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)

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)[1]) 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 [2] 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 [3] --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 [4]. 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. [5] 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)

Classic begging the question. This isn't about whether the sources are reliable; it's about whether the sources back up the notion of a concept of "communist terrorism." Not just whether they identify communists who are also terrorists, or that they mention communism as one or even the major source of terrorism, but that they identify "communist terrorism" as a distinct form of terrorism, distinct from state-supported terrorism for example (we don't have a "capitalist terrorism" article for terrorist groups supported by capitalist states, or do we?). If I sound cryptic it's because we've been through all these arguments for years and gotten nowhere; it's like arguing with a wall. I don't know if folks are being disingenuous in order to push a POV or if they really don't understand what WP:SYN means, but either way, continuing to assert something false over and over again really doesn't make it true. csloat (talk) 21:32, 21 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.

RfC: Were opponents of the United States in the War in Vietnam "communist terrorists"?

The article currently refers to the insurgency in South Vietnam in the 1960s as "communist terrorism". Does this description reflect Wikipedia's policy of neutrality? TFD (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were according to the US official position and position of the Cold War propaganda. However, the scholars who analyse this subject in more details are more cautious in their conclusions. See, e.g. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. Moreover, taking into account that no single strict and generally accepted definition of terrorism has been proposed so far, it is simply senseless to expect to get some general answer on such a question. As William F. Shughart II asked (rhetorically): "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?" (William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39). --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it does as it is taken from a chapter titled The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists Tentontunic (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, read the question carefully. Whereas the question was about compliance of the text with WP:NPOV policy, not with WP:V, you answer was "yes, the text is neutral, because it is verifiable". By writing that you demonstrated your deep misunderstanding of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The author uses the term "Communist Terrorist`in scare quotes and claims the term was used by the Kennedy administration in order to draw a connection in the public mind between communism and terrorism. Notice the first section of that chapter is called `Labelling the threat`. She does not endorse the term.[6] TFD (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? She does not endorse the term? Were exactly in the book is that?

She also use the phrase VC terrorists three times. Tentontunic (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No - it is propaganda, plain and simple. It is worth noting that these same 'terrorists' were earlier backed by the US in their fight against the Japanese invaders (not that the US seems to have learned that lesson...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a source that supports the claim this is propaganda, or is that your own personal synthesis? --Martin (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, she does not say it is propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the book says that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorists" in a context of Vietnam was the Kennedy administration, and that the US administration used this term as a justification for the American involvement in Vietnam. The term "propaganda" is used during the talk page discussion for brevity, and it should not be used in the main article. Ironically, the most correct and neutral formulation (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) has been recently removed from the article under odd pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. A number of sources explicitly mention communist terrorism in South Vietnam, for example see Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces By Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg: "Pike concluded that the most horrendous example of Communist terrorism during the war, the massacre at Hue" and The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975 By Anthony James Joes: "The target of increasing Communist terrorism in the cities, the police forces of South Viet Nam continued to deteriorate" --Martin (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not in verifiability, but in neutrality. Since other sources (see above) do not share this view (directly or indirectly), this type statements should be done only with attribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• No The current text such as in the quote below falis to fulfill WP:NPOV. First, because the viewpoint that communist actions were terrorism is disputed and not attributed. Secondly, because Wikipedia should not use a loaded term—here, "terrorists"—to substitute for a verifiable noun, specifically denoting which actors are being described. This quote typifies the current text:

"In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand."

If "terrorism" is to be used as a characterization, it should be attributed and debated in the text.--Carwil (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes per multiple sources provided here (see above) and elsewhere [7]. With only one refinement: not all "opponents" used typical terrorism tactics, like taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear among the civilian population. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources provided for this article say that the term "Communist terrorist" was invented by the Nazis and used by the Americans during the Vietnam war in both cases for propaganda purposes. And you think that we should use the term without comment. How does that fit in with neutrality? TFD (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What Nazi? The actions by Bolshevik government have been described as "terrorism" by communists themselves (like Trotsky) and socialists like Karl Kautsky long before Nazi.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic added, "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."[8] Now he is adding a source that says the American president, John Kennedy, used the term to describe the Vietnamese insurgency. Do you agree with these additions? TFD (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that his additions are supported by sources (I do not have time to check), I do not have any problems with this. Many perfectly reasonable encyclopedic subjects were used for propaganda purposes in real life, which can be reflected in our articles. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Commentator Paul Harvey eventually opposed the war, and no one ever called him a communist-anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

An RfC can not alter WP policies. If the reliable sources are available to support material relevant to the article, then that is sufficient. Collect (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "An RfC can not alter WP policies." Absolutely correct.

