Talk:Communist terrorism

A 1RR restriction is now in effect

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, and after a discussion at WP:AE I am placing this article under 1RR. No editor may revert this article more than once in any 24-hour period. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. Violations of the 1RR may be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism and Vietcong

Since there was no consensus to add the below text to the main article, and because main issues (neutrality, correctness of interpretation of the sources, etc.) have not been addressed, I moved the section to the talk page for improvement and (hopefully) adding it back to the main article. The issues that need to be addressed are described in the previous discussion on this talk page and on the WP:NPOVN#Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This content certainly looks to be properly sourced, and I see no impediment to adding the content as written. Let's dispense with arguments over "neutrality"—that's too often a code-word for "I don't like it." Let's address where you believe the content specifically misrepresents a source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Every source used describes the actions written as communist terrorism, I shall put this back as reliably sourced content. Tentontunic (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer not to elaborate a mutually acceptable version on the talk page, but to modify each other's text directly in the main article, I don't mind. I added some text and modified the existing one to put it into a broader context of the Vietnam War. It is also necessary to remember that, since many, if not majority sources call Vietcong not "terrorists" but "insurgents", "partisans" or "guerilla bands", the usage of just one of these terms is against a policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and what a wonderful job you have done, you replaced academic press sources for St. Martin's Press a publisher of popular books, Penguin Books I mean seriously? For statements of fact? PublicAffairs you have really got to be kidding me here? A publisher of politics and current affairs? Sorry but these sources are junk, I shall have to revert your changes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't do that without providing a serious ground. In addition, I think Stanley Karnow is notable enough to be trusted. I also added an additional source that states essentially the same, but in more details (a story of decapitation or disemboweling of political opponents is the most striking), I also plus added this information about the events preceding the partisan war. In my opinion, it is useful for a reader to know that the atrocities of partisans came not from nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in the Vietnam War In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. In Saigon terrorist actions have been described as "long and murderous" The firing of automatic weapons, planting bombs and throwing grenades were the tactics used. The prime minister of the time Tran Van Huong was shot in an attempted assassination.

Infant victim of Dak Son massacre

The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War. with some estimates saying up to 5000 dead. The United States Army recorded as killed, "3800 killed in and around Huế, 2786 confirmed civilians massacred, 2226 civilians found in mass graves and 16 non Vietnamese civilians killed. Some apologists have claimed the majority of deaths were caused by US bombing in the fight to retake the city, however the vast majority of dead were found in Mass Graves outside the city.

Historian Douglas Pike has also described as a terrorist act the Dak Son Massacre. On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children. In May, 1967 Dr. Tran Van-Luy informed the World Health Organisation "that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries, maternity homes and hospitals"

Guys, I believe we need to stop that. Under "that" I mean the last addition to this section:[1], which, in my opinion, is intended to demonstrate that the Vietcong partisans were more cruel than their opponents. Of course, I could, in response, add that the Ngô Đình Diệm's regime was characterised by reliable sources as "the most authoritarian regime Vietnam ever had" (by the way, some authors explicitly refuse to call partisans fighting against authoritarian regimes "terrorists"), and to add that he started a program of mass repressions and even ethnic cleansing (which added the number of Vietcong supporters). However, do we really need that? Do we need to know that young Ngô Đình Diệm himself accidentally avoided a massacre, where whole his family was burned alive, and that, of course, had a profound impact on his mentality? I don't think so. The war in Vietnam was brutal, however, it is hard to tell, which side was more brutal, and who started first. However, taking into account that the atrocities and barbarism took place from both sides (or, I would say, from all three sides, if we consider the US as a separate actor), by making a stress on the Communist atrocities we deviate from neutrality more and more. We cannot take a story out of historical context (see, e.g. the two main articles telling this story). If you will do that, I will have to restore a balance, however, our combined efforts will lead to creation of a fork, which is not desirable. BTW, please don't blame me in WP:POINT, because, whereas forking is not recommended, non-neutrality is directly prohibited, so by adding more materials about historical background I'll just choose a lesser evil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the aim of terrorism is to terrorise the people, it is appropriate to describe the notable tactics as described in the sources. Your threat to create a WP:POINT POV fork is duly noted. --Martin (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. As I already explained, WP:NPOV (the policy) has precedence over WP:NPOV (guidelines). Only part of scholars and writers describe these events as terrorism. Others prefer not to use alternative terms. In addition, does anybody have a proof that all activity of partisans was aimed to terrorise people? As we all can see, peoples, including the Communists themselves, had already been terrorised by one of the most authoritarian regime (Ngô Đình Diệm's), and, taking into account Diệm's biography, it becomes clear that this brutality didn't came from nothing, but it had a long traditions. Therefore, by writing about VC "communist terrorists" and by omitting alternative points of view, we violate the essence of the WP policy. In that situation, we either need to clearly explain that "some acts of VC were considered as terrorism by some scholars", or I will have to add needed historical background to balance this POV charged text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Re "Your threat to create a WP:POINT POV fork is duly noted". I cannot comment on that in terms allowed by WP policy. I wrote that if we describe in details what some writers see as terrorism, whereas others do not, we will have, to balance such a non-neutrality, to add the alternative POVs as well as to describe a historical context on these events. As a result, the section will become a fork of the Vietcong and Vietnam war articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that to achieve NPOV one has to synthesise a middle ground between two viewpoints? I thought NPOV was achieved by presenting all viewpoints according to due weight. This claim of "writing about VC 'communist terrorists'" and claiming that all acts were terrorism is a straw man. No body has been presenting that argument. That the Vietcong adopted terrorism as a tactic that was applied in many specific instances, such as the Dak Son Massacre, is beyond dispute. Ofcourse you are free to provide a source that argues that the Dak Son Massacre was not an act of terrorism, but I dare say it would be fringe. --Martin (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that to achieve NPOV we need to present all viewpoints according to due weight. In this particular case, it should be stated (in the introduction) that the term "terrorism" is vague and no uniform definition of terrorism exists so far. In particular, there is no consensus among scholars if it is correct to describe partisan or national-liberation movements as "terrorists". In addition, the term "terrorist" has been extensively used to label political opponents. And, based on that background we can safely say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism"). Please, point at any flaw in this proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" is not vague, there is a uniform definition: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Whether to describe a particular organisation as "terrorist" is something different, and I think a straw man. This article is not called Communist terrorist organisations, so the need to describe a partisan or national-liberation movements as "terrorists" is not being considered. I think your proposal to say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism") is better except that it is flawed by weasel words "what many sources describe as" and "some of them as". We have (non US government) sources that describe events like the Massacre at Huế and the Dak Son Massacre as acts of terrorism. Do we have a source that asserts these acts were not terrorism? --Martin (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Terrorism is a loaded term without a uniform definition. Of course there are obvious cases when something/someone was described terrorist by someone else, but almost in all cases such usage has to be attributed and does not define the term. (Igny (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Some quotes:

"Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reactionsuch as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers." (Cronin, Audrey Kurth. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58 (Article) Published by The MIT Press)

In other words, the author clearly states that the term "terrorism" (i) has no strict definition; (ii) this problem is intrinsic; (iii) the usage of this term is frequently politically motivated.

"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. " (Encyclopaedia Britannica [2].)

In this case, no comments are needed.
Let me also point out that, whereas I see on misinterpretation of the opponent's words in Igny's statement, the statement:

"So you are saying that to achieve NPOV one has to synthesise a middle ground between two viewpoints?",

contains a direct misinterpretation of my words (explained above) and therefore is a typical straw man argument. I already explained what straw man fallacy is, so, please, try to use the terms properly.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Do we have a source that asserts these acts were not terrorism?" To demand to prove that some opinion is not commonly accepted is against the policy. (And, as I see from your own post ("Do you want me to prove negative?"), you yourself perfectly understand that). In addition, I already presented the source that contrarposes guerilla warfare as whole (and Vietcong in particular) and terrorists. That should be sufficient to conclude that description of VC as terrorists is not commonly accepted. And, please, read my posts carefully before writing your objections, because otherwise I can conclude that you simply ignore what I write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: " I think your proposal to say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism") is better except that it is flawed by weasel words "what many sources describe as" and "some of them as". " Unfortunately, that is exactly opposite to what the policy says. It states: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."". That is directly relevant to this particular case. In addition, as I already wrote, I did provide the source that describes them not as terrorists. Why do you ignore my arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "''Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Obviously, this definition implies that some group or person that committed just one or few acts of terror cannot be considered as terrorists. That is nonsense, in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that "communist terrorism" was a term used by the American government (c. 1961-1972) to create a connection in the public mind between Communism and terrorism in order to justify their war. It is similar to the modern attemnpt to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. We should report that the link was made. But to adopt the Cold War terminology for this article would be POV and anachronistic. TFD (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Only one source was presented, by Carol Winkler, claims that the term was exploited by the US Government, so it should be attributed to her not represented as a general view. While Carol Winkler may have a certain viewpoint on the usage of the term "terrorism", she is clear on the fact of terrorism in South Vietnam when she herself acknowledges:

"Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them."

