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)

Edit Protect.

{{editprotect}} In the section above a consensus has been reached to replace the current heavily tagged lede with the following. I would appreciate the Bibleograpy section moved in under the current references section, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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 the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). References

Bibleograpy

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974
• David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291
• Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

• Oppose The text is not supported by the sources and the author (Drake) was not attempting to describe a typology of terrorism, merely to describe ideological influences. While few editors responded to the previous discussion thread, there has been general disgreement about what topic this article is supposed to describe. TFD (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Five editors have agreed to this content inclusion, only two have opposed. There is a consensus here. Tentontunic (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. After reviewing the discussion I agree that there is a rough consensus here and have made the requested change. I also took the liberty of spelling bibliography correctly :) I am unclear about whether the maintenance templates still need to be at the top. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The maintenance templates do need to remain for the moment - this page is still highly disputed.

Also, I missed most of this discussion (busy with other things, sorry), and while I don't object to the change as a whole, I do wish that we could de-weasel the last line - "...was argued by some" is just ugly phrasing. Can we put some more specific attribution to that? --Ludwigs2 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Perhaps However, at its apogee, communism has been said to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). Tentontunic (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"has been said' is just as much weasel-wording as 'was argued by some'. who said this, precisely? individual authors, some particular type of scholar or journalist... attribute the claim to someone rather that asserting it with this kind of hand-waving. --Ludwigs2 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote says, "At its height, communism was the major threat to world peace, and by far the major source of international terrorism: that is communist inspired and/or communist-supported terrorism. Its hold on terrorist movements was not universal, however, for in a number of countries, natinalist rather than communist terrorism prevailed, for instance in Ireland, through the IRA... Another example was ETA.... It is relevant to add , however, that both the IRA and ETA had accepted Soviet assistance" (pp. 202-203).[1] Note Crozier distinguishes between communist and nationalist terrorism, even though he claims the nationalist terrorists received communist support, and of course many of them subscribed to communist ideology. He does not define communist terrorism as "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology", which is the definition in the lead.

This is by the way an example of why we should avoid political writing as sources and rely on academic publishers. We cannot tell from the writing whether Crozier is expressing his own opinion or an accepted fact, and we have no way of knowing what acceptance, if any, his opinions have received. Chomsky for example says that the U.S. was the main threat to world peace and the main supporter of terrorism. And yes, it "has been said" is WP:WEASEL.

TFD (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you aver that Chomsky holds a "majority opinion"? A "minority opinion" or a "fringe opinion" on that matter? See [2], [3] etc. Collect (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the political context Chomsky is an activist. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. We should use academic sources that indicate which views are mainstream, etc., rather than making the call ourselves. TFD (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

However, at its apogee, communism was the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). How about this? Tentontunic (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What about, Crozier claims that at its apogee, communism was the major source of international terrorism, although Chomsky claims it was the United States. Or find an academic source rather than poltical writing. TFD (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brian Crozier is an historian, I see no reason to doubt his writings, nor to say his writings are political and not academic. Who care`s what Chomsky claims about the USA? This article is not about the USA. Tentontunic (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mention that one writer that made a claim about the Soviet Union, then you need to present another view for balance. The way around this is to use academic sources that explain the relative acceptance of the various views. There is a parity between Transaction Publishers and South End Press. Both publish political books by academics. TFD (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Were in the content has a claim been made against the Soviet Union? And again, Chomsky`s views on the USA have no place in this article. Tentontunic (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lede statement supported by the source?

Does this lede statement accurately reflect the source: "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"? (C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection, p. 18)[4]) TFD (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• No The text is sourced to Drake's section on ideology "by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims, and justifies its actions" (p. 16). He classifies only those groups that use terrorism in order to achieve communist revolution (p.19). He classifies communist groups that have other objectives differently. For example, he classifies the ETA and LTTE under "separatism", because, although they are communist, the objective of their terrorism is to obtain separation from national governments (p. 17). TFD (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is incredibly disruptive, we now have to spend a further 30 days [5] arguing the same points again. Why not accept there is a consensus for inclusion of the content and actually make some suggestions for article improvement? Tentontunic (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The RfC question was stated incorrectly, because the result of this RfC is supposed to be used as a justification of addition of this text to the lede. However, since WP:V cannot be separated from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, the answer "yes" does not mean the approval of the addition of this text to the lede without attribution. However, the phrase "According to Drake, 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" belongs to the "Terminology" section rather than to the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: This is going to be very difficult, since this definition is at the intersection of the difficult-to-define "terrorism" and the difficult-to-define "communism". Using attribution, as Paul proposes above, seems like a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, measure. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Drake did not actually define "communist terrorism" as stated in the lead, so we cannot say "according to Drake". TFD (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes This has already been discussed extensively above and this RfC is getting dangerously close to being wikilawyering, since the nominator seems to refuse to accept consensus, even when an admin states that there is a rough consensus for the change that was made. Yes, this is what Drake says, as has been expressed above already. Read pg 19 and be done with this already. Silverseren^C 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Lede is OK. If the RfC is only and precisely over the technical question of what is the exact wording used in a particular book, I can't say - I haven't read the book and don't have a copy, but it would seem that someone who does have a copy should be able to clear this up forthwith. However, if the RfC is over the broader question "Is this lede OK?" that's different. And the lede sure looks OK to me. "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". Well this is obviously true on its face. Isn't it? What else would the term "Communist terrorism" describe? Acts of kindness committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology? Acts of violence committed by groups who don't subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology? It seems like a succinct and accurate lede to me, and if someone says "Communist terrorism!" to me it sure puts me in the mind of "Well, this person is probably talking about acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." Is there an alternative lede that someone else has suggested? If so could it be put forward? Otherwise let's go with the lede given. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the source. The source does not support the lede and if we choose to use the definition in the lede then we should find a source that supports it. TFD (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, as worded it's needlessly restrictive. Self-ascribed "communist" should be sufficient, otherwise we bind terrorism to the ideology and arguing whether or not a particular group adheres to the ideology to qualify as having engaged in communist terrorism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideology is extremely important to any terrorist group. Without an Ideology to fight for, then why fight? Tentontunic (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

[The Possessed (novel)|For the fight itself]]? Ok, that makes for better movies and novels than for real life.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Many sources agree that most terrorist groups in Europe and North America used just Communist phraseology, not ideology. That is why reliable sources do not describe them as Communists.

