each removal in an edit summary, so anyone restoring the material ought to show the same concern for the discussion by explaining why they disagree with my assessment of the removed material. Thanks! csloat 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything is supported by sources that you deleted. Do you want me to provide exact pages? That is not a problem.Biophys 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can see, you delete refences on Soviet terrorism from other articles too: [3]. Biophys 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only when they don't belong there. Please stick to the arguments about the issues, not the person making them; thanks. I have explained why these sources are invalid; continuing to add them is not productive. csloat 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should "Communist terrorism" and "Communist terror" be described in the same article?

We need a consensus opinion here. There are two possiblities. (1) "Communist terrorism" and "Communist terror" are two different things. Then I will describe them in two separate articles - no problem. (2) They are basically the same phenomenon and should be described here. I think they should be both described here for the following reasons: (a) the difference between "terrorism" and "terror" is not clear; (b) they both fall under terrorism category as more or less indisriminate violence against civilians to achive political objections by inciting fear (including taking and executing hostages); (c) they have the same historical roots (e.g. the history of Russian 19th century's terrorists would belong to both "terrorism" and 'terror" articles if they are separate). So what do you think?Biophys 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism" is a non-notable neologism that has no currency in any terrorism scholarship of which I am aware. "Communist terror" is a propaganda term that belongs under Red scare or similar. They are not the same phenomena at all -- the first one simply isn't a phenomenon (it is several that are lumped together here in blatant violation of WP:SYN) and the second one is a propaganda term. If they fall under "terrorism," why are there no articles in journals like Terrorism and Political Violence about "Communist terrorism" or "Communist terror"? The "Communist terrorism" article should be deleted, and the "communist terror" could be an article or it could redirect to red scare or soviet expansionism or something like that. csloat 10:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, you need to address the many valid points raised by csloat. Please don't ignore them. smb 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I addressed them already. What we really need here is a consensus opinion if "Communist terrorism" and "Communist terror" should be described in the same or two different articles. That is actually main objection by csloat: he deletes referenced materials on the grounds that "communist terror" does not belong here. If he continue doing so without waiting for opinions of others, I might create second article about "Communist terror". No problem. Biophys 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, biophys, you have not addressed a single one of the six arguments I made above, nor have you in any way defended the dubious citations I deleted. You need to participate in the discussion or stop editing the page. The "consensus" you are asking for is a red herring; first we need to clean out the WP:NOR and WP:SYN violations here and see what is left. Then we can talk about renaming the article if that's where you want to take the discussion, but any renaming is premature with an article so filled with dubious content. By the way, you are misstating my reason for deleting material; that may be the problem. I deleted sources because they do not say what you claim they say. The first citation is not about "communist terrorism," for example; it is simply a definition of "terrorism," something we already have an article on. Hope this helps. csloat 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about renaming this article. Sources do support claims made in this article, I can indicate pages if you ask. You deleted sourced mainstream views, which constitutes WP:NPOV violation.Biophys 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, the sources do not support those claims -- see the example I gave above about the definition of terrorism if you still don't understand. Please stop accusing me of NPOV violation -- I am not invested in a POV here; I'm no fan of the former Soviet union nor of any of these terrorist organizations, so I'm not sure what you're implying by that comment. The point is that the material I am deleting does not support the claims being made in the article. csloat 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They support all claims.Biophys 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No; they do not. I explained that above. If you believe otherwise, you need evidence, not an empty assertion. csloat 07:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys' allegations of NPOV violation

BTW, what cslot is doing is WP:NPOV violation: he deletes sourced views on Communist terrorism/terror.Biophys 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I moved this section - if you want another section for your bogus allegation it is fine, but the above paragraph was responding to the previous section. Second, you are wrong. The material I delete is not because of POV; it is because it violates WP:SYN. Hope this helps. csloat 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources do support claims made in this article, I can indicate pages if you ask. You 'deleted sourced mainstream views, which constitutes WP:NPOV violation.Biophys 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not support those claims. I'm not asking for pages; I am asking for specific evidence (i.e. show me quotes specifically using "communist terrorism" in this way, not quotes defining "terrorism" generally). I find it hard to believe you don't understand this. csloat 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1,100 Google hits and 61 Google scholar hits use "communist terrorism" exactly in this way. As for books I am citing, one should only look in their Index pages, find "terrorism", etc. The corresponding text explains that terrorism was committed either by Communist organizations, or on the orders from Communist Party, such as CPSU. Hence the "Communist terrorism" title of this article. It was not me who created this article with such name, and I am not suggesting now to rename it.Biophys 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 1,100 google hits using it exactly the same way? And 61 scholars! That is great news, Biophys, so you should have no problem finding just one or two sources, preferably scholarly, that specifically define the term in this way. All of the sources I looked at - and certainly all the ones cited in this article - use it in very different ways, and none of them define it explicitly. You cannot synthesize these sources to make up your own definition. csloat 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found sources (scholarly books by notable people, not just newspaper articles), and I cited them. But you simply deleted them (see below). There is no any synthesis here. We are talking about "terrorism" (as defined by cited sources, such as Kautsky) committed by communists (also according to sources). This is subject of this article. Biophys 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one of the sources below is talking about "communist terrorism." This neologism is the problem. Some of the quotes talk about terrorism, some of the quotes are from communists, some are talking about other things (e.g. Red Terror), but not one discusses "communist terrorism." Is this really that difficult to understand? csloat 07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All of them are taking about Communist terrorism that is terrorism or terror committed by communists. This article is not about neologism, but about notable historical phenomenon.Biophys 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations

Csloat, Your deletion of perfectly sourced mainstream views on the terrorism by communists from this article represents clear WP:NPOV violation. This is official WP policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. Obviously, the opinion of socialist Karl Kautsky about communist terrorism is notable. He is talking about terrorism committed by Russian communists. Hence, his view belongs here. Of course, I am going to restore deleted test per WP:NPOV. If you think this text is unbalanced, you are welcome to add alternative views supported by reliable sources.Biophys 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The following texts have been deleted by csloat:

1. In the Summary he deleted text together with supporting references: "... by creating fear After Islamic groups, Communist groups are the largest number of organizations on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The term is also widely used to describe indiscriminate political repressions conducted by the Communist governments against their own civilian populations to incite fear, as for example, Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union Some scholars also treated a man-made hunger as a form of terror

2. German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky and other authors trace origin of the Communist terrorism to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution .

3. He deleted citation of Sergey Nechayev: "The Revolutionist is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose - to destroy it."

4. He deleted citation of Karl Kautsky again: After the October Revolution Bolsheviks began the campaign of Red Terror. According to Marxist Karl Kautsky, "Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all"

5. He deleted citations of Iosef Stalin and Karl Marx: Russian writer and historian Edvard Radzinsky noted that Iosef Stalin himself wrote a nota bene "Terror is the quickest way to new society" beside the following passage in a book by Marx: "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror"

Such blatant violations of WP:NPOV can not stay. All citations of notable historical figures have been deleted, including ones by Iosef Stalin, Karl Marx, Karl Kautsky, and Sergey Nechayev, just as citation of notable scholarly books by Robert Conquest, Stéphane Courtois and others.

Please do not divide this reply to part—Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophys (talk • contribs)

The real NPOV problem here is explained in WP:SYN. You cannot take a bunch of quotes about different phenomena like the above and string them together to write an incredibly POV essay legitimizing fringe theories with a non-notable neologism. csloat 07:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

terrorism vs. "communist terrorism"

Among the WP:SYN violations I removed were several quotations (including from the first sentence of the article) that referred generically to "terrorism" rather than to "communist terrorism." This has been explained over and over; restoring that material to the article after this discussion is extremely disruptive and I hope it won't happen again. The Kautsky material is a case in point -- it does not once use the "communist terrorism" neologism that is being weakly defended by User:Biophys on this page. If we cannot find a simple definition of "communist terrorism" in the multiple sources that Biophys claims exist on this topic, there may be a problem with the topic itself -- for now, however, we should leave the "citation needed" tags where they are, as Jimbo Wales has said it is better to have no information on a page than to have suspect or potentially false information. csloat 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of perfectly sourced mainstream views on the terrorism from this article represents clear WP:NPOV violation. This is official WP policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. Obviously, the opinion of notable socialist Karl Kautsky about communist terrorism is notable. He is talking about terrorism committed by Russian communists. Hence, his view belongs here. Of course, I am going to restore deleted test per WP:NPOV. If you think this text is unbalanced, you are welcome to add alternative views supported by reliable sources.Biophys 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simply quote any non-notable and unrelated passage you want and expect it not to be removed. Material that does not mention "communist terrorism"-- e.g. the Kautsky stuff -- is not relevant here and should not be added. You are doing original research here, which violates Wikipedia policy. Taking a bunch of unrelated quotes and synthesizing them to form a particular case for a particular POV is considered "original research." This is not the first time you have had a problem understanding this concept; I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on original research. Hope that helps. csloat 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

totally disputed tag

Please do not remove this tag, even if you are edit warring on the other material. I stated clearly six arguments above why this tag must stay. Until you deal with them in a satisfactory manner, the tag stays on. Removing it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. csloat 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not do edit warring here. Unlike you, I add more and more sourced material in this article, and I will continue to add more and more material until this matter is settled. Second, I believe you did not provide any valid arguments to justify inclusion of this tag. Hence it should be removed.Biophys 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered one of the six. If you take down the tag again you will be reported to WP:AN/I. csloat 07:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

csloat has provided very clear reasons for the tag. Please do not remove it again. smb 09:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nechaev

The section associating Nechaev with "communist terrorism" needs to be deleted or substantively altered; he was no communist himself and communists today hurl phlegm apoplectically when they mention his name at all. As biographer Michael Prawdin writes, "it was generally known that Nechaev had opposed Marxism and had tried to lay his hands on the Marxist organization only in order to use it for his own purposes.... Nechaev's name disappeared again from the Bolshevist vocabulary. When specialist [Marxist] periodicals have to occupy themselves with him he is again condemned and disowned. [ref: Michael Prawdin, The Unmentionable Nechaev (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961) p. 8.] I think the association of Nechaev with the term "communist terrorism" is a huge stretch, even though there is no doubt he influenced many who encourage terrorism. csloat 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly sources which I cited (such as book by Edvard Radzinsky) claim that Michael Bakunin and Sergei Nechaev (they worked together) to be important theoreticians of Russian revolutionary/communist terrorism. This is mainstream opinion. I can provide more sources if needed. But you are welcome to include an alternative minority opinion, instead of deleting mainstream opinion as you did (which is a WP:NPOV violation.Biophys 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why can't you find a single citation using the phrase "communist terrorism" in this manner? This is not mainstream at all; Prawdin's biography is well known and the point has never been contested by anyone who knows anything about what they're talking about - pick up any mainstream communist journal and you will see Nechaev completely discredited the few times they bother to mention him at all. I'd love to see if you have citations that say anything else but you simply don't. csloat 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

clarification?