There are many sources independent of the US government that support the claim that the VC engaged in terrorism to support their goals. Even Britannica entry acknowledges the use of acts of terror by the VC:

"Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia)".

This is not inconsistent with what Michael Lee Lanning and Dan Cragg write in their book 'I'nside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces:

"The final tactic used by the VC/NVA was terrorism. Although much more a political weapon than a military one, it nonetheless was an integral part of Front operations. According to writer Douglas Pike: 'To the communitst, terror has utility and is beneficial to his cause … terror is integral in all the communist tactics and programs and the communist could not rid themselves of it if they wanted to.' "

These authors go on to define the goals of VC terrorism:

"Terrorism, admitted or not, as practiced by the CV/NVA was aimed at three important goals:

-Intimidation of the people: The VC/NVA assassinated, abducted, threatened, and harassed the population of South Vietnam in order to force their cooperation, to obtain labourers and porters, to collect taxes, food, and other supplies, and to prevent the local inhabitants from giving intelligence to the Allied forces…."

In another source Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom By Ami Pedahzur we have a chapter devoted to Viet Cong suicide terrorism[3]:

"In other words, the overall volume and lethality of Viet Cong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century. The Viet Cong campaign is obscured by the fact it occurred in the context of a more general conflict, one in which not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. The terrorism was a war within a war."

Thus claiming that some sources prefer to describe the VC campaign as an guerilla/insurgency/partisan war obscures the fact that there was a terror campaign existing within a wider military campaign. --Martin (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice that they do not use the term CT, which is a relic of the Cold War, and coined in order to draw a connection between terrorism and communism in the mind of the public. In fact the type of terrorism used by the Vietnamese insurgency is normally called "nationalist terrorism", while the term CT if it is used at all is used as a synonym for left-wing or Marxist-Leninist terrorism. This distinction is clear in some of the sources you have provided (e.g., Martin). TFD (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ngô Đình Diệm was the nationalist who beheaded VC sympathisers, are you now contending that the VC were nationalists too and committed acts of "nationalist terrorism" against Ngô Đình Diệm's nationalist regime? --Martin (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Diem's actions, if they were terrorism, would probably not amount to nationalist terrorism, but would more likely be seen as state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. Others might see it as counter-insurgency. The typology of terrorism does not depend on the ideology of those carrying out terrorism, but the reasons for their actions. That is why for example scholars do not refer to actions by the VCs as CT, or actions of Diem as NT. And the term "nationalist" in this case merely refers to objectives, and other writers use other terms such as "ethnic" or "separatist". It is possible to have terrorists on both sides of an ethnic dispute, e.g., in Northern Ireland, where the loyalists militias would hardly call themselves nationalists, although their actions are grouped with nationalist terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The EB clearly distinguish between terrorism and the usage of terror. Accordingly, terrorists are those who rely primarily on terror, and, based on this criterion, they should be distinguished from guerrilla and regular military, who, despite wide usage of terror (for instance, Wehrmacht or Yugoslav partisans used terror very widely) cannot be considered as terrorists. Moreover, some authors explicitly refuse to "attach the terrorist label to anyone resisting an authoritarian regime" (Crenshaw, M. (1990). The logic of terrorism: Terrorist behavior as a product of strategic choice. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, (pp. 7–24).Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center and Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.), and the fact that Ngô Đình Diệm's regime is indisputable. One way or the another, despite wide usage of terror by partisans, the EB article "Guerrilla warfare" does not describe them as terrorists[4]. Despite the article about Viet cong[5] states that "For the most part, the Viet Cong fought essentially a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage; they used small units to maintain a hold on the countryside, leaving the main population centres to government authorities.", it does not characterise them as "terrorists": "Viet Cong (VC), in full Viet Nam Cong San, English Vietnamese Communists, the guerrilla force that, with the support of the North Vietnamese Army, fought against South Vietnam (late 1950s–1975) and the United States (early 1960s–1973). " To ignore that would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Therefore, since I anticipate that the attempts to add other Communist guerrillas to this article, we need to decide if we have to characterise them as guerrilla that used a terrorist tactics, or as terrorists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you really of the opinion that EB saying the VC fought a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage means they are not terrorists? ~Even though EB says they used terrorism? I will point out that so far in this section there is far more support for the content I proposed over the mess you inserted, shall I restore my version so you can go block shopping again? Tentontunic (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We go by whether there is a consensus in the literature to term them as terrorists. Usually only groups whose primary activity is terrorism (e.g., the Weather Underground, the "fighting communist organizations"), are called terrorists. Groups the have used terrorism as a tactic, e.g., America's founding fathers, are not normally called "liberal terrorists",[6] Soviet and American governments that backed terrorism are not called terrorist governments. See also WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". TFD (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no shortage of sources saying the VC were and engaged in terrorism. Stop being silly. Tentontunic (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are. But there are few sources that call them terrorists. Similarly, the founding fathers engaged in terrorism, but are not normally called terrorists. Modern American presidents who supported Gadaffi are not called terrorists. TFD (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you always post random nonsense? Who cares what the founding fathers did? What has that to do with this article? And "few sources call them terrorists"? Have you actually looked? "viet cong terrorists" 618 "viet cong terrorists" 621 That`s over 1200 hits on a quick book search. Do not try to say it is used by few sources. Tentontunic (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of your sources are contemporaneous, most of the others are repeating how terms were used contemporaneously. We are no longer living in the 1960s and calling the VCs CTs went out with a lot of other terminology of the time. And the reference to the founding fathers is apt. We do not call people who carried out terrorist acts terrorists unless that was their normal occupation. That is because Wikipedia follows a policy of neutrality, it does not take sides on the U.S. revolution or the Vietnam War. If you learn to accept the principle of neutrality you will avoid constant argument over content. TFD (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic. Never use google results, because it searches within all sources, not only reliable ones. Try gscholar instead:

• "viet cong terrorists" -guerrilla [7] 15 results.
• "viet cong guerrilla" -terrorists [8] 127 results.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS And always compare. For instance, based on this search results one may conclude that "Soviet peaceful" policy ('288 results [9]) is a mainstream term. However, by doing this search ("Soviet expansionist" policy 497[10]) it is easy to see that that conclusion would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the search was to point out the obvious to TFD, who it appears needs to be lead around by the hand as he seems unable to perform a simple search. Every source I have used in the VC section is from academic publishers and historians. All I am quite sure were printed since the late 1990`s. TFD saying The majority of your sources are contemporaneous is quite simply stupid, it makes it appear he has not even looked at the sourcing used, just prefers to waste time making silly statements about founding fathers. If he does not at least try to focus I shall have little option but to ignore him. Now given the support shown here for my proposal, should I restore it? Or shall you go looking to have me blocked? Tentontunic (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that during the Cold War, the U.S. government tried to associate terrorism and Communism in the public mind, because they wanted to sell their war to both the American and Vietnamese people. You first Google source for example is from the U.S. embassy in Saigon in 1967, your second is from the U.S. State Department "Office of Media Services" in 1970. Incidentally, the war ended long ago, Vietnam is now a friend and we no longer call them terrorists. No reason why we should revive Cold War terminology. And the reference to the founding fathers who supported terrorism is apt - that does not mean that history books call them terrorists, merely that history books say they used terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's see:

1. Carol Winkler - Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. Good and reliable source. However, it does not support the statement "In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam". On this page (p17) the author states that (i) "terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam" (without adjective "Communist") and (ii) US administration "linked Communist and terrorism". The whole chapter in actuality is devoted to how the administration did that. Conclusion, despite the source is good, its interpretation is flawed;
2. Forest . Good source, however, it says nothing about Vietnam on the page 82. Moreover, it mentions Vietnam only 3 times[11], and not in a context of Communism. Conclusion despite the source is good, it is totally unrelated to the proposed text;
3. Nghia M. Good source, directly supports the proposed text
4. Michael Lee Lanning page 185. Good source. However, he does not state anything about Hue massacre. He refers to the opinion of the Pike, and devotes the page to the analysis of the question of who VC or NVA resorted to terror more frequently. The same piece of text discusses, btw, the Mai Lai massacre, and by omitting the fact that not only South Vietnamese government, but also US troop resorted to terror is a significant sine against neutrality.
5. T. Louise Brown in actuality cites Pike's "The Viet-Cong strategy of terror" (1970). Taking into account that the war still lasted during this time, the numerical estimates could be inaccurate.
6. Charles A. Krohn - no detailed reference has been provided. Could not verify
7. B. Rigal-Cellard. In actuality, the author doesn't state that. The author quotes the words of Senator James O. Eastland. The author neither confirms nor refutes the senator's words.