Re "If the reliable sources are available to support material relevant to the article, then that is sufficient." Absolutely wrong, because you mix necessary and sufficient conditions. It is necessary that reliable sources supported some material, but not sufficient: other points of view may exist, and, per policy, the statements supported by only some sources cannot be represented as generally accepted. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica (vide infra) directly contradicts to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• No: Not unless we are also start referring to the US as "Capitalist imperialists". NPOV's view on propaganda seems clear - that we either avoid using it or use propaganda from all sides in order to achieve an effective balance. --Ludwigs2 05:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming the authors Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg, Anthony James Joes are propagandists? Is this based upon a reliable source, or is this your personal opinion? --Martin (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming they're not propagandists? Is that based upon a reliable source, or is that your personal opinion? --Ludwigs2 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You want me to prove the negative? You are the one claiming its all propaganda, I'm asking you what is the basis of your opinion. --Martin (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC. Can the "Usage of the term" be added to the article?

The following text contains the analysis of the history of the term "Communist terrorism".
My questions are:

1. Does this text adequately reflect what the cited sources say?
2. And are these sources reliable and mainstream?
3. Is it neutral, and, if not, what viewpoints need to be added?
4. Does it contain original research?
5. Is this text relevant to the article Communist terrorism?
   Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"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 the Malayan Emergency in a broader 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 committed to the radical New Left ideologies and their strategic goals were poorly articulated. The founders of some of these organisations, e.g. Red Brigades, were ex-Communists who were expelled from their parent parties for extremism. Some national-separatist terrorist movements, such as ETA or IRA also used Marxist rhetoric initially. In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 such groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments; they were also condemned by parliamentary Communist parties."

• • This article is not about terminology, but about actual phenomenon: terrorism by communist organizations and states. Hence it should be more focused on the actual/factual events. Saying that, there is nothing wrong with describing terminology, including use of the terminology in propaganda. No reason for outright deletion of this segment. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• It's generally germane to an article to discuss the usage of the term involved, and this seems like a fair attempt to characterize the people involved. On articles about terrorism, we need to recognize that "terror" and "terrorism" are loaded terms. That said, the history should extend backwards to the use of terrorism within the communist movement itself, notably by Lenin and Trotsky.--Carwil (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. These authors (including also Karl Kautsky) did not make any distinction between words "terrorism" and "terror" (because they refer to terror/terrorism of French Revolution). This should be described in the article. More contemporary authors seem to make a distinction. This should be described too.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Appearing to blame the the Nazis for the etymology of "communist terrorism" to incite fear is laughable hopelessly POV. The New York Times uses "communist terrorism" as early as 1919. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not "etymology", but "usage". The section does not discuss etymology at all, it describes different examples of application of this phrase to different, sometimes absolutely unconnected events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you present a chronology that starts with the (evil) Nazis seeking to demonize (apparently undeservedly) communists, with all the (implications) that creates. That is grossly POV. Whether chronological events are "unrelated" or not material to the discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you joined the discussion late, so you probably haven't noticed that I took a Tentontunic's version and modified it. Therefore, this chronology is not my. BTW, I never stated that this version is final, or that it does not need expansion/addition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this based on the fact it is written from a pro communist POV. Every sentence screams "These are not communists" Poor sourcing being used to back that it was all "propaganda", one being an ignored and uncited paper from years ago, I am of the opinion that my proposal was far more neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the source is unreliable, go to the WP:RSN. The paper has been cited, as I have already demonstrated. Your unsubstantiated assertion that it is uncited and ignored is simply a lie. Your assertion that the text is pro-Communist POV is just your POV (also unsubstantiated), therefore, it can be simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please actually point out were it has been cited. Tentontunic (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If your mean Deery's article, all needed information has already been provided on this talk page. If you mean other sources (I have provided many), would your be so king to actually point out what concrete article do you mean? In addition, since the text cites many reliable sources, I cannot understand how the problem with just one article may affect the whole text so considerably that makes it a propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Paul's proposal, and a more general observation:

• Question: When are communists not communists?
• Answer: When a non-communist calls someone a communist.

Really, the concerted effort going on EN WP for quite some time now to eradicate references to communists and terrorism, communists and genocide, et al. is getting a bit transparent. I'm glad to discuss details, don't accuse me of using talk as a forum. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say the opposite is true: the concerted effort to spam WP with redundant references to communists and terrorism, communists and genocide, etc. That can be summarised in a following general observations:

"When various sources describe some group that committed some crime as "left-wing", or "partisan", or "guerilla", or "insurgent", or "criminal", or "Communist", they should be considered as Communists, regardless of how many reliable sources use different definitions."

"When some act of genocide has been committed by a group that declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine, that act should be considered as Communist genocide, regardless of how many other caused and reasons are being discussed in the sources"

"The historical background of these events should be omitted at much as possible to demonstrate that all these atrocities were a result of the Communist ideology solely, and were not, at least partially, a result of objective reasons, including the actions of previous authorities, Western countries, centuries of barbarism and cruelty, etc. because, as we all know, the time before Communism was a Golden Age, and this Golden Age will come back immediately after Communism will be eradicated."

As I already demonstrated (many times), the language you use is not the mainstream language used by reliable sources, so, please, to not blame others in your own sins.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for soapboxing, but it was not me who started first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If no concrete criticism will follow in few days, I'll restore this material. If you have any idea on what should be added to there, feel free to propose (the Peters' suggestion to add examples of earlier usage of the word "terrorism" is noted, I am thinking about proper wording). Clearly, Tentontunic's invectives cannot be considered as counter-arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources show that the term "Communist terrorist" was used during the Cold War (as late as 1972) by Western governments who wished to draw a connection in the mind of the public between Communism and terrorism, in order to discredit anti-colonial independence movements. For us to ignore that and to resurrect the terminology would be anachronistic. TFD (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For propaganda to be effective there must be some kernel of truth in it. One person's "propaganda" is another's "informing the public of the facts". --Martin (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The example given is a clear case of using "But" as a means of debating within an article. It has a lot of POV including claims on the order of "but they were not actually Communists" or this was "propaganda" which would require specific reliable sourcing and material which is balancing to such claims per WP:NPOV. BTW, I suggest using "nowiki" for refs instead of using "reflist" on article talk pages. The cites will be readily noticed, and if for some reason a person makes a post with more cites, the numbering becomes a royal pain. In short - I object to the material as posted. Collect (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that almost all "Communist terrorists" (except probably Maoists) were not the members of official Communist parties is indisputable, therefore, a clarification is needed that parliamentary Communist parties did not support "Communist" terrorist groups, maintained no connections with them and even directly condemned. Otherwise, we will confuse a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You now claiming the Viet Comg where not communist? You text above is too Euro-centric in claiming that all these terrorist groups originated in student movements, which clearly is not the case. --Martin (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I do not claim that. As I already wrote, most sources do not describe national-liberation, revolutionary or partisan movements as "terrorists". With regard to Viet cong, compare this [9] and this [10].--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You search shows a significant proportion of sources discuss Viet Cong terrorism, generally in monographs and papers that specifically discuss terrorism as a topic. This "national-liberation" vs. "terrorism" is a straw man. These are two different aspects. "National-liberation" is a goal, terrorism is one tactic to achieve that goal, so the two concepts are not mutally exclusive or opposite ends of the POV spectrum, but can in fact complement each other. Were the Viet Cong a revolutionary national liberation movement, yes; did they adopt terrorism as a tactic, yes. --Martin (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We can speak about a straw man fallacy when misrepresentation of an opponent's position occurs. I don't see how did I misinterpret your position. However, taking into account that I didn't write "VC were a national-liberation movement, therefore they were not terrorists", and my actual point was that "VC were a revolutionary and national-liberation movement, and many scholars prefer not to apply the term "terrorism" to these categories of combatants", I can respond: "Physician, heal thyself".