Can we get some more information on the sources cited here:

Later on, Soviet secret services worked to establish a network of terrorist front organizations and have been described as "the primary instructors of terrorists worldwide"

Does the quoted passage exist in all three of the sources, and if so where? Who is being quoted? csloat 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement corrected. Now all three sources support the statement.Biophys 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you removed the quote marks and that somehow makes the sources support the statement? I ask again, where? And who is being cited here? csloat 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

npov section tag

I tagged the section "Promotion of terrorist organizations worldwide by Communist states" with an npov tag because it is a WP:UNDUE violation; it highlights and portrays as mainstream the WP:FRINGE theories of Pacepa, which have been disputed by many. If we are going to include this material at all, we need to clarify that Pacepa's view is on the fringe. csloat 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not only opinion by Pacepa. So, I added an additional source.Biophys 05:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is complete nonsense, which is why Pacepa is the only idiotesteemed source who you can find making that claim. Adding a mitrokhin footnote with no page number and no indication what you are actually referencing from the book does not help you. Are you willing to support the claim that Mitrokhin says that the KGB created the PLO (as well as those other orgs)? Then why aren't you adding this nonsense to the PLO page, where we learn the organization was established in the Middle East and largely controlled by Egypt in the early days, and where the KGB is not mentioned a single time at all? This is complete BS and you know it. If it has to be here at all we need to make clear it is on the utter fringe of conspiracy theory. You're basically in Lyndon Larouche territory here; this non-notable nonsense should not be legitimated by wikipedia. csloat 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I've put the page up for AfD. Please do not monkey with the tags any further; it is extremely disruptive. If the page survives AfD, the six arguments listed above (here) must be discussed and responded to before the "Totally-disputed" tag may be removed. As it is now, this page is full of WP:FRINGE material that is synthesized in an illegitimate manner in order to make a case for a non-notable neologism. I asked supporters to offer some evidence of its use in the manner described here, and all I've gotten so far is more out of context quotes from User:Biophys that do not even mention the phrase "communist terrorism." csloat 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The page will also need reworking to accommodate other points of view. smb 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It is exactly what I am doing here and what csloat does not allow me to do. Of course, we are talking not about our views, but about views expressed in the literature. Everyone is very welcome to include alternative views supported by reliable (better scholarly) sources. Instead, csloat deleted perfectly reliable references which describe mainstream views on this subject. He says this is WP:SYN and deleted all references to Kautsky. I am citing work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky in the article "Communist terrorism". What kind of WP:SYN is that? We should first agree to restore ALL statements supported by reliable sources in this article per WP:NPOV policy, and then go from there. Would you support that?Biophys 18:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Another important note. I made several changes in reply to criticism be csloat and included more materials. But csloat blindly reverted everything.Biophys 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not incorporating other points of view; you are adding more references that do not discuss "communist terrorism" in violation of WP:SYN. This page is not about "Communism and terrorism"; it is about "Communist terrorism." If you want to make a page called "Communism and terrorism" I think you would have a better page that was more likely to survive AfD. But this page elevates a non-notable neologism to the status of a factual phenomenon, without ever actually defining the neologism. Why not merge whatever is useful here to a page on Communism and terrorism or Terrorist ideologies or The Soviet Union and international terrorism? There is no need to invent phrases out of whole cloth and write original essays here. I'm not sure such a page is necessary anyway; we already have pages for each of the terrorist organizations listed. csloat 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about neologism. It is about terrorism committed by communists. Hence all the references and text are relevant.Biophys 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a substantive answer of any kind. You need to acknowledge and address the points above, not keep ignoring them. smb 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Csloat writes that this article is "not about "Communism and terrorism"; it is about 'Communist terrorism.'" Yes, and obviously the two have nothing to do with each other. It's like people citing to the sources about the "Second World War" in the "World War II" article. Plainly user: Csloat's claims that of WP:SYN, lack of notability and neologism are totally unfounded. Mamalujo 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article currently is about terrorism committed by communists. If the title is wrong, the article should be renamed, not deleted. I asked about a possible renaming, but there is no consensus so far. Biophys 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article should neither be renamed nor deleted (and neither is likely to happen). It's fine as it is. It just needs more sourcing and more info on communist state terrorism. Mamalujo 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is a false analogy. Second world war is a synonym for World War II. "Communism and terrorism" is completely distinct from "Communist terrorism." The first is a phrase linking two separate concepts; the second describes a third concept altogether.csloat 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

do not remove disputed tags

Please do not remove disputed tags until the disputes are resolved; so far they have been ignored. I suggest that if this page survives AfD (as it appears it will) it should be renamed to The Soviet Union and terrorism so that the title is no longer a non-notable neologism. As it is, this title describes something that we have no reliable sources defining or using consistently. csloat 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further edits

If we want to work productively here, let's agree about some rules. Adding new references and materials is fine. However, if someone wants to delete some sourced text, let's discuss such changes here or make only one deletion at a time and then discuss.Biophys 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) We must have a consensus opinion about each deletion of material.Biophys 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I discussed every deletion in the edit summaries. I also established the basis of the tags you keep deleting. Do not delete dispute tags again (or change them while deceptively claiming you are "including" a different tag). Please deal with the six arguments above to start off with before messing with the tags; thanks. csloat 05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change proposal