Re "self-ascribed". North Korean regime self-ascribes itself as democratic. Can we draw any serious conclusions from this fact? Of course, no. The statement of terrorists about themselves are primary sources, and they have almost zero value in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that groups which call themselves "Communist" are not "Communist" if they do bad stuff? Therefore no "Communist" does bad stuff? I would have assumed that groups calling themselves "Marxist-Lenist" etc. are, indeed, "Marxist-Leninst" on their face. Sorry - I do not buy that argument. Do you have an RS saying "Communist groups which just use the Communist name are not actually Communist" or the like? Collect (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, refrain from such arguments, otherwise it would be easily for me to put forward a counter argument that you are asserting that all bad stuff in the world were made by Communists (even whan the sources state the opposite). I found numerous sources which discuss alleged "Communist terrorist" groups without using the word "Communism" at all. These sources use different terms: "left-wing terrorism", "Euroterrorism", etc, and, they draw no connection between the activity of these groups and Communism at all. And this is in a full accordance with the theory of Marxism ("revolutionary situation cannot be created by individual/small group terror campaign") and with history of earlier Communists. Yes, Communists frequently resorted to authoritarian or totalitarian methods, they are responsible for state terror; in addition, some Communists were involved in partisan wars which were characterised as "terrorism" by some writers. However, terrorist groups like "Red brigades" had no direct relation to them, and most sources available for me confirm that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I made no comments which could be in any way construed as saying that, you could not do it per WP policy. Note particulalry the claim above that a group which calls itself "communist" is not "communist." Which I find to require a remarkable straining of the imagination. Collect (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I have to wave the red flag here (sorry for the pun), but exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your claim that the Red Brigades were not communist is certainly a very exceptional claim. The book Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations by Yonah Alexander and Dennis A. Pluchinsky, published by Routledge lists the Red Brigades as Marxist-Leninist terrorist group that was the largest fighting communist group in Europe at that time [6] --Martin (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the point of this discussion. The term "communist" covers Red Brigades, etc. Whether or not they interpreted Marx correctly is moot. TFD (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "As I made no comments which could be in any way construed as saying that, you could not do it per WP policy." I couldn't and I didn't. You probably noticed that I used a subjunctive mood. And, to make things clear enough, let me re-iterate that "I am asserting that groups which call themselves "Communist" may be "Communist", or bay be not "communist" depending on how reliable sources prefer to call them, and it is absliutely irrelevant if they do bad stuff or not". In this particular case, I found that most non-politicized sources that discuss the subject in details do not describe leftist terrorist organisations as Communist, although they all agree that these organisation do have some connection with Communism (at least at the level of declsrations or phraseology). Nevertheless, the fact that these sources prefer not to call them Communist is obvious.
@ Martin. For a person who read scholarly articles, not the writings of political journalists, this claim is not outstanding. You have an access to jstor. Try to read, for instance this [7]. This author describes an evolution of BR's self identification, and concludes that their ideology was affected by purist (not mainstream) Marxism-Leninism, WWII era partisan traditions and by the need to oppose to Fascists. Interestingly, it this article the author mentions the bombing attack in Piazzo Fontana, which was organised by Fascists and which served as an ultimate confirmation for leftists to act. The article stresses the fact that BR were direct opponents of Italian Communists (as well as of the mainstream Communist movement as whole) because they believed the Communists betrayed the early ideals of Communism (the article even mention the case when a Communist had been killed by BR members). In this situation, it is simply incorrect to talk about Communist terrorism without reservations that these terrorists were seen as radicals by mainstream Communists themselves, which did not support these terrorists. In my opinion, that is the reason why scholarly sources prefer to call them "leftists", or "ultraleftists", because the fact that terrorism was not immanent to mainstream Communism is obvious for everyone but Cold war hawks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably the reason they call them left-wing not communist terrorists is to avoid confusion with mainstream Communism. TFD (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes It is time people worked on article improvement rather that constantly arguing to remove content. Tentontunic (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Who argue with that? The question is what content should be added? The article should not be a fork of the Left-Wing terrorism article, and it should not discuss Communist terrorism as some strictly defined phenomenon. Instead of that, it should discuss various (not related to each other) examples of the usage of this term, as well as its (the term's) evolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The LWT articls is, ab initio, a fork of this article, containing, as it does, chunks hewn from this article. Collect (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lede is proper Topic is proper Wikilawyering repeatedly to remove the article is improper. Simple fact. Collect (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Science Research Network This working paper I stumbled across today may be of interest. [8] Defines communist terrorism as "2.2.1 Communist Terrorism or (Communist terror) is terrorism committed by Communist organizations or communist states against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear. The term is also widely used to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union. German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky and other authors trace the origins of Communist terrorism to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution." Usable here perhaps? Tentontunic (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

At present it is a working paper and no sources are provided for the definition used. It also contradicts both your and Drake's definition by adding in the actions of Communist governments. TFD (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not provided a definition. This source does not contradict Drake, it does in fact add to his work. How do you think an addition can be a contradiction? Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your definition says, "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 the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system." Communist states do not carry out terror against civilian populations in order to "inspire [them] to rise up and overthrow the existing [Communist] political and economic system". TFD (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not my definition, please stop saying that. The term is also widely used to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union. This is an addition do Drakes work. It adds to it. There is no contradiction here. Should I just ask on the RSN board about this? Tentontunic (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unpublshed essays by law students do not meet rs. You also must explan why ths student's essay deserves more than e.g. Drake's book. TFD (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I need explain nothing, I was asking if the source was usable as an addition to drakes work. Tentontunic (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. I'm shocked that after months/years of bickering on this issue, the people supporting the concept of "communist terrorism" have yet to find the sources or even the accurate language necessary to describe the concept in a way that isn't original research. Surely you guys can find a non-controversial definition in a reliable source, if one exists? csloat (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please point out were the original research is in the lede? As I most certainly see none. Tentontunic (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The first four sentences. csloat (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Still not seeing it, all I see there is what a source says, although BoogaLouie below makes a better suggestion. Please point out what you think is OR in the first four sentences. Tentontunic (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All of it. Please find any of it that isn't OR. Seriously. It is amazing to me that after all the arguing on this page none of you can be bothered to go find an actual source that backs up this concept. I mean, it does exist as a serious concept in serious literature somewhere, or you wouldn't be arguing about it, right? csloat (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"All of it" is not an answer. The content is not OR as the source meets WP:RS. This was the consensus on the RSN board. It is right there, I recommend you go read it as given your responses here I suspect you have not. Or please explain how the current four lines is OR based on the source. Tentontunic (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sort of. The proposed lede could follow what the source says a little more closely. The source says:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system. Examples of communist terrorist groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India, and the Japanese Red Army."

The lede currently says:

"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 the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

My suggestion is that "violence" be replaced by "terrorism" and that the examples in the source be added.

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of terrorism by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic capitalist system. Some examples of these groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India, and the Japanese Red Army.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If we do not agree with what the sources say, then we must find other sources. Do you have any sources that define "communist terrorism"? TFD (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

History section proposal.

I propose we remove the incredibly badly named section Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology as the most of it is now duplicated in the lede and replace it with the following.

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.

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) 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.