Of course, this my statement needs to be supported by sources. I believe, Encyclopaedia Britannica will suffice. It states:

"Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”"[11]

You can see that such a reputable source as EB (i) clearly distinguish between regular troops, partisans and terrorists, separating each of them into separate category, and (ii) explicitly distinguish between terrorists and Indocina partisans (VC and KR). Therefore, it would not be a synthesis from my side to claim that, according to EB, VC were not terrorists in contemporary sense.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "You text above is too Euro-centric in claiming that all these terrorist groups originated in student movements, which clearly is not the case." I would say, Euro-Japano-centric, because Japanese Red Army Faction also originated from ex-Communist led student movement. However, in general you point is valid. It would be good if you proposed some concrete idea how to fix/expand this piece of text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, since no reasonable counter-arguments have been put forward, and many editors support proposed changes I introduce the text into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus for this at all, nor any support in fact. I believe the version which I proposed is far more neutral and shall reinsert it. Tentontunic (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not do that. You provided no arguments in support of your version, other than, in your opinion, your edit is better. My version is supported by a larger amount of the sources of better quality, and, according to the comments, is quite neutral. Minor issues can and will be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not neutral at all, it is a joke. And to say your sources are of better quality? You mean penguin books and the like? I think not. I have restored my proposal which at least had some support, your version has none. I have also added a new section on the soviet union and repaired the Vietnam mess you created. Tentontunic (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism and Vietcong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infant victim of Dak Son massacre

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

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

Guys, I believe we need to stop that. Under "that" I mean the last addition to this section:[12], which, in my opinion, is intended to demonstrate that the Vietcong partisans were more cruel than their opponents. Of course, I could, in response, add that the Ngô Đình Diệm's regime was characterised by reliable sources as "the most authoritarian regime Vietnam ever had" (by the way, some authors explicitly refuse to call partisans fighting against authoritarian regimes "terrorists"), and to add that he started a program of mass repressions and even ethnic cleansing (which added the number of Vietcong supporters). However, do we really need that? Do we need to know that young Ngô Đình Diệm himself accidentally avoided a massacre, where whole his family was burned alive, and that, of course, had a profound impact on his mentality? I don't think so. The war in Vietnam was brutal, however, it is hard to tell, which side was more brutal, and who started first. However, taking into account that the atrocities and barbarism took place from both sides (or, I would say, from all three sides, if we consider the US as a separate actor), by making a stress on the Communist atrocities we deviate from neutrality more and more. We cannot take a story out of historical context (see, e.g. the two main articles telling this story). If you will do that, I will have to restore a balance, however, our combined efforts will lead to creation of a fork, which is not desirable. BTW, please don't blame me in WP:POINT, because, whereas forking is not recommended, non-neutrality is directly prohibited, so by adding more materials about historical background I'll just choose a lesser evil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quotes:

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

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

"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. " (Encyclopaedia Britannica [13].)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In another source Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom By Ami Pedahzur we have a chapter devoted to Viet Cong suicide terrorism[14]:

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)The EB clearly distinguish between terrorism and the usage of terror. Accordingly, terrorists are those who rely primarily on terror, and, based on this criterion, they should be distinguished from guerrilla and regular military, who, despite wide usage of terror (for instance, Wehrmacht or Yugoslav partisans used terror very widely) cannot be considered as terrorists. Moreover, some authors explicitly refuse to "attach the terrorist label to anyone resisting an authoritarian regime" (Crenshaw, M. (1990). The logic of terrorism: Terrorist behavior as a product of strategic choice. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, (pp. 7–24).Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center and Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.), and the fact that Ngô Đình Diệm's regime is indisputable. One way or the another, despite wide usage of terror by partisans, the EB article "Guerrilla warfare" does not describe them as terrorists[15]. Despite the article about Viet cong[16] states that "For the most part, the Viet Cong fought essentially a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage; they used small units to maintain a hold on the countryside, leaving the main population centres to government authorities.", it does not characterise them as "terrorists": "Viet Cong (VC), in full Viet Nam Cong San, English Vietnamese Communists, the guerrilla force that, with the support of the North Vietnamese Army, fought against South Vietnam (late 1950s–1975) and the United States (early 1960s–1973). " To ignore that would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