I suggest moving this article to Communism and terrorism, since it will allow those defending the article to talk about what they want to talk about without resorting to non-notable neologisms like "Communist terrorism." There are still a lot of problems with the article in terms of WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE, but at least we wouldn't continue a fruitless battle over the neologism. A more thorough rewriting would include a section on "Soviet support of terrorist groups," with subsections on the various groups, as well as a section on "Soviet state terror" and a section on "Communist ideology and terrorism" or some such to include such materials as quotes from Kautsky. I think this would help address the original research problem. csloat 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It would give us a sold base from which to work from.smb 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Many AfD participants said that the existing title is fine. Also, there is no OR here. You have deleted texts supported by muliple reliable sources: [4]. There are no WP:FRINGE sources here. I cited best experts in the world on the communist terrorism subjects, such as Ion Mihai Pacepa, Christopher Andrew and Stanislav Lunev from great scholarly books and other reliable sources.Biophys 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is filled with WP:OR. There is no basis for the term "communist terrorism"; I think the "Communism and terrorism" title is much more accurate. Pacepa is not the "best expert in the world"; he is a fringe conspiracy theorist. The theories of Lunev are similarly wacko -- he's the one who warned of backpack nukes buried all around the midwest, and of Chinese paratroopers in california. These conspiracy theorists may be notable, but they are surely on the fringe. Andrew's work on the Mitrokhin archive has been good but the material itself is nevertheless generally considered dubious. In any case, that is a separate discussion from the simple name change I am advocating. It will help if everyone would sign your votes below: csloat 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said that Lunev is waco? References please. Who said that Christopher Andrew is not a good expert? References please. Who said that Pacepa is a conspiracy theorist? Note that someone who criticize Andrew and Pacepa should be a better expert on espionage/terrorism matters than Andrew and Pacepa. I would say that Pacepa is also an expert-witness since he personally planned such operations.Biophys 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Look up Lunev yourself and see the nonsense he has said... You may not agree that it is wacko but it doesn't matter - what matters is he is a fringe voice and that his theories are rejected by most everyone. For you to paint him as "the best expert in the world" is laughable. Same with Pacepa -- he may claim to have planned such operations but it's pretty clear he has made most of that stuff up (e.g. that the KGB created the PLO? Come on!). As for Andrew, I did not say he "is not a good expert"; re-read what I wrote. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree so I am not going to debate this with you - what matters is that these are fringe sources. But that is a completely separate discussion than the name of this article. csloat 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pacepa is a low quality source. See his conjecture about Russia hiding Iraq's WMD. [5]

So far, you provided exactly zero souces to support your claims.Biophys 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Pacepa and Andrew do not tell that KGB created PLO; they tell KGB supported and funded PLO.Biophys 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pacepa said the KGB created the PLO[6]. All of these sources are heavily disputed; Pacepa and Lunev are so bad as to be unusable. Seriously, man -- a Chinese communist army in Texas? csloat 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa is a crackpot who believes the 2003 anti-war protests were organised by Moscow [7], that Lee Harvey Oswald was a KGB assassin, [8] and that Moscow hid Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. [9] What sources do we need to support the statement that Pacepa is a conspiracy theorist? The answer is none, since it has already been established by Pacepa himself. smb 20:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you provided exactly ZERO sources proving that any of these statements by Pacepa are wrong. There is a plenty of other reliable sources claiming that peace movements in US have been partly funded from Moscow (and still funded from Moscow), or that Harvey Oswald was a KGB assassin, which is not to say this is proven or necessarily true. As about involvement of Russian special forces in Iraq, this is a controversial topic, where all points of view should be represented. None of sources that satisfy WP:Source can be selectively deleted, as you did.Biophys 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are several sources cited above -- sources such as Pacepa and Lunev. Sources may be deleted if they are being used to synthesize an original research position, as you are using them here. They may also be deleted if they give undue weight to conspiracy theories far outside of the mainstream, such as Pacepa's and Lunev's theories that the KGB invented the PLO or that the Chinese army is waiting in Mexico to take over Texas. These views can be covered on a page about conspiracy theories, or can be noted on a page where they belong, but they do not tell us anything about so-called "communist terrorism." You know, you would have a stronger argument for these sources if you accepted the name change, which makes me curious what your argument is against it (see my comment below).csloat 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found out about this thread, but let's get some fact straight here; 1)Pacepa didn't say that the anti-war demonstrations of 2003 were organized by Moscow. He said they were organized by a group created by Moscow in the 1950's. The fact is that most of the anti-war demonstrations are organized by various communist factions and splinter groups. 2)The PLO was actually created by Egypt, not the KGB. But Egypt and the PLO did have full support from the KGB at the time. ----DanTD (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the name change and vote

You know, the above discussion about sources has little to do with the name change. Can someone who votes for the current name please state why they support it? I think I have clearly spelled out why "Communism and terrorism" is a superior name. Do you guys have a reason? csloat 21:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Change to "Communism and terrorism"

1. csloat 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
2. smb 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
3. --Pan Gerwazy 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep as "Communist terrorism"

1. Biophys 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Mamalujo 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Martintg 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
4. DanTD (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sourced material

Some editors have engaged in whole sale deletion of sourced material on very flimsy grounds. For example, Pacepa's treatment of the idea of communist terrorism is properly included in this article as are the other matters which were deleted. As the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected, he is a proper source. The fact that some people may disagree with a source does not mean it is fringe. Please include the views of those who are in disagreement for balance rather than deleting sourced material just because you don't like what they are saying. Mamalujo 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Material was deleted for violations of WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE; each deletion was explained clearly in the edit summaries. Please justify whatever text you want to add by specifically addressing these concerns. Thanks! csloat 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is how Csloat always explains his deletions of sourced text from WP articles, in violation of WP:NPOV. Note that he provided zero sources which would prove his allegations of WP:FRINGE.Biophys 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There are sources above. It's not just the FRINGE issue though it is also the SYN issue that prevails in this case. Please note that every single deletion was explained clearly in the edit summary for that particular deletion. csloat 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that Csloat deletes majority views and claims that sourced majority views are WP:UNDUE violations. If he thinks that Pacepa or Andrew are wrong when they describe specific examples of communist-sponsored terrorism, he must provide alternative sources that say something different about these specific examples of terrorism. But he can not. Furthermore, even if he provides alternative sources, he can not delete sourced views of Pacepa and Andrew per WP:NPOV.Biophys 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe the PLO was invented by the KGB, why aren't you trying to insert that information on this page or this page? csloat 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I am not editing other articles? Because I spent my time for arbitration case. I added though a few sentences about PLO and PFLP in this article.Biophys 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism or sabotage