Bibliography

• Conway John S.The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945 Regent College Publishing. 1 April 2001. ISBN 978-1573830805
• Gadberry, Glen W. Theatre in the Third Reich, the prewar years: essays on theatre in Nazi Germany Greenwood. 30 March 1995. ISBN 978-0313295164
• Weinberg, Leonard. Political parties and terrorist groups. 2nd Revised Edition. 6 November 2008. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415775366
• Drake, C. J. M. Terrorists' target selection Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974
• Enders Walter. Sandler Todd. The political economy of terrorism November 14 2005. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521851008
• Alexander Yonah. Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations. October 1, 1992. Routledge. ISBN 978-0714634883
• Paoletti, Ciro (30 December 2007). A military history of Italy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0275985059.
• Harmon, Christopher C. Terrorism Today Routledge 2nd edition. 18 Octtober 2007. ISBN 978-0415773003

Request For Comment 2

The content above has been proposed for inclusion into this article, however no clear consensus has been reached so wider community input it required. Tentontunic (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on proposal 2

• Comment If you want to write about the history of the term then you need a source that writes about the history of the term. For us to do that on our own is original research. Note too that the terms "fighting communist organization" and "communist terrorism" are rarely used, the most usual term is left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, we can call the section Usage of the term. I am quite certain keeping the usage in chronological order is going to be okay. Tentontunic (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What does nazi terminology have to do with the article? And why are we including the CTs that do not even meet the definition provided by Drake from a book that does not even use the term? TFD (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Nazi terminology that I can see, please point it out. As I said, it is the usage of the term. Your views on drake have no bearing here a consensus was reached. Tentontunic (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Nazi terminology: "In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort...." TFD (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not Nazi terminology, it is however what the source says. Tentontunic (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can see clearly how "left wing terrorism" far outpaces the use of "communist terrorism" in published sources. And even the notion of "communist terrorism" is nothing but Nazi propaganda. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is something wrong with your graph. If you click on the "Search in Google Books" at the bottom of the page, you will see that the term "left-wing terrorism" is more commonly used (3,460 hits"left wing terrorism"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en vs. 3,320 hits"communist terrorism"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en, "leftist terrorism" returns 1,320 hits"communist terrorism"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=lang_en&tbs=bks:1%2Clr%3Alang_1en&q=%22leftist+terrorism%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=14be60aa2370f745 The term "communist terrorism" is less popular today although it was commonly used to describe insurgencies during the Cold War. And the suggestion that "the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort..." is a direct quote from Tentontunic's suggested lead. TFD (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Peters, the question is not in what term is more abundant in all books published since 1900, but in what term is being more frequently applied to some concrete subject. For instance, using your methodology the term "Eastern Front" should be replaced with "World War II" because the latter is much more abundant [9], which would be absolutely incorrect. The point is not in which term is more abundant in the literature as whole, but in which term is more frequently used by scholars to describe the Cold War and post-Cold War era terrorist groups that use Communist phraseology. Most sources available for me do not describe this phenomenon as "Communist terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Stop with the Google searchs, Google is easily played. Left Wing Terrorist 2,320 Communist terrorist 3,610 results The term is there, we need to work on the article, not argue over the little details time and time again. Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Google search cannot be played, you can easily check by yourself if the adequate keywords were chosen. However, google has another problem: it searches within all sources, not only within reliable ones. That is why scholar.google.com is more preferable. And, again, the number of hits per se is hardly informative: the question is how frequently they are being used to describe the events we discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The first Google hit for CT is Emergency propaganda: the winning of Malayan hearts and minds. Most of the others on the front page are about Communist-led insurgencies in south-east asia during the Cold War. TFD (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The first Google hit I find (other than WP) is Leon Trotsky "Terrorism and Communism." Second is [10]. Third is [11]. In short, the "southeast Asia" bit is a tad bogus as a cavil. Collect (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we were talking about Google books, not whatever search you did. Your first two hits were did not return "communist terrorist" but Trotsky's book Communism and terrorim and an op-ed called "Communism, Terrorism Or Peace?". Only your third hit is relevant. It is a story from Accuracy in Media, an organization that accuses Fox News Channel of having a "liberal" bias - in fact this article criticizes Rupert Murdoch for his connections with an alleged "communist terrorist". TFD (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying Google Books - find Miller's "Communist Terrorism" as first entry. 'Communist terrorism in India" as second entry. "Terrorism and political violence" as third entry. And I surmise that a book titled "Communist Terrorism" is, in fact, about "Communist terrorism." YMMV, but your "search" is still errant no matter how I look at it. As for your only your third hit is relevant' that means you know something which Google does not know. Collect (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Miller's Communist terrorism is a copy of this Wikipedia article from VDM Publishing. Communist Terrorism in India is a copy of the Wikipedia article Communist Party of India (Maoist) from Books LLC. While the third source has a chapter called "Communist terrorism, it seems to be about the relationship between Communist and terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Usage of the term would probably be a better section title, yeah. And this looks good enough for a base that can potentially be expanded later with more detail. Silverseren^C 23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there any actual objections to the proposed content? If not I shall do an edit protect and have this added in place of the current section. Tentontunic (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This section can be added provided than we all will agree that it is supposed to be expanded further. In addition, the words:

" These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. 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."

must be changed, because "Fighting Communist Organisations" is not the most common term to describe them. Scholars use "Lefits terrorists", "left-wing terrorists", "Eeuroterrorists", or simply call them "terrorists" avoiding any common term. In addition, the sentence implies, although does not states explicitly, that those organisations had close ties with Communism, although in actuality most euroterrorists either had never been the members of Communist parties or were expelled from them for radicalism. Some sources (among those who mention a connection between these groups and Communism) describe them to be loosely committed to Communism[12], use just "Communist phraseology", or " intertwined with the Communist movement"(Cronin, International Security 27.3 (2002/03) 30-58), which implied that these two were different, although related phenomenae. Therefore, the alternative terms must be also explained and used here, and the link to the main article (Left-wing terrorism) should be provided. It is necessary to stress that none of these groups had a relation with the Communist parties of their countries, and they acted quite independently, i.e. their activity had no relation to, or was in a contradiction with the official policy of Communist parties. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

PS I checked in google scholar, and I found that my guess was correct: the term "Foghting Communist Organisation" is being used very rarely[13]. I should not be used as a main term (if used at all). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It is of course to be expanded upon, regarding the rest as the section is about usage of the term I see no issue with the FCO being in here, but as you say we can of course add the differing terminology regarding these groups as another section perhaps? Or expand it in the usage section? Which would be your preference? Tentontunic (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, FCO is being used as a partial synonym for euroterrorism, so it is incorrect to state that that term characterised the groups "throughout the world". Why don't you simply call them "leftist", or "left-wing terrorists" (this term is really frequently used by scholars)? The issue with FCO is that it is less common than other terms ([14] vs [15], or [16]). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We also need a source that says FCOs are CTs, otherwise this is just original research. TFD (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have used FCO as the sources used call these groups FCO. I do not think the term is as rare as suggested [17] given how many times it is used and Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations is cited. The Four Deuces I have added another page reference from the aforementioned book to cover your concern. Tentontunic (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose changing the name of the article to FCOs? TFD (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you see were I may have written such? No, then please stay on topic. Do you have any actual objections within policy against this proposed content inclusion. Tentontunic (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I do not think the term is as rare as suggested" That is not the question of your or my "thought", and is not a question of taste. I you believe my search results are incorrect, please, explain why. I, for instance, can explain what is the problem with yours. Most of the books in your list contain the reference to the same book of a single author; if we exclude this author, the number of results drops dramatically [18]. And, in addition, whereas google books searches within all books, including unreliable ones, or even WP mirrors, google scholar deals predominantly with reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I did make mention of how many times the book has been cited. Now unless you for some reason think that Alexander & Pluchinsky are unreliable I honestly do not see your issue. The FCO term does not just encompass euroterrorism, several latin american countries with communist terrorist groups also fall under the term, such as FARC and the Shining Path we also have they Japanese Red Army Faction which falls under this grouping, you need to realize the term is used to encompass the terrorist organizations which became active in the late 60`s early 70`s. Tentontunic (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the term FCO is being used mostly by these two authors, and other authors use it with attribution. They write that Pluchinsky uses the term FCO to describe some left-wing terrorist organisations. Accordingly, it is premature to speak about change of the mainstream terminology: independently of how frequently this book is being cited, other sources prefer to use different terminology, which remains a mainstream one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, Christopher C. Harmon is used as a source in this proposed content. He also uses the FCO term. Are you honestly saying these authors are not mainstream? And the fact that Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations is so highly cited proves beyond any doubt that the term is mainstream. I have already said we ought to have a subsection dealing with this, which would include the differing terminology, are we arguing at cross purposes here? Tentontunic (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Harmon cites Pluchinsky (ref 26), and he puts this term in quotation marks. The fact that the term has been used by a widely cited scholar does not make it automatically mainstream. We need to compare the usage of this term with the alternative terms. With regard to Harmon, the fact that he puts Lenin, Trotsky and Meinhof into the same category is highly suspicious, because most sources do not see any significant connection between the Bader-Meinhof gang and Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually saying the Red Army Faction were not communist? Every source on them says they had a Marxist/Leninist ideology. Tentontunic (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see from this [19] that to say "every" is an exaggeration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All I can see from that is a few sources which do not use communist. Can you tell me what those sources say they ideology of the RAF were? I can guarantee it was Marxist/Leninist. Tentontunic (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The history of Japanese Red Army faction is as follows:

"Sekigun began with a ready-made formal organizational pattern. The organization emerged in classic Japanese fashion as a faction that split from its parent group over an unresolvable policy dispute. The split occurred at the top level of a major national student organization called the Communist League (Kyosanshugisha Domei, known informally as Bund), between the Tokyo and Kansai regional leaders.

Bund itself was the product of the first major factional split in the postwar Japanese national student organization (Zengakuren). It was formed in 1958 by student leaders who had either been expelled from or had voluntarily left the Japan Communist party, which at that time dominated Zengakuren. Bund subsequently took over the leadership of the Zengakuren mainstream, a position it maintained until the student movement fragmented further following the 1960 Anti-Security Treaty campaign (Dowsey 1970). Although Bund remained Marxist and took the name Communist League, it has not been associated with either the Japan Communist party or the Japan Socialist party since its independent formation in 1958. Bund has had a remarkable history of internal factional splits, having generated over fifty separate groups in addition to Sekigun" (Hijackers, Bombers, and Bank Robbers: Managerial Style in the Japanese Red Army. Author(s): Patricia G. Steinhoff Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 724-740)

In other words, RAF separated from Bund, which, in turn was formed from ex-Communists, and RAF was more extremist than Bund. What was the ideological contradiction between RAF and BUND?

"Initially the rhetoric of a Red Army participating in the vanguard of the global revolution was primarily a device to justify a more radical domestic course of action. The factional split from Bund gave its advocates the opportunity to try out their more violent tactics, which quickly brought about precisely the response that the Bund mainstream had feared. However, as police pressure escalated against Sekigun in Japan, the group's ideology offered a new way out. If they could no longer function effectively in Japan, they could build an international base from which to strengthen their army and continue to operate."(ibid)

In other words, RAF was formed by extremist ex-Communists, and the split allowed them to pursue their goals more freely. I have no problem with the mention that many left-wing terrorist organisations were formed by ex-Communists, and that they presented an ultra-extremist fraction of the leftists. However, to call them mainstream Communists, or even to emphasize their connection with Marxism is absolutely incorrect. Marxism, in its mainstream interpretation rejects individual and group terrorism, and history of most major Communist (except Maoist) parties confirms that.

Re your question, the essence of the RAF ideology, which lead to the split, was terrorism: they wanted to use more radical and violent means. This appeared to be unacceptable even for such a marginally Communist organisation as Bund, hence the split. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, for both RAF and BR we see the same pattern: these groups were formed by ex-Communists, who were expelled from their parties for extremism, and got an opportunity to pursue their goals as a result of this expulsion, because membership in Communist organisations was incompatible with terrorist activity. In my opinion, this point has to be stressed in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the RAF and BR are explicitly identified as Marxist-Leninist terrorists. Are you seriously claiming Marxist-Leninist are not communist? It's like claiming fundamentalist Islamists are not islamists. --Martin (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Every phenomenon has several traits, and, based on that, it can be characterised differently. Noone argues that these groups were loosely committed to Marxist ideology. However, majority of reliable sources characterise them as leftist, or left-wing terrorists to distinguish them from mainstream communists. Accordingly, the preference should be given to this term, although the connection of this groups with Marxist ideology should also be mentioned to distinguish them from other terrorists and extremists. I have no problem with usage of the term "Fighting Communist Organisation", however, it must be used along with the mainstream one, and it should be supplemented with needed reservations and explanations, because this term seems self-explanatory, which in actuality is not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, why are you writing about the Japanese JRA? You first make mention of Baader-Meinhof which is the red army faction, you are talking above of the JRA, these are not the same groups. Tentontunic (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, can we consider the Japanese Red Army issue resolved then? With regard to the Baader-Meinhof group, the answer is yes. Its ideology was Marxist, however, its roots were quite different (see below). And the latter factor is more important for scholars and, accordingly, for those who wants to present the facts neutrally. Of course, if someone wants to connect Marxism with as many bad things as possible, that is not an argument, however, I am confident that neither you not I are belong to this category...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No paul, the JRA was also a communist group, just because they formed independently of other groups does not suddenly mean they did not follow an communist ideology. However as they are not currently being suggested for inclusion might we get back to the matter at hand? Might we add the proposed content above and then discuss any additions you may wish to make? As I have said, a section for the FCO groups which explains the differing terminology ought be added as well. Inclusion of this section will allow us to remove all but the POV tag, this will make the article look at least somewhat decent. Tentontunic (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with referring to the JRA as small-"c" communist, except that it could be confused with big-"C" Communist, which is probably why most writers do not describe them as "communist terrorists", preferring instead terms such as left-wing, leftist, Marxist-Leninist, communist/socialist, etc. Same thing with Trotskyists. (e.g., in Germany until 1959) TFD (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Given no further complaints I shall do an edit protect later today to replace the existing section with the proposal above. Tentontunic (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You can do that provided, but only provided, that all comments have been taken into account in the proposed text. I don't see so far that you have done that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the FCO issue was going into another section? So as to explain the differing terminology? Tentontunic (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added euro-terrorism to the section, was this all you required? I still think a section on the FCO`s will be needed given the term encompasses groups from outside of Europe. Tentontunic (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I can edit the proposed text a little bit to demonstrate what is required in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I took your version and modified it. I added no refs so far because I am not sure if this text will satisfy you. When we elaborate the final wersion, I'll add needed references (and additionally check all facts with sources).

________________________________________

"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 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war (known as "Malayan emergency") started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army . Since the insurgents were lead by the Malayan Communist Party, their actions were labeled as "Communist terrorism" by British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy and to locate them Malayan Emergency in a context of the Cold War. Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.

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. As a rule, these groups were loosely committed to the Marxist ideology and their strategic goals were poorly articulated. The founders of some of these organisations were ex-Communists who were expelled from their 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."