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

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

We go by whether there is a consensus in the literature to term them as terrorists. Usually only groups whose primary activity is terrorism (e.g., the Weather Underground, the "fighting communist organizations"), are called terrorists. Groups the have used terrorism as a tactic, e.g., America's founding fathers, are not normally called "liberal terrorists",[17] Soviet and American governments that backed terrorism are not called terrorist governments. See also WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". TFD (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• "viet cong terrorists" -guerrilla [18] 15 results.
• "viet cong guerrilla" -terrorists [19] 127 results.

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

PS And always compare. For instance, based on this search results one may conclude that "Soviet peaceful" policy ('288 results [20]) is a mainstream term. However, by doing this search ("Soviet expansionist" policy 497[21]) it is easy to see that that conclusion would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

(edit conflict)Let's see:

1. Carol Winkler - Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. Good and reliable source. However, it does not support the statement "In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam". On this page (p17) the author states that (i) "terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam" (without adjective "Communist") and (ii) US administration "linked Communist and terrorism". The whole chapter in actuality is devoted to how the administration did that. Conclusion, despite the source is good, its interpretation is flawed;
2. Forest . Good source, however, it says nothing about Vietnam on the page 82. Moreover, it mentions Vietnam only 3 times[22], and not in a context of Communism. Conclusion despite the source is good, it is totally unrelated to the proposed text;
3. Nghia M. Good source, directly supports the proposed text
4. Michael Lee Lanning page 185. Good source. However, he does not state anything about Hue massacre. He refers to the opinion of the Pike, and devotes the page to the analysis of the question of who VC or NVA resorted to terror more frequently. The same piece of text discusses, btw, the Mai Lai massacre, and by omitting the fact that not only South Vietnamese government, but also US troop resorted to terror is a significant sine against neutrality.
5. T. Louise Brown in actuality cites Pike's "The Viet-Cong strategy of terror" (1970). Taking into account that the war still lasted during this time, the numerical estimates could be inaccurate.
6. Charles A. Krohn - no detailed reference has been provided. Could not verify
7. B. Rigal-Cellard. In actuality, the author doesn't state that. The author quotes the words of Senator James O. Eastland. The author neither confirms nor refutes the senator's words.

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

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

Section break

Yes actually.

1. Winkler, the chapter is titled vietnam and the communist terrorists. She also refers to the VC as terrorists. So the source certainly supports the content.
2. Forest I am unsure of what has happened here, I must have used the wrong reference. I had not [23] Page 82 as cited.
3. Lanning, were in the article does he state anything? Please reread the section.
4. Brown, what you think of numerical estimates are neither here nor there, we use what the sources say after all.
5. Krohn, why are you unable to verify this? I see the book used was not in the article, now it is.
6. Rigal-Cellard, again so what? He is quoting another person? What does this have to do with the content?

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

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

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

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

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

Re 2. Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking into account the ongoing discussion about this section on the NPOV noticeboard[24] (which was initiated not by me), the statement that I am "the only person who thinks there are neutrality issue", Taking into account that you made the post there[25] just 8 minutes after you made this post (and you posted there before (e.g. on 17 March 2011), '. I suggest you to stop that, because the longer it lasts the more evidences of your disruptive behaviour are being accumulated. All of that can be used against you in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

You have edited my post[26], which is highly inappropriate.