Term terrorism usually describes acts of violence against civilians (that is people) committed to incite fear for political purposes. Term sabotage usually describes destruction of non-human objects, such as infrastructure or military objects, although if this is civilian infrastructure, it is often also described as "terrorism". The bottom line: the term "terrorism" was used exactly as in all cited sources.Biophys 14:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is looking very dubious. It did not actual get effected, it was planned and it is certainly unclear if the purpose was to promote communism (the political creed) rather than Soviet Nationalism or pre-emptive strikes to protect the Soviet state. I think we need to temper this somewhat or fork what is Soviet preparations for war.

It is fine that the large list of non-state actors of a communist disposition committed actual acts of terror (i.e. real blood and gore and material damage) and certainly have a place in this article but the section "Preparations for terrorism and sabotage operations against Western countries" is conjecture as to what was to be planned by the Soviet State/KGB. The US, UK and Europe nations would have had equally dubious methods (The US and UK certainly would have targeted civilian targets with nuclear capability and via proxies have not slowed certain use of WMD in the form of chemical weapons (Iraq and the Western suppliers of the precursors for chemical weapons is a case in point). I'm leaning towards this section not being here at all. Ttiotsw 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem with having an undefined neologism as the title of this article. csloat 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been described as Soviet terrorism in the books. The weapons cashes were actually planted and discovered later - this is not just planning. The planning itself took years of work to complete. That was a part of Soviet preparations for war, but such "active measures" can be activated at any time, not necessarily in the event of war. Soviet preparations for war is a notable but a much wider topic. Any terrorism act includes two stages: planning and execution. So, the planning belongs here too.Biophys 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Which books have described it as "Soviet terrorism"? Have they called it "Communist terrorism"? When were Soviet weapons caches actually found in the Shenandoah Valley? I'm surprised it didn't make the news here in the U.S. csloat 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Csloat

This particular source said the following:

"According to Soviet military plans, very well advanced, maybe a few months, maybe a few weeks, of course, a few hours before real war would be placed against his country (the U.S.), Russian Special Operations Forces need to come here and pick up weapons systems, because they will fly here as tourists, businessmen.

"According to their tasking, in a few hours they need to physically destroy, eliminate American military chains of command, President, Supreme Commander in Chief, Vice President, Speaker of the House, military commanders, especially to cut the head from the American military chain of command," Lunev said.

"The question is whether or not bin Laden has had access to nuclear material," Weldon said. "I think it is better than a 50-50 chance that he does."

And finally,

Weldon said later the FBI discredited Lunev, saying that he exaggerated things, but another federal agency that Weldon declined to identify protects Lunev in an undisclosed location in the U.S. He said Lunev's credentials as a ranking GRU spy assigned to the U.S. have never been questioned.

Bout you selected only one thing: "FBI discredited Lunev" to "prove" your point. We must avoid such POV-pushing. Sorry, but I am not going to discuss anything else with you, as not to interfere with standing ArbCom case.04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I selected the item that was relevant to the topic of the page. This is not about proving any points. You are the one parading Lunev around as a credible source; nobody in their right mind takes him seriously. He's recycling the same bogus charges that Alexander Lebed was spouting a few years earlier. The government of Russia denied it. The US State Department denied it and said they felt the Russians were telling the truth. The alleged weapons were all accounted for. Lunev comes a couple years later and spouts the same nonsense and the FBI laughs at him. You stick it up here like it's a reliable source, even going so far as to say he is mainstream, and then when I include the FBI's assessment on the page you censor it, and replace it with a bunch of unrelated nonsense about Osama bin Laden (who is completely irrelevant to this page). Then you tell me I am "POV-pushing"? This does not look good for you Biophys. csloat 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That was not FBI assessment, as you have written. That was claim (bla-bla-bla) by Curt Weldon who has been investigated by FBI himself. Biophys 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And you have evidence he was lying? About something the FBI said? He was the only one treating Lunev as credible, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. He said this on the House floor by the way. csloat 05:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No difference between "terrorism" and "terror"

One source. which explicitly said they are the same, was work by Karl Kautsky cited in this article. Another work is "Defence of Terrorism" (note the title) by Lev Trotsky. He said there: "...the historical tenacity of the bougeoisie is colossal... We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish." (cited from "Black book", page 749). So they did. Biophys 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant POV Violations

The U.S. State Department does not qualify as a reliable, objective source on the issue of terrorism. It is part of the same regime that illegally has called the military of Iran a terrorist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.211.115 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the military of Iran has backed Fundamentlaist Islamic terrorism, mostly Shiites, I'd say that does qualify them as a reliable, objective source. ----DanTD (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The state department can be a reliable source, in combination with others.

In response to the above, it does not label its friends as terrorist. Just the same as Iran has backed fundamentalist regimes partaking in terror so has the US. Does this qualify Iran or Venezuela as an objective source? According, to your logic above (DanTD) it should. Lihaas (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party and Nepal Maoists

I have deleted the part on the Kurdistan Workers party. It has nothing to do with communism. The party does not call itself communist and our article on them (in tempore insuspecto) does not call them communist. And since the word "communist" is used here to refer to Maoists, Trotskist, Stalinists and whatever, the repercussion is clear: you cannot have it both ways. The major reason why Kurds support this party is not its left leanings (that would be WP:FRINGE by the way), but the fact that it stands up for the Kurdish identity in a state which claims that there is no such thing as Kurds, but only mountain-Turks.