To summarise, out of 7 sources, one of them cannot be verified (incomplete ref), two of them directly support the proposed text (although one of these two cites an old source), two of them in actuality refer to the opinion of others, one of them has been misinterpreted, and one simply tells nothing about Vietcong. In addition, the information about Hue massacre has been taken out of context, because the source (Lanning) discusses and compares terror committed by both sides. Cannot say your work impressed me.

And, importantly, you totally ignored my post: as correctly made search demonstrates, "guerrilla" is much more common term than "terrorists" in a context of VC. Do you have anything to say in responce?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Yes actually.

1. Winkler, the chapter is titled vietnam and the communist terrorists. She also refers to the VC as terrorists. So the source certainly supports the content.
2. Forest I am unsure of what has happened here, I must have used the wrong reference. I had not [12] Page 82 as cited.
3. Lanning, were in the article does he state anything? Please reread the section.
4. Brown, what you think of numerical estimates are neither here nor there, we use what the sources say after all.
5. Krohn, why are you unable to verify this? I see the book used was not in the article, now it is.
6. Rigal-Cellard, again so what? He is quoting another person? What does this have to do with the content?

I am not trying to impress you, I am trying to expand an article. Your google search counts for naught as I have just learned. Tentontunic (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The chapter title "vietnam and the CTs" is about how the U.S. government used the term as part of a propaganda campaign. She was not endorsing the use of dishonest terminology and we should not endorse it either. TFD (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you can channel Carol Winkler, she calls the VC terrorists in the book. The VC were the ones who killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. That is the fact of the matter, and that is what she wrote of. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

She does not call them CTs and in fact the whole point of her article was how the U.S. used this terminology as part of a propaganda campaign. If you believe that they are generally called CTs then you need to present a source. However that is what the U.S. called them during the Cold War and the terminology was dropped after the U.S. persued detente, c. 1972. TFD (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. If you want to draw conclusions from the title, it is useful to remember that the title of the book as whole is " In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era.". In other words, it is not about terrorism, but about how the US presidents used this term.

Re 2. Exactly.

Re 3. The text proposed by you is as follows: "The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War. " The ref to Lanning implies that this statement belongs to him, which is not the case. The neutrality issues mentioned by me have been left unanswered by you.

Re 4. No major objections, just a comment that this source cites the old source that contains war time estimates.

Re 5. Yes, I checked. The source does confirm the numbers, however, it does not characterise this act as "terrorist". Interestingly, the Massacre at Huế article also does not use the term "terrorist" as a primary epithet. Therefore, we have POVFORK here.

Re 6. She quotes a politician that quotes another person. By contrast, you present that as an established fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And, much more important question. What are, in your opinion, the advantages of the version supported by you, and what information is missing from the current version?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First ref is fine, if you wish we can replace communist with Viet Cong, but you are simply splitting hairs regarding this. The text proposed by me is accurate to the source, in that The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War Does the reference support this or not? It is not attributed to Lanning at all, the content does not say he said this. Yes in confirms numbers, it also says further down the page VC terrorism. Just because the article on Huế does not mention terrorism does not make this a POV fork, we are reporting what the sources say, and the source called it one of the worst communist terrorist actions of the war. Your final point is a waste of time, historians use quotes from people all the time, are you saying the source is unreliable? If not then there is in fact no issue with it. As to my version, you will notice it has in fact far more support than yours, given you are the only person who seems to support it. The advantage of mine over yours is simple, it is well written. Your version is disjointed. I shall restore my version with a few modifications later on today. Tentontunic (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When historians quote people, they do not necessarily endorse their views. That is particularly true about a book whose subject is propaganda. Also, this article is about "Communist terrorism" and if the sources do not call them that then including them is synthesis. Vietcong do not meet the definition of CT that you yourself added to the lead of this article. TFD (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do not do that, because the arguments you use remind me WP:VOTE, which is not acceptable per policy. Your version has very serious neutrality issues, which have been outlined above, and can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. You apply "terrorism" as a single and primary term to the acts and the events that are being described as guerrilla warfare or revolutionary movement by most sources;
2. You take these events out of historical context, thereby presenting VC as the only political force that resorted to unprovoked violence in South Vietnam.
3. You deliberately omit any mention that the VC movement was a revolutionary movement against the extremely authoritarian regime in the society that had very long history of the usage of violence.

Please, be also advised that WP:3RR (in its 1RR version) is not the only rule that may inflict sanctions for its violation. Please, keep also in mind, that WP:V is not the only policy, so systematic violation of other policies, such as WP:NPOV is equally punishable. You have already had a rather long list of violations of this policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are. I do not apply terrorism to anything, the sources do. I take noting out of context, this article is on communist terrorism, hence it will include actions carried out by communists. I omit noting, the reasons for the VC attacks are of no importance to this article, this article is not about why they committed terrorism, it is about the fact that they did. Now given you are the lone voice against this then quite simply tough, your version has gotten no support at all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the ongoing discussion about this section on the NPOV noticeboard[13] (which was initiated not by me), the statement that I am "the only person who thinks there are neutrality issue", Taking into account that you made the post there[14] just 8 minutes after you made this post (and you posted there before (e.g. on 17 March 2011), '. I suggest you to stop that, because the longer it lasts the more evidences of your disruptive behaviour are being accumulated. All of that can be used against you in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attacks again, stop. And look at what I wrote, I said you are the only person who has commented HERE. Do not call me a liar again. And that is a question on weight, not neutrality. Tentontunic (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You have edited my post[15], which is highly inappropriate.

Re: "And look at what I wrote, I said you are the only person who has commented HERE." In actuality you wrote the following:

"Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are."

In other words, there was no "HERE" in your post. In reality you dare to claim that noone thinks there are neutrality issues in a situation when this concrete piece of your text is now being discussed on the WP:NPOVN [16]. Obviously, your statement "Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are." is a blatant lie. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And your statement that your meant only this section is lie also, nothing in your post suggested that you separated these two discussions, and, taking into account that we participated in both, it was absolutely illogical to resort to such type argumentation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I edited your post to remove a personal attack, which I see you have restated. If you fail to grasp what I have written then perhaps you ought to say this is an ongoing discussion on the NPOV board, not call me a liar. You persistent attacks on my self leave no choice but to talk to an admin. Tentontunic (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, never edit the posts made by others. Re personal attacks, I said nothing about you as a contributor. However, despite the fact that in your real life you may be a crystal honest person, your contribution, concretely, two your claims that (i) I am the sole person who expressed concern about neutrality of your text, and (ii) in your previous post you meant only those editors who participated in this particular thread, are lie, and this lie is blatant. I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable to read that, but I have no more appropriate words to characterise these your contributions. Don't post lie in future, and I will have no reason to use this word again.

However, if you concede, clearly and unequivocally, that several users (TFD, Stephan Schulz, PrBeacon, J. Johnson ) believe that the text you have written, and the ideas you are trying to push are non-neutral, and that you never meant only this particular thread in your initial post, I will gladly remove all my negative characteristics of your recent posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

J. Johnson does not say the proposal is non neutral he says he believes terrorists is a loaded word and needs careful handling. Stephan Schulz done not say the content is not neutral, he is of the opinion that the source does not support the text. PR Beacon says it ought be used only with qualification. [17] I removed your personal attacks per WP:TPG if you do not understand something I have written then say so, do not accuse me of being a liar. This is your last warning, given the admin you went block shopping to told you not to call editors lairs on talk pages you really ought to heed his advice. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you no response to this Siebert? The fact that I did not in fact lie and that you are in fact wrong means you ought retract your allegations no? I intend to restore the proposed version above as it has received support. Your version has none and that is the end of this. Tentontunic (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidences that the discussion on the NPOVN demonstrated that the text that omits the references to the Cold war time propaganda as well as explanation of the reason why British Foreign office and British colonial authorities decided to avoid the terms "insurgents" or "guerrilla" and preferred to use initially "bandits" and then "communist terrorists" is more neutral than the current one. In addition, two reliable sources, in addition to those already provided, have been provided during this discussion, and they also confirm validity of this statement. If someone has doubts in that, they may go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Until such a time as you retract your allegations of my being a liar their shall be no further discussion between us. And you have yet to actually provide another source whic hbacks deerys claim that communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. I fully intend to remove your version which has no support and restore my proposal which has support. Tentontunic (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the request to provide a support as a proof that a reliable secondary source is reliable is absurd, such a proof has been provided. All needed sources have been abbed to the "Usage of the term" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is an artificial conflation here: based on an article on labels, the contention that the source states "communist terrorist" is only a label. "Bandit" was coined (after much consideration) initially as a purely anti-Communist label, however, this label/euphemism later backfired as it prevented the MCP from being referred to properly as what they were, i.e., Communist insurgents who were well armed, well trained, terrorists who showed no compunction in killing officials or civilians. (Those words being used by British officials appalled at the situation they found on the ground after being prepared to expect "bandits.") That the British at one time looked favorably upon the MCP (when they were fighting the Japanese), came up with propaganda term labeling them (just) a bunch of bandits, then graduated to the much more insidious Communists, is simply a matter of British labeling. Anyone can call anyone a name, I myself have been called many names. A name—a label—does not change one's Communist ideology or modify/molify terrorist acts committed against (in particular) civilian populations. Quite frankly, Paul Siebert's approach generally is inappropriate conflation of the finer points of the use of "Communist terrorist" in the context of geopolitical discourse versus "Communist terrorist" as a ideologically motivated person, group, regime, or state engaged in acts of terror. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, you will probably be surprised to learn that the term "bandits" was coined not only (and probably not primarily) for anti-Communist reasons, but for political and economical ones. Concretely, by calling partisans "bandits" the authorities got an opportunity not to introduce martial law in Malaya. By attempting to reduce the partisan movement to just "banditry" and "terrorism" the authorities did not allowed insurance companies to raise insurance premia. With regard to "well armed, well trained, terrorists", let me point out that majority of contemporary sources prefer to call them "anti-colonial partisans" or "guerrilla", and, according to the contemporary views, there were no connection between them and the USSR or China. Regarding "well armed and well trained", they were armed and trained because during WWII they fought against the Axis on the Allied side. In connection to that, it is not clear why the same activity is interpreted as anti-Axis resistance and terrorism depending on against whom it is directed. Moreover, as a proponent of national-liberation movements in your own country of origin, you demonstrate double standards by calling other pro-independence movements "terrorists". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A POV tag