Let me also point out that the epithet "terrorist" almost always needs an attribution: depending on the author's viewpoint the same person can be a freedom fighter or terrorist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks awful, I have never seen so much wriggling and get out clauses in such a short paragraph. Is there no other way you could have written "these groups are not communist" you surely must have missed one. Sorry but that will not do. I have, being somewhat macabre added a few tags, I would like to see your sources for that which is cn. Tentontunic (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By adding cn tags you by no means have been macabre, you just demonstrated that you genuinely want to resolve the issue. In connection to that, will the issue be resolved if I'll provide needed sources? (Of course, I do not insist on this concrete wording, provided that the main idea is preserved). BTW, the main idea is not that they were not Communists. In actuality, what I am saying is that they were: (i) Communist partisans (partisans are usually not considered as terrorists), or, (ii) ultraradical Communists, or (iii) ex-Communists, (iv) or non-Communist leftists, (v) ordinary criminals who used Communist phraseology. Whereas some sources label all of them as Communists, others (majority, in terms of depth of the analysis and fact check) prefer not to do that.

One more point. Among Communist terrorist groups the Maoists were predominant, because the Maoist doctrine provides a better theoretical justification for terrorist activity. I believe, this fact should be mentioned also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find sourcing? Ought I do an RFC to garner further input from other editors? Tentontunic (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can provide the sources to support almost every proposed change. However, since you wrote that the text is awful, I do not want to waste my time. Can you please comment on the proposed changes assuming that all of them are supported by RS. If you disagree with them, I am ready to discuss alternative wording. Then, after we will come to an agreement about the wording I'll provide exact references and pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of it? Then why propose it to begin with? The text is awful for the reasons already stated, it is an apologists view of the facts. Emphasizing your view that "they were not really communist" that they were "partisans" "ex-communists" or "criminals" does not reflect what the sources say on these groups. You saying the majority of sources do not call them communist is a nonsense. It would be better to do an RFC on the proposal I have already outlined than try and work on content you proposed which cannot even be cited. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not choose titles for articles and then determine what they are about. TFD (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Some references have been provided. I am thinking about rewording of some statements that you believe are POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

These groups, usually referred to you actually have a source for this? You sourced left wing and such, but it is the usually referred to that really requires a source. Is it usually referred to as left wing?

I believe, it is clear from the context that "These groups, usually referred to" refers not only to "left-wing", but to all these terms. However, the primary term seems to be "left-wing terrorism"; thus, Aubrey (Stefan M. Aubrey. The new dimension of international terrorism. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004, ISBN 3728129496, 9783728129499, p. 43) outlines six basic types of terrorism: nationalist, state-sponsored, religious, left-wing, right-wing and anarchist. A similar Cronin's classification also includes left-wing, but no "Communist terrorism". Many sources use the term "revolutionary terrorism", which includes left-wing and anarchist. However, I didn't see the term "communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism in articles that propose some general classification of terrorism. More refs added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorist groups

C. J. M. Drake discusses the role of ideology in terrorists' target selection and identifies several communist terrorist groups in his book "Terrorists' target selection": "Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the exist political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system. Examples of communist terrorist groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India and the Japanese Red Army."[20]. Therefore it would be appropriate to mention these groups in this article. --Martin (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The are (or will be) mentioned, in the proposed section above you will see reference to the fighting communist organizations. These are the same groups Drake discusses, I am of the mind that once we have the usage of the term finalized the FCO ought to have a section within the article also. Tentontunic (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this name should be used as one of the names that has been used by scholars to describe some left-wing terrorist oprganisations. However, it is necessary to add all reservations I presented in the previous section, as well as the link to the main article ("left-wing terrorism"), because that article discusses the same subject, and POV-content forking is prohibited in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS In addition, many sources presented by Tentontunic use FCO in quotation marks (which implies that it is not a common term); in addition, the sources frequently contain the explicit statement that "FCO" refers to leftist, or left-wing terrorist organisation, which explicitly confirms my suggestion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The "fork" was made when material from this article was used to create the second article. Period. The claim that the first article is the "fork" is absurd on its face. Iterating the claim that this article is the "fork" does not make it true. Collect (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You reproduce the same argument, which has already been addressed many times, and you perfectly know what the counter-arguments (supported by reliable sources) are. Do not disappoint me, and do not force me to doubt in your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations I see no quotation marks in this book title, I will also point out this book has received great acclaim and is considered something of a benchmark in the literature. It is cited regularly, it is used by the american DOD, it is used as a textbook by university worldwide. I can present quite a few sources which do not use quotation marks, and to the best of my recollection have not seen it presented as such. Tentontunic (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't understand me. There is no quotation marks in this book, however, most of other books found by you refer to this book, and many of them put FCO in quotation marks. Many other sources that cite this book contain a statement that the author called left-wing terrorist organisations "FCO", which directly confirm my point: FCO is an alternative term for some left-wing terrorist organisations, and not the most common one; accordingly, it has to be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When authors assign a term for a topic they do not use scare quotes. However, unless their terminology becomes accepted, other authors citing them will. Red terrorists by the way is frequently cited as a source for left-wing terrorism in Western Europe during the 1970s and 1980s. Notice that the author does not refer to the government of the Soviet Union as an FCO. TFD (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the term FCO is misleading because it implies some affiliation of these organisations with national Communist parties. In actuality, there were no connection between these two, moreover, FCOs were frequently the opponents of mainstream Communists. That is why it is necessary to clearly separate lefists/FCOs from Communists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IOW Communists who are not "mainstream Communists" (however one determines that) are not Communists? Interesting sort of thesis, that one. Collect (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul seems to be arguing, mutatis mutandis, "since Islamic terrorism is not mainstream Islam, then we cannot call it Islamic terrorism but instead we must call it religious terrorism". --Martin (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist parties saying they have no affiliation with terrorist groups, now were have I heard this before? Sinn Féin perhaps? Or some other group who denied all ties to terrorists, this is hardly an unusual event. However as they self identified as communist I see to reason to argue this point. Looking at the scare quotes issue, paul`s search above shows more sources without quotes than with. This would indicate the terminology is widely accepted. Tentontunic (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification is a rather tricky thing: for instance, many former Communist regimes self-identified themselves as Socialist or democratic. We have to stick with how the reliable source characterise them, and reliable sources prefer not to call them Communists.

Re: "Communist parties saying they have no affiliation with terrorist groups, now were have I heard this before?" Straw man argument. I do not care what Communist parties were saying, I am talking about reliable sources. These sources state that, for instance, Red Brigades, the most deadly Fighting Communist Organisation, was composed of non-Communists or ex-Communists, and its actual objectives were very poorly articulated (despite the usage of Communist phraseology). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

With Sinn Féin, you are right: it is a good example of left-wing but not Communist organisation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The roots of terrorism The Red Brigades' ideology was Marxist-Leninist p57. Pirates, Terrorists, and Warlords: The History, Influence, and Future of Armed Groups Around the WorldRed Brigades, rooted in Marxist, anticapitalist ideology p35 Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations The Red Brigades (RB) was a Marxist- Leninist p194 Please do not say this group is not rooted in Marxism-Leninism Tentontunic (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The key question is: Is Marxist-Leninism a communist ideology? Apparently not if I understand Paul correctly. --Martin (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The key questions are: how important role did ideology play for these groups, and how closely did they stick to it in their activity?