The Nepal part is very economical with the truth. It is contradicted by our own article on Politics in Nepal. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SO what factual accuracy for the Nepalis do you dispute? Tell us so we can correct it. Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Making the article balanced with a response

I tried to make the article balanced by adding the following

Leon Trotsky, a major theoretician of Communism, has stated, "The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister—all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international Social Democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism and does so in the most irreconcilable way." "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism". Marxists.org. November 1911. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is good citation by Trotsky. Lenin was also opposed to the "individual terrorism acts" as inefficient to overthrough the government, although he supported bank robberies by Stalin to fund the revolutionary activities. Lenin believed that state terror is much more efficent Biophys (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party

• delete, this group is not communist: see its own article

Kurdistan Workers Party was indeed communist. They changed their ideology somewhere along the line to a degree though. -- Cat ^chi? 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not ony it was a communist organization, but it has been supported by the Soviet KGB in the past. Not any more? Right. But it has been in the past and therefore belongs to this article.15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no trace of the KGB in the Kurdistan Workers party's article. And sponsoring someone may have other reasons than ideological similarity. The German Kaiser sponsored Lenin - was the Kaiser a communist, or was Lenin a German nationalist? It would not surprise me if even after 1991 the PKK were helped by the Russians, as Turkey sponsored the Chechen insurgents ([10]), after all. As for the change in ideology: Marxist does not mean communist, Kautsky was a Marxist. And the final point: the European Court has just ruled that the EU should not have put them on the terror list ([11])! So we have a chapter here about a group which the European Court claims is not terrorist and which never called itself communist - and all that for some rubles found on a militant as he was about to be tortured? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Atheist terrorism"

As a comment to such edits... People, if you want to make an article Atheist terrorism (now this is a wrong redirect), you are welcome to do this, although it would hardly survive AfD. But such materials do not belong here.Biophys (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ETA

Why are ETA listed here? It could be fair enough, but then the IRA certainly need to be here too.And a whole host of european insurgencies (Greece, Italy, Germany, etc) Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome to include any communist terrorist organizations here if the sources define them "terrorist" and "communist" or perhaps even "socialist" or "left-wing".Biophys (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed, ETA doesn't have any sources for its claim here. Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You just marked some sections as unsourced. This is fine, but some of them are actually sourced. If you think that a specific phrase was unsourced, please mark that phase. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The labels you removed were not the ones I added. In fact, I commented about the Nepal-Maoist one in this discussion section too. We can further the debate and then remove it. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_terrorism&diff=231381848&oldid=231248782 Lihaas (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you want other labels to be restored, please explain why.Biophys (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the removal of the labels were not discussed with consensus. I contributed to the Maoist-Nepal discussion above, but there's no consensus on it, yet.

Why were was the tag from "Promotion of terrorist organizations by Communist states" removed with consensus/debate? Also the main the citations missing tag? You acknowledge that the valid tags stating unreferenced section should stay, and since there are unreferenced/uncited sections then clearly needs "Citations missing." Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. If whole paragraph was unsourced, mark it as unsourced. If a prhase was, mark the phrase. As about other labels, consensus may change. If you have any specific objections, please state them here and wait for reply. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has been followed. Again, very simply, if there are places which are unsourced it clearly means that the article is missing citations. To remove a tag you need consensus, there was no debate on the above mentioned topics yet the tags were removed. I put in my 2 cents in the respective section and await a response. It doesn't mean the tag can be removed pending consensus, it NEEDS consensus to be removed. Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we fully agree about placements of citation tags. As about other tags, they were placed without any consensus at the first polace. Please look at WP:Consensus. There is nothing to forbid deletion of the tags there.Biophys (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Given about the criticism tags you removed. (We can still continue the discussion above). But for the citations missing tag you have not answered that. We both agreed that the 3-4-odd sections need an unreferenced tag. But since there is a section that is unreferenced then clearly the article needs more citations as a whole because those sections below are part of the article. Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be bold and include the missing citations.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Ill do it. Just putting the missing tag back on till then. Ill do it in the next 48 hours or so. Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorist organizations

Left-wing terrorist organizations aim to promote leftism by attacking right wing targets. Specific groups may claim to be liberal, socialist or communist, or of one specific form of these.

• Action Directe (AD), an anti-NATO organization responsible for the 1986 murder of Georges Besse. Banned by the French government in 1982.
• Antifascist Resistance Groups October First (GRAPO) - Spain (1975-present)
• Communist Party of India (Maoist) - India (2004-present)
  • as the People's War Group, currently taking part in insurgencies throughout many eastern Indian states. Formed by merger of earlier left-wing groups, some active since 1970.
• Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - Nepal (1994-present)
  • currently taking part in disarmament and cooperation in a new interim government for Nepal
• Japanese Red Army aka Sekigun - Japan (1971-present)
• Khmer Rouge - Cambodia (early 1970s-1979)
• New People's Army - Philippines
• Red Army Faction (RAF) aka Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader-Meinhof Group - Germany (1970–1993)
• Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse in Italian, often abbreviated as the BR) - Italy (1970–present)
• Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N) - Greece
• Revolutionary Struggle (Epanastatikos Agonas) - Greece
• Revolutionary Nuclei - Greece
• Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - Colombia
• National Liberation Army - Colombia
• Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) - Peru (active since the late 1960s)
• Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) - Peru

• Umkhonto we Sizwe - South Africa (1961-1990)
• Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP/C) - Turkey

Other

• United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) - Assam, India (1979-present)
• ETA (Basque Fatherland and Liberty) - Spain and southern France (1959-present).
• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers) - Sri Lanka (1972-present)
• National Council of Resistance of Iran (MKO front) - Iran
• Armed Islamic Group (GIA) - France, Algeria (1992-present)
• National Front for the Liberation of Corsica (FLNC) - Corsican separatist.
• The World Uighur Youth Congress - International Uighur Seperatist Organization
• East Turkestan Information Centre - China
• Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) - China
• Eastern Turkestan Liberation Organization (ETLO) - China

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Political bias

"After Islamic groups, Communist groups comprise the largest number of organizations on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations."