The POV tag has been added to the Usage of the term section. That requires a user who did that to open a discussion on the talk page devoted to this issue, where concrete POV problems are outlined. In the absence of the discussion, or if the discussion is dormant, the tag can be removed by anyone.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing above, as well you know. Your removal of the tags without even bothering to talk about it is a joke, I shall reinsert them when time allows. Tentontunic (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the person adding the tag should explain what the issue is before adding. There has been a lot of discussion above and editors need to know what specific issue must be resolved. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the POV tag. Moreover, I am glad that by adding the tag you initiated a discussion about the section's neutrality.

With regard to the "vf" tags, I believe, my edit summaries are self-explanatory. Try to go to your local library and familiarise yourself with the sources you question: most of the "vf" tags added by you have been added under a false pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, if you want others to AGF you have to AGF first. All, can we dispense with constant discussing the editors and get back to content?PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not discuss any editor, I just warn some concrete editor, who, according to their own post, is going to re-add the tags, not to do that. All requested clarifications have been provided, and it is not my problem that they didn't bother to read the source properly.

I fully agree that we need to focus on the content. In connection to that, could you tell me please, do you have anything to say on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They were not added under a false pretext, your continuing attacks are getting tiresome, I would urge you to stop. I have explained several times now why your sources do not back the claim for usually referred to. Perhaps this time you will actually see what I have written. Tentontunic (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's not take the text out of context. The sentence states:

"These groups, usually referred to as left-wing terrorists, "leftist terrorists", "Communist terrorists", the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO), or "Euroterrorists" (the latter term has been applied to European terrorists only),..."

In connection to that, please, explain, what viewpoint appeared to be left beyond the scope? Which terms have been omitted? --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "They were not added under a false pretext, your continuing attacks are getting tiresome, I would urge you to stop." I would urge you to stop making false statements. Most vf tags you added are simply false, see WP:RSN discussion (one of them was placed correctly, I simply put the ref to the wrong place). The "unreliable source" tags are simply bs, see the same WP:RSN discussion. Do not add the tags when you are not familiar with the sources you attemtp to question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless a consensus is reached here or at WP:RSN discussion, preferably including initially disagreeing editors, you can't assert motives. Regardless, that is discussing the editor and not the edit and you certainly know better than to do that, and it only increases animosity. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not interested to know any motives. What I need to know is whether someone is going to explain me what concretely is non-neutral in this section, and how, in their opinion, it can be fixed. It is also quite necessary to back these suggestions with reliable sources (which are at least as reliable as those used by me). If not reasonable explanations will follow in few days, all tags will be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving/merging CT in the USSR elsewhere ???

I am sorry, but you cannot have an article on Communist terrorism which omits the Soviet Union. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that the Soviet government "inspire[d] the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing [Soviet] political and economic system". Do you have any sources for this? TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. As I already wrote, the USSR should be mentioned, however, the explanations should be provided that most contemporary sources that describe Stilinist terror or the Civil War in the USSR do not use the term "Terrorism". I already suggested you to come out with some concrete text. Are you intended to do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources in the soviet union section discuss communist terrorism. TFD, the soviet union was born out of revolution, a revolution in which terrorism played no small part. So yes, a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar. I oppose any merge proposal. Tentontunic (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You again mix WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: the fact that the sources in this section discuss this event as "terrorism" doesn't mean that majority sources do the same. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is irrelevant, the section is not off topic. The sources discuss terrorism committed by communists, if you feel the sources are not good enough go post another list. Tentontunic (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar". That group was called the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and they were overthown by the Communists. The Soviet Union was not formed until five years later. TFD (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying the Czar was in fact not killed by a detail of the cheka? Under orders from lenin? World War I: encyclopedia, Volume 1 By Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts p86. Tentontunic (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas II abdicated 15 March, 1917. Georgy Lvov of the liberal Constitutional Democratic Party became prime minister (15 March to 21 July), succeeded by Kerensky (21 July to 7 November. Lenin became premier 8 November, 1917 and Nicholas II was executed 17 July 1918. Your view that the Communists executed the czar "to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar" does not fit the historical facts. TFD (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The aim of killing of Nicolas II and his family was to eliminate any possibility of reviving the monarchy, was committed secretly and had no aim to cause any fear or terror. Had the execution been public, we could speak about terror. However, it was secret.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The killing of the Czar is an aside, and an amusing one in the TFD seems to think it were not communists who carried the murder out. The point is a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to overthrow the existing political and economic system. Tentontunic (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BS! TFD is 100% right in what he is saying. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party was a terrorist group, one of many in Czarist Russia. In fact, even the Kadet party had a terrorist wing. On the contrary, the Bolshevik party was anti-terrorism – the only major party to be so. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? the bolshevik`s never committed acts of terrorism during the revolution? And yo uar e sure of this? [18] Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What your Google Books link calls "Bolshevik terrorism" is in fact covered in the articles Red Terror and Revolutionary Terror. It is traditional terror, not terrorism according to the modern definition of the word. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, where are getting these ideas? Communists killed the tsar but they did so after they came to power, not as part of their rise to power. And all of this happened long before the Soviet Union was established hence the execution of the tsar cannot justify the inclusion of the Soviet Union in this article. You seem to have your timelines mixed up. TFD (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. The soviet union was born from acts of terrorism, but if you would prefer the section can be renamed terrorism in the soviet union and russia. Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also did not say the Czar was killed during the revolution, I said he was overthrown. Tentontunic (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was born as a result of the decision of three governments to unite. With regard to the "acts of terrorism", we have reliable sources that clearly and unequivocally state that by using such an approach we will inevitably come to a conclusion that, e.g. the US were "born from acts of terrorism". Yes, such a POV does exists, so what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In actuality Czar was not overthrown. He abdicated as a result of the request of the government and military command in favour of his brother, who decided not to accept this title. I see no terrorism here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You personally do not see terrorism. All we can do as responsible editors is record what acts constituted Communist terrorism when, as reported in or indicated by reputable sources. Anything else is synthesis. There is nothing to "conclude" about anything. And (elsewhere) I don't even know what to say about the Bolsheviks being anti-terrorists. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this article is clearly defined as "actions they {hope] will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system". The Soviet Union did not attempt to persuade the masses to overthrow the Soviet Union and therefore do not belong in this article. TFD (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, that's because the definition is inappropriately narrow. Communist terrorism is whatever acts by whomever that it has been reliably used to refer to. Period. The definition you quote is a useless synthesis (or one of potentially many definitions equally appropriate based on use) whose primary purpose, it seems, is to ridicule potential content with insulting syllogisms. Or am I missing something? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the definition in the article is wrong then find a source that provides a better one. TFD (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I trust you find the expansion of the lead maintains what was already there and now also addresses the dangling part of state/regime Communist terrorism at the end which made no sense with reference to the definition provided. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. All we can do as responsible editors is to keep in mind that, per reliable sources, "terrorism" in general is a very vaguely formulated and subjective term. That means that almost every attempt to apply this term to some act or event made in a categorical form is almost inevitably non-neutral. In other words, every sentence build like "A group X committed numerous terrorist acts" that contains no alternative viewpoint and needed reservations is almost automatically non-neutral. That is how I see the duty of responsible editors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, again, our primary focus is to represent what acts by whom and when were considered "Communist terrorism." There is no problem of neutrality or POV. I am fine with a section such as "Post-Soviet scholarship" if you want to talk about changing perspectives on the original Red Terror, et al. Perspectives on Chinese communism have evolved since the fall of the USSR as well. I would emphasize that changing perspectives on terrorism generally speaking are definitely outside our scope here, and any applicability is synthesis; any "changes" need to be regarding—again—specific acts at specific times by specific individuals/regimes considered to be "Communist terrorism." This might not be your preferred method of organization, however, I think it does provide a place for content addressing your concerns. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I would say, the primary focus of this article is to describe who, how and when applied the term "Communist terrorism" to the acts of violence that were perpetrated or committed by various groups of peoples, who have been associated by others with Communism, and to explain, clearly and unequivocally, that usually these acts are described in different terms by mainstream sources. By omitting the later part of my previous sentence we create a multiple-POV-fork article, which is a direct candidate for deletion. By doing what I propose we preserve the article and do not harm Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: This is where we part paths, I am with you until you get to the "and to explain, clearly and unequivocally, that usually these acts are described in different terms by mainstream sources" part. I have not seen any preponderance of sources which describe these acts in as divergent a terminology as you purport exists. Regardless, as I expect your sources (to be discussed) are of recent scholarship, that content would be appropriate to "Post-Soviet scholarship," no? Not "The Red Terror, which was responsible for [A], is now viewed by [B] as an attempt to [C] in the broader context of [D]." et al. countering the implicitly misguided label of "Communist terrorism" and/or "terror" applied at the time—such pepperings throughout the content at every instance of the mention of anything are not an appropriate treatment of the subject matter. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: P.S. The section could even be called "Post-Cold War perspectives" to give you a bit more latitude. I'm not unreasonable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I believe you, being reasonable, will agree that all significant viewpoints on some subject should be presented in a single article. In connection to that, what do you propose to do when the simple search:

• "vietcong guerrilla -terrorist" give 4,730 results [19]
• "vietcong terrorist -guerrilla" give 2,570 results [20]

demonstrates that "terrorist" is not the major term describing VC activity? I believe, taking into account that the article's title is "Communist terrorism", clear and unequivocal explanations are absolutely required to avoid serious POV and FORK issues.

Re you "Post-Cold War perspectives". These "perspectives" are in actuality called "contemporary views". Do you think it is reasonable to devote the article to the Cold War views, and add a separate sections for "contemporary views"? That idea seems not more reasonable than the suggestion to devote the Thermodynamics article to the Flogiston theory, and move the views of Carno, Gibbs, Helmholtz and others to the separate section at the article's end .--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism" came long before the Cold War, was one of the reasons for the Cold War; that does not make it less terrorist. It's not about slanted Cold War views versus post-Soviet contemporary enlightened views. You've got my suggestion for historical view and you can work on "contemporary perspectives" if you will. ("Views" seem more shallow.) Metaphors or similes regarding other articles are ultimately synthesis regarding handling of subject matter. Also, I see no impediment to treating the Vietcong here. There are no POV or FORK issues. Those only arise from artificially splitting topic matter as has been going on, IMO, the last year. BTW, per the ngram viewer, it would appear that "Vietcong terrorist" trumps "Vietcong guerilla" here, alas, but not guerrilla. Still, a good showing for terrorist. And even the 2000 (post Cold War) "Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" uses "Vietcong terrorist." Rather than complain my way is fraught with all sorts of insurmountable POV/FORK/et al. problems, consolidate some needlessly splintered content and give it a chance. You might find it works. I have studied on the writing about history. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And P.S., you don't need to create SYNTH-violating content, you can write an interesting and informative article using historical sources, e.g., here about a "Russian terrorist". Stop trying to write the article you WANT to write and start writing the article the sources TELL you to write. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original research. If you believe that the academic community has missed something, then take it up with them, but do not try to right great wrongs here. TFD (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: ""Communist terrorism" came long before the Cold War, was one of the reasons for the Cold War;" Interesting point, do you have mainstream non-Cold-War-time sources that support it?

Re: "It's not about slanted Cold War views versus post-Soviet contemporary enlightened views." I would say, that is exactly about that.

Re: "Metaphors or similes regarding other articles are ultimately synthesis regarding handling of subject matter." No, they just an attempt to demonstrate my point.

Re: "Also, I see no impediment to treating the Vietcong here. There are no POV or FORK issues." I explained why I see it. Please, explain, why you do not.

Re ngram. Does it search only within reliable sources or within all books?

Re ""Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" uses "Vietcong terrorist." " Whereas the idiot's book can use this terminology, Wikipedia (whose audience are normal people, not idiots) should stick with reliable sources.

Re Russian terrorists. Yes, it is rather interesting material, however, what relation does it have to the topic we discuss.

Re: "Stop trying to write the article you WANT to write..." I want to write what the reliable sources tell, and, please, don't prevent me from doing that. And, please, don't even try to claim that the sources I am using are junk, or I interpret them incorrectly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing your points in order:

1. Several pre-1933 sources that used the term "Communist terrorism" were presented, don't you recall?
2. Many of the sources that discusses VietCong terrorism have been published long after the Cold War ended.
3. You shouldn't be demonstrating your point, but demonstrating what the sources say.
4. The Vietcong committed acts of terror against the civilian population in a systematic way to further a political goal, but to argue therefore that they are thus deemed "terrorists" and thus this is a POV fork because sources describe them as guerilla is a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
5. Ngram presumably searches within all books
6. "Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" is written by Timothy P. Maga, Professor of American Heritage at Bradley University, while Wikipedia is written by anonymous editors of unknown educational backgrounds.
7. Regarding "And, please, don't even try to claim that ... I interpret them incorrectly", only the Pope claims infallibility. --Martin (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

re 1. An evidence was presented that the very term had evolved since those times, don't you recall?

re 2. And?

re 3. Exactly. Therefore, if different sources say different things, all these opinions should be presented.

re 4. Weinberg & Eubank, on the pages 80-81 (Forest, James J. F. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century Praeger 6/30/2007 ISBN 978-0-275-99034-3) say that, by contrast to the insurgent groups that used terror as a major and primary tools (IRA, ETA), for Vietcong terror "is simply one weapon, one arrow in the quiver, at the disposal of armed insurgency", so these authors explicitly distinguish between the terrorist groups and the armed insurgency that just resorted to terror. The US also resorted to terror, but that does not make them a terrorist state.

re 5. Exactly. That what I meant.

re 6. Yes, but they use the books and the articles authored by serious scholars.

re 7. The Pope also claims that? I didn't know :). Note, I wrote "claim", however, I am open to any discussion where concrete arguments and facts are provided. If you believe I interpreted some sources incorrectly, please, provide the quote from this source that contradicts to what I am saying.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, this is where you endlessly create synthesis, from (#1) "Communist terrorism" is not terrorism as we know it today to your synthesis (#4) that a terrorist who also paints, to use a metaphor, is therefore less of a terrorist and belongs in some other article on painter-terrorists. That is why my approach for the article works and yours does not, as I keep all the food together on one plate but separate so you can see what is what, while you either toss everything into a pot and make bouillabaisse or separate components into separate courses and make the dish into something completely different; however, at risk of further overextending my metaphor, I would note that even in traditional bouillabaisse the fish is served separate, but still part of the same dish. (So, what you present as rigor and clarity and precision I see as muddling and obfuscation and inaccuracy.) And to something a bit earlier in the conversation, I try to use "comparisons" which are designed only to illustrate a message, not direct comparisons to how unrelated content on WP is organized and we should try the same method here—which is another personal synthesis that the "other" organization applies here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "as we know it today to your synthesis" Who? If you see synthesis here, go to the appropriate noticeboard. The attempt to question the sources I am using had recently failed[21]. The attempt to question the neutrality of the edits I made had failed also[22]. Of course, it would be good if you went to WP:NPOVN to complete the set of ridiculous accusations, and to finish all of that once and forever.

Re "that a terrorist who also paints, to use a metaphor, is therefore less of a terrorist". Incorrect. Please, read the book I quoted. Pages 80-82. The author says that VC were the armed insurgents who also used terror, although it was not their primary tool. Therefore, I would say it was you, not me who are wrong.