And, if you want to know the roots, let's see what the sources tell about that:

"On the radical left, there was a group of people very sensitive to the injustice of the capitalist system and with a sense of guilt due to worldwide imperialism. This group despaired of political change "within the system," and argued that revolutionary violence against the system would be justified (Eckert, 1978; Fetscher, 1978). In April, 1968, two department stores in Frankfurt were bombed and the perpetrators, when finally sentenced, told the court that they destroyed property as a protest against the indifference of the society toward the war in Vietnam. These individuals were Baader, Ensslin, Sohnlein and Proll. In May, 1970, Baader was freed from prison by three women, one of whom was Ulrike Meinhof (Schwind, 1978, pp. 26-31). These were the beginnings of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist movement. The first generation of this movement consisted largely of students and while the later terrorist activities of the Red Army Faction had little to do with the student movement, the roots are clearly in the campus struggles of the sixties." (The Sixties and the Seventies: Aspects of Student Activism in West Germany. Author(s): Wolff-Dietrich Webler. Source: Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Mar., 1980), pp. 155-168)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, do you think your obscure paper from 1980 has more weight than the more recent scholarship of Alexander and Pluchinsky's widely cited book published by Routledge in 1992 which explicitly identifies RAF as a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group? As I said above, Drake in his 1998 book discusses the central role of ideology in terrorism and identifies several communist terrorist groups, including the RAF. --Martin (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this "obscure" paper tells us about the roots of this terrorist group, and it is in accordance with what other sources say. Is the Alexander and Pluchinsky's vision of their root different?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the roots are a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Marxism-Leninism is an instance of Communism. --Martin (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think than no sane person will waste his time for tha discussion of whether or not Marxism-Leninism is an instance of Communism. Of course it is. However such a discussion is a red herring and it is irrelevant to the main discussion about the roots of euroterrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is relevant, all the organisations mentioned in this paper on euroterrorism are explictly identified as either "Marxist" or "Marxist-Leninist". So now we have another source that identifies the ideological roots of these groups. --Martin (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we re-name the article by the better known term "Marxist-Leninist terrorism"? TFD (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on euroterrorism does not use that typology, it categorizes groups primarily as "Leftist" or "Nationalist/Separatist". Note the PFLP is called "Nationalist/Separatist" and "Communist", but not leftist (p. 46). Do we only include groups specifically categorized as "Communist" or widen it to include any group with the desription Marxist or Leninist, including nationalist/separatist terrorism? Or do we use the description "Leftist" as a synonym for "communist terrorism" - which would duplicate the article on Leftist terrorism? Or do we widen the definition to include any terrorism supported by communist countries, including "right-wing terrorism"? Why not stick with the categories used in the article? My concern is that if we reject the categories used in the source and create new ones based on our own interpretations, that would be original research. TFD (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All these groups were born out of the protests against Vietnam in the 60`s. Their ideology is communist. Any argument against the ideology of these groups being anything but Marxist-Leninist or Maoist is pure time wasting. And I for one shall have no more of it. Find a notice board to argue your case that these groups did not subscribe to some form of communist ideology and prepare to be laughed at. This entire section is a waste of server space. Tentontunic (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is why we are rejecting the typology suggested by the sources and creating a new one. There is also the issue of what this new typology is. It does not matter how cogent one's arguments may be. TFD (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I`m sorry, but what is this new typology you seem to think we are creating? All I have seen so far have been cited from reliable sources. Tentontunic (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what this new typology is, which is the point of this discussion. How would you classify for example the ETA? TFD (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you do not know what you are talking about then how do you expect others to? I would not classify ETA, that is for reliable sources to do. Tentontunic (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost like you're advocating original research. Either that or you're saying that we should cherry-pick the sources so that they only subscribe to one POV and ignore the rest. Silverseren^C 19:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. How do you think that reliable sources categorize the ETA, which is a Marxist-Leninist group that carries out terrorism. Are they "communist terrorists" for purposes of the article? What criteria for inclusion should be use? TFD (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Started off as a Nationalist movement. Found Marxism/Maoism. Became a communist terrorist group dedicated to setting up a Basque homeland (which would be communist I presume). That is how reliable sources describe them in short. I would recommend you read the following, ETA: profile of a terrorist group by Yonah Alexander, Michael S. Swetnam, Herbert M. Levine, The making of terrorism By Michel Wieviorka and The terrorism reader By David J. Whittaker. These ought to give you a solid grounding on the history of the group. Tentontunic (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not: Any group which advocates government ownership of all means of production in accord with the writings of Karl Marx is 'communist' ? Sufficiently straightforward? (By the way, several similar sources back this up - so it is not "talk page OR" by a long shot. Collect (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to know, because some of the sources, e.g., Drake, Plunchinsky, the paper on euroterrorism linked by Martin, categorize them as nationalist/separatist, and categorize them separately from communist/leftist/FCO terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"ETA was founded on July 31, 1959, by a group of university students. Impatient with the lack of progress of the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), which had a relatively moderate political approach, ETA’s founders came from the party’s youth wing, Eusko Gaztedi (EGI). They split off from the PNV to form ETA, seeking the unification and independence of the seven Basque provinces. Although ETA based itself on Sabino Arana’s nationalist themes, its ideology, goals, and means differed on several levels. Based on Marxist principles, ETA rejected autonomy as an insufficient political goal and pledged itself to an armed resistance against Franco’s dictatorship in order to establish an independent socialist state. For the most part, Basque nationalism and ETA initially were centered in towns and rural areas rather than in industrialized areas of the Basque region, so it can be argued that the movement was in part a consequence of modernization and secularism, the basis for ETA’s later cloaking itself in Marxist-Leninist socialist ideology" The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to Al-Qaeda By Jerrold M. Post pp57-57. Does this help clear your confusion? Tentontunic (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Many scholars agree that leftist terrorist groups used Marxist praseology, or declared adherence to Marxist doctrine, or used Marxism ideology as a cloak for their real goals (sometimes just for obtaining a help from the USSR). Others argue that the goals of these groups were frequently so poorly articulated that they were indistinguishable from ordinary criminals. However, the question is not what they pretended to be, but what they were. For instance, ETA drifted to a social oriented nationalism and separatism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't extrapolate what one author writes about ETA to all terrorist groups. --Martin (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I appreciate your attempt to find a consensus, however, the problem with majority of these groups is that they really had no well articulated economic program< therefore, the question what they advocated is moot.

Re "All these groups were born out of the protests against Vietnam in the 60`s. Their ideology is communist." The former is correct, the latter is less obvious. Most sources do no state that.