Is it just me that thinks that this part is biased? As neutrality is preferred on wikipedia, how can this be called neutral? What makes the US state departement list more 'all-knowing' and 'all-seeing' than any other list? Has it a reason for being there? It rather seems to be a piece of accusation to an 'evil' part of which is supported by an implicitly biased source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxasmirl (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be deleted

Seems to be original research. The term "Communist Terrorist" was coined by the British to refer to insurgents in the Malayan emergency and otherwise is not a commonly used term. This article combines state terror in Communist countries, Communist state-sponsered terrorism, Communist sabotage and terrorism by unrelated small-"c" communists and other leftists. There is already a List of designated terrorist organizations. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a POV fork of Red terror

Currently this article is a POV fork of Red terror. Apparently it confuses state terror with terrorism. Repressions by the state cannot be termed 'terrorism' at any rate. There is such thing as terrorism by leftist organizations as well as revolutionary terrorism about which things this article shgould be.--Dojarca (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Repressions by the state cannot be termed 'terrorism' at any rate." Said who?Biophys (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Repressions by the state cannot be termed 'terrorism' at any rate. - uh, I guess that's why we have an article on State terrorism, right? Please don't delete sourced material. And no, this isn't a POV fork of anything. If you want to write some kind of different article on revolutionary leftist terrorism or whatever, please do so.radek (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I already responded this question above. Communism theoreticions including Trotsky and Kautsky did not make any differences between two.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The both sources claimed do not equate state tettor and terrorism. No such claims in the sources cited. Anyway we have article Red Terror.--Dojarca (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral, undiscussed, unwarranted and inaccurate move

Dojarca, why did you move the article? The article is specifically about Communist terrorism, NOT about Leftist terrorism - unless you plan on adding a section on how Obama's Beer summit was an instance of terrorism (he did have a Bud Light!) or something. Also I think that 95% of Leftists would be insulted if you called them "Communists". So how about moving it back to the original name, and opening up a real RM before making disruptive changes like that?

You've also made massive deletions of sourced material, but one thing at a time.radek (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. This should be first discussed and voted, prior to any movement.Biophys (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So perpetrators of French revolution were communists in your view?--Dojarca (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Trace the origins" my friend. Anyway - open up a RM for a move rather than doing so unilaterally and in the face of objections. That'd be the proper Wiki way to do it.radek (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What objections? The article tells not only about communists. It is evident. Any objections? Russian revolutionary terrorism by Narodnaya Volya was also not by communists.--Dojarca (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What??!? The whole article is about terrorist communist movements. The French Revolution and some other movements like the Narodniki are, properly, given in the "history/background" section. Seriously - either put something about Obama's "terrorism" in here or quit insulting leftists.radek (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And please open up an RM.radek (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you could object it by coordinated vote by your Cabal?--Dojarca (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, quit it. Rather than making the same ad hominen attack over and over again how about actually making an argument. You're pretty much required to open up an RM if there are objections and no consensus to changing the name from its current one.radek (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the current situation is very special.--Dojarca (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Every situation is "special" and that's no excuse for not following Wikipedia guideline. The "specialness" of this situation is not carte blanche for disruptive behavior.radek (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW. Ok. I'll add something about non-communist left-wing terror--Dojarca (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, what you should probably due in that case, is start a NEW article, as the topic is different. Think about - you can get a DYK for it too.radek (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No need for new article as most left-wing groups describe themselves as communist. --Dojarca (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WHAT??????? Are you being serious????? Give me one, just one, reliable source for that.radek (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article in your version apparently designed to present the USSR as a "terrorist state" and political repressions as terrorism which is not appropriate, not neutral and contains original research.--Dojarca (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union under Stalin is most certainly referred to as a "terrorist state" [12] or as being related to terrorism in reliable sources.radek (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW! Herr Hitler is a reliable source? --Dojarca (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Let me try this again. WHAT??????? You either haven't bothered to actually look at the source I provided or are just making crap up (again). BTW, the answer to your question is, no, of course not (patience ... wearing ... thin ... thinner... thinner ... must try ... to answer ... ). However, Peter Dobell is a reliable source.radek (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you still insist on your version, I'll open an RFC case on the issue.--Dojarca (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just move it back to its original name first.radek (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article should be moved back. A long AfD did not result in neither deletion nor consensus to remove. WP:RM is the proper procedure to follow in such cases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved article back to original title. Clearly no consensus for substantial change (as evidenced by page move warring, motivating move protection): establish consensus first. Rd232 ^talk 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Was USSR a terrorist state?

The original name of this article was "Communist terrorism" and summed up information on worldwide activity of terrorist groups described themselves as "communist". Over time the article has been occupied by members of WP:EEML group who included state repressions in the USSR as example of terrorism so to conclude the USSR was a terrorist state. Although state and revolutionary terror in the USSR and Soviet Russia is not disputed (see Red Terror), the question is whether such events should be included as examples of terrorism. Vladimir Lenin for example, rejected terrorism as a means or revolutionary activity but was a proponent of the Red Terror.

Another question is the article's title. Should it remain as Leftist terrorism to include wider range of political groups or be moved to its original location at Communist terrorism as the WP:EEML group participants insist.