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

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

In other words, there was no "HERE" in your post. In reality you dare to claim that noone thinks there are neutrality issues in a situation when this concrete piece of your text is now being discussed on the WP:NPOVN [27]. Obviously, your statement "Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are." is a blatant lie. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

J. Johnson does not say the proposal is non neutral he says he believes terrorists is a loaded word and needs careful handling. Stephan Schulz done not say the content is not neutral, he is of the opinion that the source does not support the text. PR Beacon says it ought be used only with qualification. [28] I removed your personal attacks per WP:TPG if you do not understand something I have written then say so, do not accuse me of being a liar. This is your last warning, given the admin you went block shopping to told you not to call editors lairs on talk pages you really ought to heed his advice. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

RfC. Should be "terrorist" a primary term to describe Communist guerrilla?

Taking into account a tendency to add guerrilla warfare to this article, I would like to know community opinions on whether the partisans who used a terrorist tactics should be considered as terrorists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint #1

Many sources (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica) clearly discriminate between terrorism and the usage of terror, and, based on that distinguish terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Therefore, it would be correct to describe Communist partisans not as terrorists, but as "partisans, who waged a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage, and on that ground were labeled as terrorists by XXX and YYY, and who are being described as such by some authors". Accordingly, the activity of these partisans should be described as "a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage", not as "terrorism" (primarily and solely).

Comments on viewpoints #1

This is a poorly framed question, the article is not called Communist terrorists but Communist terrorism which focuses on the terrorism aspect of "guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage" with respect to the Viet Cong. Although many sources label the VC as "terrorists" and this should be mentioned in the article with attribution, this is not the current focus of the article which refers to acts of violence committed by groups subscribing to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology rather than labelling them as "terrorists". --Martin (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I modified the Viewpoint #1 to address this criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I recall an editor with a viewpoint stated on another talk page IIRC that the killings in Hungary in 1956 were not due to "Communism" but to "insurgency." Sometimes this semantic dancing does not make sense. Common sense dictates that one who uses or promotes terror for any object is a "terrorist" and the principle of using or promoting terror is "terrorism." The UN debate on whether Hamas is "terrorist" or "patriotic" is nicely irrelevant to how most people commonly understand the words. Collect (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, according to this POV the term "terrorism" should be applied to the regular and guerrilla warfare, which is not what scholars usually do ( "The degree to which it (terrorism) relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare."[29]). --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you are referring to the discussion of Valentino's book, which is the only source we have for the term "mass killings under Communist regimes". Although Valentino had a chapter calle4 "Communist mass killing", he listed killings during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan under "Counterguerrilla mass killings", rather than "Communist mass killings.[30] Since Valentino did not descibe killings during the invasion of Hungary, you need to explain why you "know" which category was appropriate. If you object to the "semantic dancing" in the source, then you should provide another one, but you have failed to do so. TFD (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint #2

"Terrorism" is the use of violence, or threat of violence, in order to advance political or other objectives. A "terrorist" is a person advancing such a methodology. Where the political objective is stated by the person or group as being the advancement of communism, marxism, or any political philosophy directly associated with communism or marxism, the terrorism may be termed "communist terrorism."

Comments on viewpoints #2

Oppose. By attempting to propose a universal definition of terrorism you directly contradict to the sources that explicitly state that it is impossible to do (See, e.g. "Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reactionsuch as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers." (Cronin, Audrey Kurth. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58 (Article) Published by The MIT Press)). By drawing conclusions from this definition you act against either WP:NOR of WP:NPOV. Therefore, this viewpoint should be rejected as contradicting to the policy. RfC cannot change that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was "drawing from" the common English definitions of the words. Using English is not, as far as I know, "original research" at all. Just semantic dancing again. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided the reliable source that clearly states that no commonly accepted definition of terrorism exists. How can it be semantic dancing? If you want more quotes, below is another one:

"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime.