Re "That is why my approach for the article works and yours does not, as I keep all the food together on one plate but separate so you can see what is what" I probably misunderstand something, but I do not see how do you "keep all the food together". I would say, your approach is to separate Communism from any other doctrines and to connect it with all conceivable manifestations of violence, carefully omitting all alternative terminologies and theories the scholars use to explain the origin and the reasons of this violence. This approach does not work and will never work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing and escalating mischaracterizations of my simple and unmistakeably straightforward proposal and now your howlingly misguided speculation on my motives and your charges that I am out to create a POV-laden Franken-Communist-bashing monstrosity are grossly offensive. You craft your words carefully to be civil at the surface, but your message is quite clear, that I am a POV-pushing Communist-bashing ultra-nationalist editor who can't possibly be trusted to objectively contribute to this article. I suggest you reconsider your attitude and your preemptive strike strategy. If you find yourself constitutionally unable to even do me the courtesy of adopting a wait and see attitude then I suggest you quietly give this a break for a while and return when there's more to discuss. There's no train leaving the station. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source that supports your POV your personal view of the subject is non-notable. TFD (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in Imperial Russia

I would like to get an explanation what relation does this section have to the article. It tells about the views of some Bolsheviks, however, according to the standards of non-totalitarian societies, the views and the acts are quite different things. I would like to see in this section some concrete examples of some concrete acts of "Communist terrorism" that occurred before February 1917, otherwise the section will be deleted as irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Century Magazine article I linked to above as pertinent to a thoughtful and complete presentation of the subject matter of this article is from 1914. (BTW, the first task our newly initiated terrorist is assigned is an assassination.) Please refrain from threats to unilaterally delete content and do not cloak your threats by using the third person, as if some higher authority will come and do the cleansing of content you do not personally approve of. Your antagonisitic approach is squandering my patience and good will, and I suspect that of other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The tsarist Russia section is taken from a section on terrorism and state terrorism. No indication in the source how this relates to CT. Were the actions undertaken to "inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system"? Unless the source desribes the connection with CT it is just OR.

@Peters. Please, demonstrate that the Century Magazine article tells about Communist terrorism, explain, why, in your opinion, this source is reliable (that is not a request to prove negative: this source is pretty old, and I have a serious reasons to suspect that it is simply outdated), and, please, add the facts to the section. Otherwise, the section, which does not tell about Communist terrorism, will be removed as irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I envision the article as being about the rise and fall of Communist terrorism (given the current state of world affairs). Here, again, we part ways, as I advocate for content on the concept of historical continuity, whereas you contend that anything that smacks of "a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply. Again, do not delete the section, as Russian terrorism, Bolshevik terrorism, Communist left terrorism, et al. are all part of the subject matter in telling the story—not constructing a precise but ultimately incomplete and inaccurate according to your wordsmithed inventory—of Communist terrorism. Put your content deletion threatening blunderbuss away. I don't respond well to threats. (That supporting appropriate continuity requires a reorganization of the current content is a separate matter.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia is not the place to develop our personal theories. If you believe that you know what CT is then I suggest you get a paper published in a journal. Meanwhile you are just putting together unrelated things into one article. TFD (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia is advocating for a historical accounting absent of interpretation called a "personal theory" and a POV aggregation of unrelated stuff. Feel free to give me a concrete example of two things which do not belong together and exactly why, otherwise you're just engaging in a personal attack. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, generally speaking "anything that smacks of "a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply." It equally can be a rose oil, geraniol, nerol, or other monoterpene alcohols. In addition, we cannot objectively describe a development of historically continuous term that by its nature is extremely subjective and heterogenous (see the works I have already quoted on this talk page, and, please, do not use the words "personal contentions", or something like that, because it is simply an insult of common sense): during various periods of time it was applied, to state terror committed by various revolutionary authorities during civil wars, or to mass terror campaigns organised by totalitarian authorities against their own citizens, or to the acts of sabotage committed by security services of some socialist countries, or to the socialist state sponsored terrorism, or to left-wing terrorism, or to guerrilla warfare, etc. This terms has been independently used by counter-revolutionary forces, by the administrations of some Western states during the Cold war era, by journalists, etc. The term is being rather infrequently used by scholars, who rarely combine these two words together, so they, as a rule do not form a separate category. Terrorism committed by Communists is not necessarily "Communist terrorism", the bombs and rifles they use are not "Communist bombs" and "Communist rifles" (I mean these bombs and rifles do not form a separate category). Remember my previous example: sea shells that are being sold by seashore do not form a separate category "seashore shells".

In summary, if you want to discuss not the evolution of the term, but the evolution of the category, you must prove that this category exists in the works of mainstream scholars. Otherwise, you are engaged in synthesis. I got no such a proof so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, your contention that a factual historical tracing of "Communist terrorism" ending with a section on "Current perspectives" is by (regretfully, your) definition not objective simply boggles the mind. If you are my enemy and you murder someone, my calling you a murderer does not make you less of a murderer or "murderer" a mere propagandic label by the fact that I, your enemy, utter it. Your focus on "Communist terrorism" as just another sort of propagandic name-calling that changed to suit the needs of the name-caller is a grossly inappropriate approach to the subject matter.

Infinite red herrings do not change historical events nor their contemporary descriptions nor current scholarship in hindsight. That scholarship may refine on, or evolve regarding, types of Communist terrorism is material to be added, not synthetic justification for other material to be subtracted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for "Terrorism committed by Communists is not necessarily 'Communist terrorism'", yes, logically that is true, but please then cite acts of terrorism committed by Communists which were not committed with the purpose of advancing Communist goals (whether of individuals, groups, regimes, or states). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If this "contention" boggles your mind, please, provide a mainstream source that supports your contention. As I already wrote, even "Terrorism" (without "Communist") has no specific definition, therefore I doubt it is possible to find a serious book or article saying that "Communist terrorism" as a term, which is commonly defined as blah-blah-blah to describe blah-blah that started in ..., passed thorugh different stages in XX century and eventually had declined by 2000s. The burden rests with you.

I do not focus on propagandistic name calling in general, I mean that it was used primarily for propaganda purposed by Nazi, and, quite independently by British and US authorities, who applied it to quite different events. With regard of other cases, it is just a synonym, in one case, of left-wing terrorism, and, in another case, of Stalinist state terror. In both cases, this term is less abundant than alternative ones.

Re "with the purpose of advancing Communist goals" Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism? What about the US, who used terror against VS to advance democratic goals?

I removed your text about Socialist-revolutionaries. Try to read Russian history: they had no relation to Communism, and were political opponents of Bolsheviks. As I already explained, secret execution of the Czar's family cannot be considered as terrorism, because terrorism implies public action, othervise no fear of terror is created.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, stop taking generalities about terrorism and synthesizing the contention that no one has any idea what "Communist terrorism" is therefore we don't even know where to start to write an article. CT is whatever reliable sources say it is at any time. I have read Russian history. The continuity is in the use of terrorism in the pursuit of revolutionary goals, that groups change (e.g., the Socialist-Revolutionaries ultimately were opponents of the Bolsheviks) does not change the evolution and practice of Russian revolutionary terrorism. Organizational continuity is not a requirement. As for the imperial family, those murders are deemed terrorism in current sources as well, it is your personal contention (as you "explained") that because they were "secret" they were not terrorism, i.e., if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it didn't make any sound. They were dead were they not? It's a bit difficult to keep that a secret.

As for Re "with the purpose of advancing Communist goals" Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism? What about the US, who used terror against VS to advance democratic goals? We are talking about Communist terrorism. Feel free to contribute to the article "United States and state terrorism" or whatever it is called today. More red herrings. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As "CT is whatever reliable sources say it is at any time," your conundrum about term versus category is, I regret, immaterial as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "...does not change the evolution and practice of Russian revolutionary terrorism. " Please, specify, is this article about "Russian revolutionary terrorism", or "Communist terrorism"? Please, also keep in mind that the article cannot be devoted to both these subjects simultaneously, because, independently of how vague CT is defined, these two subjects are not subset of each other.

Re "We are talking about Communist terrorism." Do you imply that common sense should not be used when we talk about CT? And, let me point out that I am a little bit disappointed with your double standards. You wrote:

"but please then cite acts of terrorism committed by Communists which were not committed with the purpose of advancing Communist goals"

in other words, your responce contained no references to the sources, but a pure syllogism ("if all these acts were aimed to advance Communist goals, then it was terrorism"). However, when I responded in the same vein

"Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism?"

you replied that we speak about CT only, so all general syllogisms are offtopic. Well, if you prefer not to use general logic, let's go this way, however, I expect you to be consistent in doing that, which, in particular, means that you will apply this restriction to yourself also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Peters, in order to show that the article is not synthesis, could you please provide a source that defines CT so that it should include everything in the article. What is CT? Is it possible to be a Communist and not a CT, or is CT just a POV term for Communist? TFD (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking of a source to define "communist terrorism" is engaging in the logical fallacy of Loki's Wager. --Martin (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link. Thanks. However, I would disagree that it is relevant to this dispute. Peters states that the term CT has quite concrete meaning, and it refers to some quite concrete phenomenon ("I envision the article as being about the rise and fall of Communist terrorism (given the current state of world affairs). Here, again, we part ways, as I advocate for content on the concept of historical continuity,") In other words, if we discuss the rise and fall of something, and speak about its historical continuity, then it is natural to ask, "what concretely we are going to discuss"? However, if no commonly accepted definition for this something exists in litersture, and the Peters' idea is to describe the history of some amorphous conglomerate of events loosely connected by the word "Communism", then, sorry, the article, the whole article, must be deteted as a pure example of original research. That is why the request to provide a commonly accepted clear definition is quite reasonable and is absolutely justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Actually in response to TFD) @TFD, the last time the "definition" of discussion was had, the result was the single definition in the lead which, while at least partially appropriate, left it sorely wanting, so let's not travel that road again—doing what was done before isn't going to yield a different result. More generally, I don't understand your fixation (my perception, per this article and others) on:

1. we MUST define "X" first
2. ONLY THEN can we understand what we are writing about and write about "X"

No. The lead can lie in a state of abject inattention while we write an article which simply goes through "Communist terrorism" in history and, as I've suggested, appropriately ends in considerations of the same in current scholarship. The lead is then, simply, a summation of the article--an abstract, if you will. It is your insistence on a "definition" up front that stymies any and all progress on content.