Third question is whether the existence of the article justified at all and is not it just a POV fork of Political terrorism or Red terror. In fact the article Left-wing terrorism has been turned into redirect to Political terrorism after a discussion [13] back in 2006 as inherently POV fork of Political terrorism. It is not evident why the same argument should not be applied to this article as well.

--Dojarca (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The original name of this article was "Communist terrorism" and summed up information on worldwide activity of terrorist groups described themselves as "communist". It still is.

Over time nobody occupied the article, just Biophys edited it once or twice.

Whether or not Soviet Union was a terrorist state is actually a separate question as to whether this article should be named "Communist terrorism" or "Leftist terrorism". That is best settled with reliable sources rather then with ... well, somebody's personal opinion backed up by "scare stories" about "EEML" who have hardly edited this article, AFAIK.

"Leftist terrorism" is a silly title for several reasons:

1. All the information in the article is about explicitly communist groups engaged in terrorism, not, say the Liberal Democrats or Obama or the multitude of leftist parties that have nothing to do with terrorism or communism.
2. In fact, this is because, outside of communism, lefties parties don't have crap to do with terrorism - despite Dojarca's extremely strange assertion that "most left-wing groups describe themselves as communist". I mean maybe some Eco-terrorist groups or something but those got their own article already.
3. The discussion at [14] is actually an argument for why this should NOT be under "Leftist terrorism" (since such a title doesn't make sense). What's probably going on here is a bit of "groundwork building" for a delete vote; move this to "Leftist terrorism" and then say, "oh look, ridiculous POV article! Should be deleted!". There's no problem if this stays under it's current title (which is "Communist terrorism" despite Dojarca's move warring).radek (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if somebody needs to change the first sentence of the lead when moving the article - they're obviously thinking of another article and that basically shows the move is unwarranted.

Also, whether or not USSR was a "terrorist state" is not what the primary dispute is about.radek (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure what the purpose of this RFC is when the issue seems to be page name / focus, but Terrorist state isn't a thing (Terrorist states is, but just redirects to state-sponsored terrorism - draw your own conclusions). Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure either. First let's get the name straight to prevent any move-warring. Then we can talk about what belongs in and what doesn't.radek (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism has nothing to do with terror

Only anti-Communist sources calll the USSR "terrorist state". This is non-neutral.--Dojarca (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll let that comment speak for itself, along with "most left-wing groups describe themselves as communist".radek (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seens you do not respect NPOV policy.--Dojarca (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I respect it. I respect it very much, which is why I'm objecting here. But it seems you do not *understand* NPOV policy.radek (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's always enlightening to discover in WP people like Radek, who suddenly realize that the knew TRUE understanding of NPOV. With tears of joy, I remembered my first ever edit on Stomakhin article and Biophys TRUE "NPOV" correction afterwards.Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss content not editors please.radek (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And as far as the title of this section goes... oh boy ... please see Newspeak.radek (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you probably describe the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror as terrorism as well... Seriously, no scholarly sources conflate terror in the Soviet sense and terrorism (the latter is generally defined in the CIA sense). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, whenever somebody starts a response with "Then you probably (also)..." it's a pretty good indication that they're setting up a strawman argument.radek (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, when people frivolously accuse others of making straw men in a discussion, they do not probably understand the function that an analogy performs. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to "mock" my statements by copying their syntax. Pointing out that someone's argument is based on a logical fallacy is not "combative" or an "attack" - it's how arguments are made. And there was nothing "frivolous" in my statement.radek (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you addressed the points raised instead of clamoring "straw man!" As this older, more reliably sourced [15], and somewhat more appropriately balanced version of the page has it,

The term "Red Terror" was originally[5] used to describe the last six weeks of the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution, ending on July 28, 1794 (execution of Robespierre), to distinguish it from the subsequent period of the White Terror[6] (historically this period has been known as the Great Terror (French: la Grande Terreur))."

To the extent that any serious scholars discuss Bolshevik terror or "terrorism", it is most often introduced by analogy with the Reign of Terror in the pre-Bonapartist revolutionary France – not, say, the Red Army Faction, or Osama bin Laden, or the Polish-American math wiz Ted Kaczynski, as very fittingly also noted in this older version. Whereas the present version's lede reads:

Communist terrorism (also revolutionary terrorism) is terrorism committed by Leftist organizations against state officials, police, military or civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.[1][2][3] After Islamic groups, left-wing groups comprise the largest number of organizations on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[citation needed] The term is also widely used by anti-communists to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union.[4]

The present article attempts to graft the revolutionary theory of popular terror against anti-revolutionary strata such as the nobility and the bourgeois classes onto the sort of Osama-style terror that Lenin actually condemned repeatedly (read some of his thoughts on the "individualist terror" of the Socialist Revolutionary group). Which is specifically one of the article's problems as a POV fork that attempts to conflate different phenomena. At the same time it doesn't even try to approach the subject from a scholarly point of view, which makes essential distinctions on this note. I suggest we try de-POVing it. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you still owe Jacurek an apology.radek (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it wrong: it goes the other way around. (And I'm still waiting for your mailing list apology.) Oh, and this isn't the place for personal bickering. Seriously, R. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Says something about you, when you can't even apologize to somebody - for calling them something really offensive - when you were clearly wrong.radek (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you once already. I'm not going to respond to somebody who's obviously being incivil, despite repeated request to refrain from that kind of behavior.radek (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's also pretty obvious that you haven't bothered to actually read the article - at least not in awhile, or you wouldn't be arguing about this.radek (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm contrasting what some are trying to do with this article with Red Terror, that's the page whose old version I gave. Compare the difference. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)