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. "

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason not to delve into philosophy here and to rely on English. Let the discussions about each type be made in their own sections, instead of insisting that a perfect all-purpose definition be found. Englsih is the language most of us use every day. And please let us avoid the UN wrangling about Hamas here. Collect (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why Hamas can be relevant to this discussion. Regarding "not to delve into philosophy here and to rely on English", I am afraid, the sole thing we have to rely upon is a scholarly and scientific literature. It clearly states that no clear, commonly accepted definition of terrorism has been proposed so far, and the term by its nature is deeply politically charged. In that situation, any attempt "to rely on English" to develop one's own definition of terrorism is either non-neutral (ignore what mainstream reliable sources say), or original research (push one's own definition).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to your insinuation that my definition is somehow entirely my own creation :), the wording is from reputable sources and dictionaries (including NOAD "terrorism" "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", AHD "1.The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons", WordNet " The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear", Webster's New World Law Dictionary "The threat or actual use of violence in order to intimidate or create panic, especially when utilized as a means of attempting to influence political conduct.", US Law defines it as "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents", The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, at §2(1)(b), defines terrorism as: "Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.") All of which substantially agree with the simple English definition. Done with the dancing, I hope. As for being "non-neutral" can you tell me in any way what point of view is encompassed in the definition proffered (based as it in on US and international laws and agreements)? I would gladly see if others also manage to see a point of view where, as nearly as I am able to ascertain, no point of view exists! Being able to see a POV where none exists is a most valuable talent, I would suppose. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I again strongly advise you to read my posts carefully. My last post contained no insinuation, it was quite clear and unequivocal: if you created a definition of terrorism by yourself (it was natural to make this conclusion, because you provided no sources), then it is a pure original research; if you took it from some reliable source, you thereby have ignored the sources presented by me, so your definition violates the neutrality policy. Consequently, your suggestion violates either one or another policy in any event.

Thank you for providing your sources. Unfortunately, that does not cancel the statements from the sources presented by me about impossibility to develop some commonly accepted and universal definition of terrorism, so by providing these sources you haven't resolved the WP:NPOV issue. In addition, the Convention you cite (you could also cite the U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d): "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;") is a primary source, and it should be treated accordingly.

With regard to the US position on that account, you may be interested to read this:

"By approving the treaty the Senate has endorsed an unequivocal definition of terrorism-the Reagan administration's. But unequivocal is not necessarily wise or just. Indeed, the extradition pact-and similar treaties that the administration is pressing with at least five other countries-may lock the United States into entanglements, obligations, and human rights stances it may one day regret. And it will permit the administration's obsession with terrorism to imperil one of America's proudest traditions: providing safe haven for political refugees on a nonpartisan basis. For more than 140 years, the United States has refused to extradite rebels against foreign governments. America has also refused to surrender foreign rulers to the regimes that ousted them. Prohibitions against surrendering such political offenders are found in nearly all extradition treaties signed by the United States and other Western countries. The list of alleged terrorists who have benefited from this protection at some time in their lives is long. The more distinguished include Sim6n Bolivar, the liberator of much of 19th-century Latin America; Lajos Kossuth, the 19th-century Hungarian revolutionary; Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi, two of the fathers of modern Italy; the late Irish President Eamon de Valera; the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir; and the late Philippine opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. The less distinguished include the late Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle; the one-time ruler of Cambodia Lon Nol; and the late Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi of Iran."(Defining Terrorism. Author(s): Christopher H. Pyle. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 64 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 63-78)

Note, the UC legal definition of terrorism has been criticised by a secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep LAWS are primary. "Legal dictionaries" are not primary. Articles on the US laws and treaties are not primary. As for saying "a secondary source does not like a law" - of precisely what significance is that? None as far as I can tell. The definitions are all congruent, from primary, secondary and tertiary reliable sources. More than the angel-counting excercises which have permeated too many discussions on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: " As for being "non-neutral" can you tell me in any way what point of view is encompassed in the definition proffered (based as it in on US and international laws and agreements)?" That is simple. Statement I: The sources A, B, C define terrorism as follows:"XXXXX". Statement II: "The sources X, Y, Z claim that no clear and commonly accepted definition of terrorism exists". A suggested WP text: "Terrorism is (the simple definition of terrorism follows)". Obviously, such a statement completely ignores the mainstream sources X,Y,Z, and, therefore, violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, taking into account that the main article dealing with the definition of terrorism is Terrorism, it would be correct, according to the guidelines and the policy, to move this part of the discussion there.