From my viewpoint, given:

1. TFD's superfluous request for a "definition" in order to proceed;
2. Paul's irrelevant contention that there's no agreement on "terrorism" so how can we write about "Communist terrorism"—that is, merely a more sophisticated variation on TFD's theme;
3. TFD's and Paul's sentiments that they are being neither superfluous nor irrelevant, respectively;

we're not going to make any progress continuing to go about the conversation in the same manner. I think I'll go off for a few days or so to write what I would consider an appropriate "Origins" section. While I would not be surprised that demands for definitions, charges of mixing apples and oranges, ignorance of Russian history, et al. might again arise, at least we'd have something new to talk about as debates over what's here or what should or should not be here, in the abstract, are not moving us forward.

To Paul's, after I had written this, there is absolutely no need for a "definition"; nor is writing an article without that "definition" synthesis. That is because "Communist terrorism" is whatever policy or acts that reliable sources write about when referencing those as being, or being reflective of, "Communist terrorism." However, you seem to eschew the straightforward approach. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely Loki's Wager, Paul and TFD seem to be arguing that since the concept of "Communist terrorism" cannot be defined, it therefore cannot be discussed, and hence the whole article must be deleted. However Communist terrorism is simply terrorism implemented by communists (or those who claim to be adhere to communism), just like "Communist totalitarianism" is totalitarianism implemented by Communists. --Martin (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And a P.S. to Paul's characterization: "Peters' idea is to describe the history of some amorphous conglomerate of events loosely connected by the word 'Communism'", I did not state that. My proposal is a rigorous review of sources which directly relate to "Communist terrorism" and creation of content in the form of a historical narrative followed by a review of current scholarship. Only on WP can one propose simply following the proper and accepted method of writing any article or paper and be accused of synthesis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. And your post is precisely straw man fallacy. I never claimed that CT cannot be discussed, our disagreement with you and Peters is about the way it should be discussed. If you or Peters will provide a commonly accepted mainstream scholarly definition of CT we probably will be able to discuss it as you suggest: as a single strictly defined phenomenon. However, if no such definition will be provided, CT should be discussed as a vague term that significantly evolved during last century, and which was used to describe quite different events by quite different people, and which was frequently used as a synonym of something else.

Again, if you claim that CT is not something vague, but something strictly defined, then provide a non-controversial mainstream definition of CT, otherwise stop this endless contention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, in Loki's wager, Loki claimed that the dwarves could not take his head because there was no clear definition of where his neck ended and his head began. But the story presupposes that there is a definition for head, and it can be found in dictionaries and anatomy textbooks. Where is your dictionary or textbook definition for CT? I suggest that if the dwarves had tried to cut off his foot, that his argument would not be considered a logical fallacy at all. In the same way you are trying to include things are unrelated to CT. TFD (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Short version, CT is a story (historical narrative), not a definition (dictionary). @TFD and @Paul, barking up more loudly up the wrong tree isn't going to change the answer. Encyclopedic content dictates that CT is whatever reliable, reputable sources write about it. Nothing more, nothing less. @TFD, exactly who is "trying to include things [which] are unrelated to CT"? What are those "things?" I did ask you for two things which don't belong together in the article. If you both keep demanding a "definition" prior to any progress on discussing sources and content, then I can only conclude that you're not really here to create content for this article, only to make demands which are not germane to what is required to improve the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is an historical narrative, then please point to someone who has written this narrative. Wikipedia is not the place for you to write your own historical narrative. No way btw of knowing what is not related to CT because I have no idea what it is, and by your own admission you have no idea either, but want to talk about it nonetheless. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be counting on there being references which address certain aspects of CT at certain times without there being a comprehensive survey and using that to make spurious claims of synthesis. As far as I can tell, all you are doing is throwing up hurdles. You've given up on the definition, now you're insisting I produce sources which treat CT in its full panorama over time. Your and Paul's contention is that inclusive content fairly and accurately reflecting Source 1 about a subset of CT 1, Source 2 about a subset of CT 2, Source 3 about a subset of CT 3, etc., is not a scholarly narrative but is, instead, a personal synthesis, an amorphous Franken-terrorist creation of my own making.

It is only a synthesis if it were Source 1 talking about A and B, Source 2 talking about B and C, and I created content linking A and C based on my own suppositions. An article containing materials from Source 1 about A, Source 2 about A, Source 3 about A is not synthesis. That aspects of A span time and space is what drives the need to create superior article narrative, but that narrative is in no way my personal synthesis—I make no conclusions, I posit no new theories, I merely organize: temporally, geographically, organizationally,.... I know full well what "synthesis" is, you are completely mistaken in applying that label to what is proposed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

We do not know that they are talking about the same thing and it appears that they are not because Drake for example distinguishes between terrorism supported by communist ideology and terrorism supported by nationalism, while noting that nationalist terrorists may hold communist ideology. If you believe they are talking about the same thing, then it should not be a problem to find a source that backs up your belief. We should not group together things we believe belong together unless scholars do. TFD (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "CT is whatever reliable, reputable sources write about it." See WP:DISAMBIG: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is :the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. There are three important aspects to disambiguation: Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology)."

So we might have for example, see (1) Malayan insurgency, (2) Cold War propaganda term, (3) Nazi propaganda term, (4) left-wing terrorism, etc.

TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You need not share Paul's apparent concern that I am simply out to create some POV-soaked disjointed inventory of Commie-killing fields. The situation you describe, connectedness and motivation, are invariably covered in sources indicating what earlier (Communist) individuals' or organizations' tactics were adopted, and how, by later (Communist) individuals or organizations. I would add that CT's methods have been documented as being studied and adopted by nationalist terrorists with no Communist ties or sympathies; I would expect to mention this as well but obviously not as a focus of the main subject matter.

As for your example of appropriate disambiguation, added after I wrote the above, that reflects your viewpoint of unrelatedness for which I do not find support in sources; as I just indicated, sources do discuss predecessors and antecedents. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There's no impediment to child articles covering aspects/subsets of CT in more detail. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I must find sources that show no connection exists between unconnected things would give editors carte blanche for all kinds of fascinating synthesis and original research. I do not care whether editors are Communists or anti-Communists so long as they adhere to WP politices of neutrality, NOR and verifiability. If editors wish to advance an opinion, the best approach is for them to ensure that the views they support are fairly represented in WP. Tentontunic for example created an article on the book Bloodlands. TFD (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, Really, you must improve your command of logic in debate. I did not claim you must find sources to show that unconnected things are indeed unconnected, i.e., ask you to prove a negative. I merely stated that your example of "unconnected" with regard to the specific list of articles you would disambiguate because they are unconnected except for sharing a common term (CT) is erroneous. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So you think I should find a source that says for example that when the ``NYT`` in 1919 called the Bavarian Soviet CTs they were not using the same definition as when Drake wrote about groups like the Red Brigades. TFD (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When I say sources do not support your contention of un-connectedness that means they do support the contention of connectedness, not that there are no sources which positively affirm your contention of un-connectedness. Surely you must have better things to do than insisting that I'm insisting you do something which I'm not insisting you do. And you're back to definitions again—both unsuited to and irrelevant to treatment of a historical topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then provide a source that discusses both the Malayan Emergency and left-wing terrorist groups in the 1980s as CT. TFD (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there are direct connections within the historical continuity of CT and ones which are more evolutionary. The article should/will reflect continuities per reliable sources per what I've already stated. However, it does not appear we can have any sort of thoughtful discussion of the subject matter at the moment as you persist in arbitrary demands. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, taking into account that reliable sources (all needed quotes are available upon request) state that, e.g. Malayan "comminist terrorists" were not terrorists, but guerrilla, and the uprising had no connection to the global opposition between the first and the second world, how do you propose to reflect that in the article, and how does it fit into the "narrative" about some "evolution"? Please, propose your wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, could you please provide a source that supports your statement "there are direct connections within the historical continuity of CT and ones which are more evolutionary". Also, if there is a coherent concept of CT that runs through all these groups, then someone somewhere would have written about it. One does not expect that the first place that this approach has been taken is a Wikipedia article. For example the article Liberalism draws a connection between groups over several centuries that it terms "liberal". If one types in "liberalism" in Google books, one may find sources that connect these groups. TFD (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am merely stating the obvious, that in some cases CT(B) following CT(A) was by the same individuals, inspired by, or in the case of CT(...Q) still linked to CT(A) but no longer directly, but by evolution for lack of a better or more succinct word. I suggest holding off on demanding more sources for my suggestions having to do with organization implying those suggestions are some sort of synthetic concoction or POV assemblage on my part. When I have some narrative ready—I think I'll start at the "beginning"—then we'll have something concrete to discuss. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not wonder why no scholars see the subject the same way you do and even extremist writers do not represent the topic the same way as you? These are your own opinions and I suggest you find some other forum to advance them, before promoting them here. TFD (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What I wonder is how you can comment on how I represent topic, contending I'm off the radar screen beyond extremists, when we've only been talking about organization of content based on, of course, reputable sources. Really, is this sort of preemptive disparagement and insults that I'm using article talk as a forum really necessary? I've assumed good faith in our interchanges, clearly you aren't offering me the same courtesy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is it, exactly, that I've been spouting about Communist terrorism that qualifies using this page as a "forum?" I've only been attempting to discuss the most basic of article organization, clearly within the purview of this talk page. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you for example find a book or article about CTs that presents your views? If no one has written any such book (including revisionists) then you are alone in your view of the subject. While I would love to read your article about your original beliefs, they should not be published here first. TFD (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, what about a proposed general outline (CT in historical order, nothing specified otherwise, also making sure to cover current scholarship) is "original beliefs"? You insist there are impenetrable walls of unrelatedness between CT1 | CT2 | CT3. We can discuss your POV when there's content to discuss. Until then, you're simply attacking me for my "views" when there's no cohesive article content yet to debate as to whether my suggested approach has demonstrated concrete value. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that has treated the subject historically or made a connection between the groups you wish to include. TFD (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"In the beginning"