Re ETA. The sources available to me state that ETA started as a mixed Marxist-separatist organisation, but currently had drifted to separatist nationalism (Laqueur, W. (1999). The new terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, (2000), ISBN 0195140648, 9780195140644, p. 35). The source tells nothing about Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Tentontunic, it confuses me more than ever. Why are you rejecting the categories used by your sources? Even your latest source draws a distinction between "Social Revolutionary Terrorism (Left)" and "Nationalist-Separatist Terrorism" (p. 4). You want to create a new category combining the Marxist-Leninists of both groups. Can you provide any reliable sources that do this? TFD (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This ETA thing is a red herring. I don't think ETA was ever in this article or its fork Left-wing terrorism. The paper I linked on Euroterrorism is about how European groups with differing ideologies cooperated with each other. Marxist-Leninist groups cooperated with Nationalist-Seperatist groups, so what, this aspect is off topic to this section. The issue is that we have several papers that explicitly identify particular groups as Marxist-Leninist. So it is not a case as Paul contends of "leftist terrorist groups used Marxist praseology, or declared adherence to Marxist doctrine, or used Marxism ideology as a cloak for their real goals", but authors who make that jusdgement. --Martin (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While the sources presented identify the ETA as Marxist-Leninist, they do not include it as communist/FCO/Leftist/Left. Do you have a source that uses the typology that you are advancing for this article. If as you claim left-wing terrorism is a fork, then the ETA should be excluded. But if the criteria for including groups is that they are both Marxist-Leninist and terrorist, then it should be included. Have you decided which one it is? TFD (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul stated above "I think than no sane person will waste his time for that discussion of whether or not Marxism-Leninism is an instance of Communism. Of course it is." I really do not want to waste my time discussing whether or not Marxism-Leninism is an instance of Communism, do you? --Martin (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Marxism-Leninism is communism but whether terrorism by communists is communist terrorism. That may seem paradoxical, but the authors you have provided distinguish between communist/FCO/Leftist/Left terrorism, which is carried out by communists in order to achieve revolution and terrorism carried out by communists and others in other to attain nationalist/separatist objectives. For the purposes of this article, do you intend to maintain the distinction used by your sources or do you intend to introduce another definition for "communist terrorism", e.g., any terrorist action carried out by any communist for any reason? If so do you intend to provide any sources? TFD (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not apparent to me that these authors make a distinction between communist/FCO/Leftist/Left terrorism. For example in the euroterrorism paper the main distinction appears to be whether or not a particular group is Marxist-Leninist. Any terrorist group that is Marxist-Leninist should be included in this article. Please articulate what these distinctions you believe these authors are making. --Martin (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...however, many other authors manage to discuss these groups without using a word "Communist" at all. In a situation when different terms are applied to the same terrorist groups the term that is generally accepted by scholars should be used. Therefore, the fact that some sources describe the terrorist group as "leftist", and other sources describe it as "Communist" we cannot have two separate articles for the same group. This article can and should mention all these groups, however, the main article should be Left-wing terrorism, and the link to this article should be provided.

Regarding distinctions, the key features of Marxism are internationalism and economical determinism. Therefore, any nationalist and terrorist groups are inherently non-Marxist: according to Marxism, no social revolution can be inspired by terrorist acts if there is no economical prerequisites for that. However, other leftists do not share this idea. For instance, Russian Socialist Revolutionaries considered individual terrorism as a useful tool. You probably remember that, according to Lenin, even Trotsky was not a Marxist. If some group resorts to individual terror, especially, if it pursues nationalistic goals, it thereby demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the Marxist ideology. The statement "the terrorist group ABC is a Marxist leftist group" means that it is anti-capitalist (that is what essentially "leftist" means) and it uses Marxist phraseology, nothing more. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot call organizations "terrorist" unless there is consensus that they were terrorists. The Sandanistas for example who carried out terrorist attacks were not generally called a "communist terrorist organization", and in fact are not even communist today. Or Nelson Mandela's ANC. It may conflict with WP:BLP and WP:LABEL. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(out) All your sources distinguish between "communist/FCO/Leftist/Left terrorism" and "separatist/nationalist terrorism", even though some of the latter, e.g., the ETA are Marxist-Leninist. See for example "Euroterrorism":

"1.1 Two strands: ETA/IRA and RAF/BR/AD/CCC

"Literature studies and the RAND-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base define two strands of transnational links within Europe in the 1970s and 1980s...' The first strand contains the link between the Irish IRA and the ETA from the Spanish Basque region, both nationalist-separatist movements.... The second strand... can be defined as a connection between leftist ideological organizations, in other words a connection based on ideological motivation. (p. 4)"

TFD (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Round and round Robin Hood's barn we go again ... If a group committed terrorist acts, they were a terrorist group. Defining it as anything else is OR at its worst. If they avowed communist ideals and ideology, they were a communist group. A group with is both a communist group and a terrorist group is fairly clearly a communist and terrorist group. And no one else here has made quite the claims you seem to make. Collect (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"During the American Revolution, terrorism was used against the British and their colonial sympathizers".[21] Would you call the Founding Fathers of the United States a terrorist organization? TFD (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really a valid analogy, since we have sources that explicitly describe particular communist groups as terrorist. --Martin (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You just said, "... If a group committed terrorist acts, they were a terrorist group". Are you now changing your position to we must "have sources that explicitly describe particular communist groups as terrorist"? TFD (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re IRA. This is may be helpful:

"The IRA may have employed Marxist ideological rhetoric during the 1960s, for instance, but it is absurd to suggest that it (or any of its more-radical off-shoots, like the Irish National Liberation Army) was first and foremost a Marxist group." (Cristopher Fettweis. Freedom Fighters and Zealots: Al Qaeda in Historical Perspective. Political Science Quarterly; Summer2009, Vol. 124 Issue 2, p 269-296.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitions and use of "communist" and "terrorist" about organizations in Communist terrorism

1. Is an organization which calls itself "communist", "Maoist" or "Marxist" properly considered by Wikipedia to be "communist"?
2. Is an organisation which has been found guilty of "terrorism" properly called "terrorist" on Wikipedia?
3. Is the combination of a "communist organization" and a "terrorist organization" #referring to one organization# properly called a "communist terrorist organization"?
4. Would such a putative organization properly be considered under "communist terrorism"? Collect (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If "communist terrorist"="communist"+"terrorist", then that is synthesis. We should follow the definitions in reliable sources for "communist terrorist", rather than creating our own. TFD (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

C. J. M. Drake states in his book "Terrorists' target selection": "Examples of communist terrorist groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India and the Japanese Red Army."[22]. On the basis of TFD's assertion that we should follow the definitions in reliable sources for "communist terrorist", and Drake's book is a reliable source, we seem to have consensus to add these groups to this article. --Martin (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1 & 2 are covered by WP:RS. We normally use reliable secondary sources to establish facts, not self-identification or court documents. 3 & 4 are covered by WP:SYN. We use definitions in reliable sources, we do not create our own. TFD (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since you have asked several questions, I believe you don't mind me to re-format your RfC post. Below are my explanations and answers:

1. No. Any statement of terrorists themselves is a primary source, and the usage of such statements should comply with WP:PSTS policy. Concretely, these sources can be used only via quotation, and they are reliable only as a proof of terrorist self-identification. This is a policy, so editorial consensus cannot change that. If you disagree with that, go to WP:RSN.
2. The question is unclear. "Found guilty" by whom? By court? If it is a court of some non-democratic state, then probably no. Some authors explicitly refuse to call insurgents fighting against non-democratic regimes "terrorists". Anti-colonialist partisans should also not be considered as terrorists, otherwise we would have to concede that e.g. the US were founded by terrorists.
3. Please, read WP:SYNTH. "She sells seashells by the seashore. The shells she sells are surely seashells. So if she sells shells on the seashore, I'm sure she sells seashore shells." Is "seashore shells" a separate category of shells?
4. No necessarily. I would like to see an example of general typology of terrorism that contains a category "Communist terrorism". I haven't found it so far, because all typologies available for me (see the refs in the Comments on proposal 2 section) include left-wing (along with nationalist, religious etc), but not Communist terrorism. See also #3 ("seashore shells") --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Profiling and Counter-Terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions page 41 categorizes communist terrorism as a type. As does Regional Integration in the Asia Pacific: Issues and Prospects page 248. Terrorists' target selection does as well. There are many more of course. Tentontunic (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic profiling does not establish "communist terrorism" as a type. Rather it contains a footnote that refers to Amy Zalman's typology, and uses the term "socialist or communist terrorism".[23] Drake did not intend to create a typology, but was explaining ideological influences (liberalism, conservatism, communism, etc.) on terrorists.[24] TFD (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes "socialist or communist terrorism" your point being? Your personal thoughts on what Drake "meant" has no place here. We also have this Peter R. Neumann Old & new terrorism Polity. September 23 2009. ISBN 978-0745643755 page 29 Old terrorism- Nationalist/Marxist. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source of interest Rueckert, William Howe Encounters with Kenneth Burke University of Illinois Press. February 1, 1994. ISBN 978-0252063503 "Marxist terrorism, Islamic terrorism, fundamentalist Christian terrorism, democratic terrorism, fascist terrorism, or racial terrorism." An amusing one that. Tentontunic (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My point being that no one (or almost no one) uses the term "communist terrorism" as a type, including your latest sources. The most commonly used terms are "left-wing", "leftist" or "Marxist-Leninist" terrorism. And I am not providing my personal thoughts on Drake, merely reporting what he said he was doing. TFD (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You then do not in fact, have a point. For if no-one used it as a type, then why are there so many sources which use it? And yes, you are once again attempting to interpret what Drake has written, you really ought to let it go, it is unhealthy to obsess on it. The RSN board says it is fine, a consensus formed here which also said it was fine, really, just give up on it. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if you interpret Drake as positing a type which he termed "communist terrorism", you have not found a single other source that uses this term as supposedly defined by Drake. TFD (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the classification mentioned by Drake and proposed by Zalman (btw, why do you cite Drake, who just briefly summarised it, and not Zalman himself?) essencially coincides with that proposed by William F. Shughart II. (An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39.) and Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks (Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2010 54: 902), who defined this typr of terrorism al "left-wing terrorism"; the same category is referred to as "leftist terrorists" by Christopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, J. Craig Jenkins. (Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism. Social Forces 84.4 (2006) 2009-2026.) and Kevin Siqueira and Todd Sandler. (Terrorists versus the Government: Strategic Interaction, Support, and Sponsorship. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 878-898). Obviously, we discuss here the same terrorist groups that have already been described in the Left-wing terrorism article (and defined as "left-wing") by most scholars. To have two separate articles dealing with the same terrorist groups is hardly allowed by the policy and guidelines. I proposed the wording that would allow us to mention them in this article and to introduce the link to the main article devoted to this subject. I added almost all references you asked about. Judging by the absence of comments from you, you seem to have nothing to argue. Therefore, I simply do not understand what is the reason of this RfC. We need just add this text and think about further improvement of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was this comment for me? I have not responded above as what you have written is rubbish. Tentontunic (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this your post has shaken my belief in your good faith: (i) I proposed some modifications; (ii) you replied they were awful and requested sources; (iii) I made a counter-proposal: since you are not satisfied with the text, let's discuss the content first and then add references; (iv) you insisted that you want to see my sources; (v) I provided needed reliable sources and changed the text in accordance with what they say - and what I've got as a result? A brief and insulting response that all what I wrote is "rubbish"? That is not how Wikipedia works. I made some work aimed to correct your POV-charged text, I added the content that I found in very reliable scholarly sources, so the content meets WP:V requirements; all statements I added to the proposed text (except few unsourced statements that I am intended to either support with online citations or to remove) can be found in the cited sources, they have not been taken out of the context, so these edits meet a WP:NOR criterion; the sources I use have been vetted by scientific community (they parred a peer-reviewing procedure), so they hardly represent minority views, so my changes most likely meet WP:NEUTRAL criteria. Therefore, this text, after minor modifications, can and should be added to the article, and I will do that in close future. Of course, I am ready to consider your constructive proposals, however, it would be naive from your side to believe that I will need in your approval for adding this text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And to your sources not being a minority view [25] This paper published in 2003 has not even been cited once.[26] I would say it has been largely ignored and is a little, fringe. Tentontunic (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. The statement that the text is rubbish is not a legitimate concern. You abstained from commenting on concrete issues, therefore you raised no legitimate concern, consequently I simply have nothing to take into account. That is why I do not need in your approval, and you need in my: I propose arguments and sources, and you respond with just insults. If you want to further participate in the discussion, you should change your behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re your "And to your sources not being a minority view..." Thank you for returning to constructive discussion. This article has been cited [27]. In addition, the article has passed a peer-reviewing procedure, which means that at least 3 scholars have read the article and considered it deserving publication. By no means can it be fringe. Moreover, the number of citations depends on the subject's area: the Malayan emergency is not too popular subject now, hence low attention of the scholars to this subject, not to this concrete article. In addition, the author's (P Deery's) list of publications [28] does not create an impression that this author (A Fellow of International Center for Advanced Studies, New York University) is a fringe theorist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. One of the sources that cites Deery (Marc J. Selverstone. Constructing the monolith: the United States, Great Britain, and international communism, 1945-1950. Harvard University Press, 2009, ISBN 0674031792, 9780674031791, p. 162) seems to share the Deery vision that the it was essentially an official British and American line, and lists other authors (Yoshihiko and Cady) who share the Deery's viewpoint. Interestingly, he lists no authors who share the opposite viewpoint, namely, that the official British and American propaganda correctly reflected the real state of things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Yes.

2. Not necessarily. The criterion is more properly "described in reliable sources as terrorist". I'm sure we are all aware that there exist judicial findings that are politically motivated, and entire judicial systems that are rampant with corruption. Therefore, this can't be accepted as a blanket truism.

3. Maybe; more likely than 2, but still it would be better to lean on reliable sources.

4. This is starting to sound like new synthesis, but if OTOH 3 is satisfied by RS's describing an organization as a "communist terrorist" or "communist and terrorist" organization, then yes, it would properly be considered under "communist terrorism". siafu (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. [29] But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. [30] I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the editors supporting your content reminds me the WP:VOTE, which is not a way to achieve consensus. BTW, I would say that the statement that "two editors who agreed with the inclusion" is only a part of truth, because other editors expressed another opinion. In any event, I didn't replace your content with my one: you probably noticed that the text proposed by me is just a modification of the text proposed by you: the section title is preserved, the first para is essentially unchanged, and the internal logic of the rest of the text is preserved also. The only thing I made was removal of Cold War propaganda. I replaced it with the opinion of scholars found by me in peer-reviewed western academic journals. Therefore, we can speak here only about development of your version, not its rejection. In addition, I would say that by stating that these my changes are "rubbish" or "propaganda", and by refusing to explain in more details about concrete issues with the sources I used and the way I represented the sources' content you de facto abstained from further discussion, so your attempt to introduce the initial version of the text fully ignoring my proposal can hardly be interpreted as your adherence to the WP:CONSENSUS policy. I am open to the discussion of the changes made by me, however, it must be a serious discussion, without insults or the references to some vote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)