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)

Recent changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constructive approach?

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

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

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

I have patiently explained this to you as can be seen by reading through the dicussions above. Please be careful with the phrasing of your comments. I "mass deleted" content put in by a banned editor that was poorly sourced and not relevant to the topic. That is not vandalism and please read what vandalism means and avoid using the term except when done correctly. Also see the notice board for vandalism.[1] Do you think that any of my actions should be reported there? No one accused you of being a meat puppet, just that you supported their edits. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

You added a section from Chaliand and Blin's book called "Lenin and strategic terrorism" (pp. 197-202)[2] You then added a book on Cambodia.[3] Your first source does not use the term "communist terrorist", let alone explain the concept. Your second source says that an American congressional report used the term. Could you please find a source that explains what you think this topic should be. Otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The more I see this enshitcyclopedia, I am appalled.

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

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

In fact some editors believe that Christian terrorism should mean any terrorist act committed by someone who claims to be Christian, and want to include the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Irish terrorists, etc. As I have pointed out to editors on that article, ""Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring sweeping changes" (Aubrey).[4] The article should not be used as an attack page against Christianity. Islamic terrorism fortunately has not attracted the same sort of POV issues. Islamic terrorism has not attracted the same sort of POV issues. Although there has been extensive Arab nationalist terrorism, mostly carried out by Muslims, no one suggests that it should be recategorized as Islamic terrorism. I am afraid Peters that you have failed to persuade me that an exception should be made for CT. TFD (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am not expressing a point of view, merely reporting what reliable sources say. As Aubrey wrote, "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing and anarchist" (p. 43).[5] Chaliand and Blin also discuss religious terrorism.[6] If you do not like what reliable sources say then you must provide sources that contradict them, rather than accusing the editors presenting them as advancing a POV. Note that Christian terrorism is not "terrorism by anyone claiming to be a Christian" That would obviously mean a POV article, which is against Wikipedia policy. I had initially supported deleting the Christian terrorism article because it appeared to be an attack page, but then sources were found for the concept. TFD (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW the complete version of Chaliand and Blin's book is available on-line.[7] See "A typology of terrorism" (p. 227). They make a clear distincition between "terrorist groups based on left- or right-wing political ideology" and "nationalist" terrorism. (p. 227) Note that they do use the term "CT" and classify Marxist groups that support national separatism under nationalism rather than left-wing, Could you please provide a source that coincides with your understanding of the term "CT". TFD (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

All sources provided by you, me, Mr. S. and others categorize terrorism in terms of its objectives. The types of attacks carried out as well as organizational structure are determined by this. Attacks by Irish Marxists, Catholics (and some Protestants), liberals and fascists against Britain for example are described as "nationalist terrorism", because the motivation was separation of the nation from Great Britain. Similarly separatist parties that draw members from across the political spectrum are referred to as nationalist. BTW no point in discussing other articles. The fact was that your colleagues decided to change the name of the article.[8] In any case it is incumbent on you to provide sources, not on me to prove that no such sources exist. And if you do not agree with my interpretation of sources, or direct quotes from them, you should explain why you disagree, instead of using arguments ad hominem. TFD (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, could you elaborate on your statement " The fact was that your colleagues decided to change the name of the article.[9]". --Martin (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaya

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@andythegrump just read that npa you linked to, I do not see were I have attacked any particular editor. @Paul Siebert, this is meant to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I should not have to create an account to do so. If you do not appreciate my language tough crap, If you do not appreciate the lack of capitalisation tough, I was in a rush. Removing my comments on spurious grounds that you might think I am a banned editor is bullshit, do an spi as the collect geezer said.