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

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

The term "communist terrorism" does not appear in your source.[23] If you want to conduct original research and publish it, then find a different forum. If the world takes notice of your original views, then they may be acceptable in an article. I caution you however that your views are unlikely to gain any acceptance, even in alternative media. TFD (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorists' target selection

Per the consensus here [24] I have yet again had to restore this source to the article. If anyone is of the opinion that this source suddenly does not have consensus then discuss it here, not slow edit war the source out. Tentontunic (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link says, "Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution". However, you have re-written this as, "Communist terrorism refers to acts of violence committed by regimes or groups subscribing to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist (communist) ideology". Different meaning. BTW Maoists are Marxist-Leninists, which is clear from the source (Drake, p. 19)[25] TFD (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Your original version contains two necessary conditions (viz., BOTH terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology AND who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change). In your latest revision, you have omitted the second necessary condition and turned the first one into a sufficient condition. That misrepresents the source. TFD (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is about "communist terrorism" not terrorism in general. You need a source that says CT can be conducted by "regimes...with the purpose of... consolidating/perpetuating authority". Note that your source says, "This study is concerned with the activities of non-state terrorist groups...."[26] TFD (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

No obsession. The RSN discussion came to a conclusion that this source is reliable, which is indisputable. There were no consensus that this source is correctly used. This issue is more relevant to the WP:NORN [27].--Paul Siebert (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

Usage text

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

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

Link to the version PS created. [28] Tentontunic (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concretely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My questions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drake

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

China etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valentino

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

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

As the book clearly says Viet Cong terrorism - communist you are obviously in error, I have asked at the RSN board. [29] 08:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFD, in this case Tentontunic seems to be right. Valentino does mention VC terrorism as a cause of the mass killings in Vietnam. This source seems to be used correctly, and I see no major problem with this source (which by contrast to some other sources does not claim that all 200,000-2,000,000 million civilian deaths were a result of Communist killings). What we need to focus on is to carefully explain in the article that, according to mainstream sources VC were partisans (see, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica), or partisans that used terror along with other tools (for source, see, e.g. [30], pp 80-82). For detailed analysis of the relative usage of the terms "terrorists" and "guerilla" in academic sources see the search results presented above. That is what we really should do. By contrast, to deny the fact that some sources use the term "Communist terrorists" would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are similar disputes in Christian terrorism. Drake wrote, "Members of a religious terrorist group use terrorism to promote their perception of the doctrines and political interests of their religion" (p. 17).[31] In fact Christian terrorism is rare. Yet some editors want to define Christian terrorism as terrorism carried out by Christians, and want to add the Ku Klux Klan, the Oklahoma bombing, the IRA, etc. I oppose synthesis and POV whether it relates to Communism or Christianity. TFD (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct that terrorism is typified by motivation, which in the case of the VCs was national liberation. PKK terrorism is also described as a nationalist rather than left-wing.[32] The Klan are not considered to engage in nationalist/separatist terrorism. While there are few examples of Christian terrorism, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Plot are usually mentioned. Of course Islamic religious terrorism has become prominent in recent decades, and there are Hindu and Jewish terrorist groups. While an editor has stated that there is no contradiction between being communist and nationalist, in fact there is a considerable difference between the two types of groups. Nationalists are less likely to enforce ideological conformity and only operate when their cause has broad support. When their objective (independance) is achieved, they lay down their arms and participate in electoral politics. Left-wing terrorists on the other hand consider themselves the vanguard, with smaller memberships and usually no popular support for their cause at all. The choice of targets of the two differs as well. Nationalists will attack infrastructure in order to undermine the operation of government, while left-wing terrorists will pick symbolic targets (such as the Weathermen bombing a Haymarket statue) which they hope to inspire the masses to rise up and defeat capitalism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

If it were not a lexeme then any definition would be a tautology. Also, it would mean Christians committing terrorism, regardless of motivation, were Christian terrorists. Some VC terrorists for example were Christian.[33] Sirhan Sirhan and many Arab nationalist terrorists were also Christians. In order to group VC terrorism as CT, you need to show that rs group them that way. But all the sources I have seen interpret their actions as motivated by the desire for independence. Note that the Viet Minh was founded as "a nationalist coalition, the League for the Independence of Vietnam.... The organization was again specifically designed to win broad popular support for independence, followed by moderate social and democratic reform".[34] --TFD (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Incorrect attribution of Forest's book

See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books:

Books

Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include:

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

Tentontunic has refused to correctly attribute his edit to the authors who wrote the chapter used as a source and instead insists on attributing it to the book's editor.[35] However before taking this matter to an appropriate noticeboard, I would hope that Tentontunic would agree to proper attribution. TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Reply redacted by Tectontunic.]

If there is consensus I will correct the passage to identify the authors of the chapter "Insurgencies: understanding the use of terrorism as a strategy", Leonard Weinberg and William L. Eubank, who have also written books about terrorism.[36] TFD (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drake, lede and consensus

This revert[37] was supplemented by the edit summary that refers to some consensus. I would not say it is justified, because at least two users expressed a legitimate concern about correctness of this phrase, this concern has not been addressed yet. No quotes that demonstrate that the definition of the term "Communist terrorism" has been proposed by Drake have been provided. I would say, the opposite is true, namely, that this scholar, who published many articles on this subject[38], does not use the term "Communist terrorism" in his articles [39], or books [40]. I admit that the search procedure used by me is incorrect and if someone can provide other search results that refute my conclusion, please do that. (Other authors with the same last name used this term twice[41], but that is hardly an argument).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the old consensus, I doubt if it ever existed. During the RSN discussion you refer to[42], two uninvolved users expressed the same concern as I, TFD and Zloyvolsheb did, namely, that, whereas the source is reliable, to derive a definition from it would be incorrect. Their opinions are quoted below:

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

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

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

A policy change under discussion

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

Removal of sections

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

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

The source used for the "Africa" section that labels groups as "terrorists" is a document from the unrecognized illegal white supremicist government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. The attribution to Elain Windrich is misleading. She does not call them terrorists and says the term was used as a propaganda device. (pp. 277, 279)[44] Ironically the Rhodesian state does not call them CTs, probably because the term had become discredited by that time. This is an egregious example of representing the opinions of extremist sources as facts and misattributing them to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minority views in the lede:

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

Neutrality issues in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

After brief examination of this section [46] I failed to find the question I left unanswered. Could you please reproduce it below?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re 6. I'll do.

Re 7. The answer below is unsatisfactory.

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

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

re 2, your point being?

Who says it is an obsolete viewpoint?

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

re 5, this is what the source says.

re 6, good luck with that.

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

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

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

Cambodia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry it was Tuman, not Valentino. Try this link [47] Tentontunic (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Such official, state-based policies are commonly referred to as "terror" and are thus distinguished from terrorism, which is usually understood as violence emanating from non-state actors." (Moghadam, Assaf. The roots of terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006, p. 56) [48] Tuman also mostly refers to this as "state terror" and never uses the term CT. I fear that this section is moving the article farther towards OR, SYN and POV. If we want to write about the KR, then we should be adding all this into the KR article. TFD (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Not more than in 419. ""Cambodian genocide" terrorism"[49]

Importantly, it is not described as terrorism by more many sources ""Cambodian genocide" -terrorism" 943 [50].--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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