Re: "LAWS are primary. "Legal dictionaries" are not primary." Yes, they are tertiary (read WP:PSTS). The sources I cite (except EB) are secondary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see where some editors appear to want this to head, that is, we can't have an article on communist terrorism because we don't even know what terrorism is these days, it's in the eyes (or not) of the beholder, etc. This is hardly an encyclopedic approach to the subject matter. Not to mention that one source saying terrorism depends on who you talk to has NOTHING to do with another source discussing "communist terrorism." That is outright synthesis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the real encyclopaedic approach is to have the article about Communist terrorism at any cost, and if that will require us to violate the policy, the policy should be violated, because the goal justifies the means. :-)

Speaking seriously, during another discussion with Collect I already outlined how I see this article (I do not want it to be deleted, by the way), however, that question hardly belongs to this thread. What is relevant to it, is my proposal to clearly explain that, whereas VC conducted a guerrilla war against the authoritarian regime, who terrorised its own citizens and VC themselves, the fact that VC frequently resorted to terror allowed some politicians and writers to describe them as "terrorists", which makes a VC story partially relevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Ending the semantic dancing which has been the hallmark of all too many articles. Collect (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The semantic dancing, which has been the hallmark of all too many articles, is a tendency to convert an adjective "Communist" applied to various more general phenomnenae into new categories "Communist killings", "Communist terrorism", "Communist genocide", etc. The sea shells that are being sold by a seashore do not form a new category "seashore shells". Therefore, I would not be surprised if the statements like "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." is also be considered as "semantic dancing" by Collect some users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, personalize discussions? A clear example of dancing at its worst. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. Changed the text accordingly. However, this my awkward phrase is hardly a reason for evading the answer. Please, explain if the statement "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." is a "semantic dancing" or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not normally refer to groups or individuals as terrorists. I suggest we follow the usage in academic literature that normally reserves the term for people and groups primarily engaged in terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where US law, international law, and treaties all use a term in substantially the same manner, it is not up to us to say "but professional dancers have all sorts of caveats." The definitions above are unequivocal, and have the force of law. Collect (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you suggest to rely on primary sources and ignore secondary and tertiary ones? With regard to "and have the force of law", if I remember correctly, one of the US states adapted a law that set the "π" number equal to 4, so what? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that your statement is singularly incorrect. Note that primary, secondary and tertiary sources use congruent language, which is plenty enough for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the statements:

"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial"

and

"the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets ..." (which implies that no controversy or complexity issues exist)

use "congruent" language?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic definition of the term "terrorism" is clear and unambiguous: "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets as a means of coercion through fear", look at any dictionary and there is basic concensus in the definition. Where the complexity and the controversy may come in when people dispute particular events are acts of terrorism. For example some people claim the mass killings, hostage taking, suicide bombings and beheadings by the Viet Cong was just part of a partisan insurgency, but claim the mass killings, hostage taking, suicide bombings and beheadings by Chechen rebels as terrorism. --Martin (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the quotes provided by me? I have a feeling that you simply ignore my arguments...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Collect, and the converse is where they do not use a description, neither do we. These sources only use the term CT in its historical context, as part of an effort by British and American governments to associate communism and terrorism in the public mind. The message was that any country that did not accept a government imposed by Western countries was CT and was used to defend wars that killed millions of people, cost billions of dollars and ultimately failed. TFD (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something more basic

My apologies if I have missed this. Do we agree, or has there already been a consensus formed, that "communist terror" is an instantiation of "communist terrorism?" PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. That is the question I plan to discuss. My understanding of what the available literature says is as follows. The term "Communist terrorism" is used comparatively frequently in literature [31], [32], however, there are two problems with it. Firstly, since the meaning of the term "terrorism" has changed during last century (see the sources cited in the previous sections), what old sources called "Communist terrorism" is currently not conidered as terrorism by most sources, which characterise it as a manifestation of "Red terror" (which already has its own article). Secondly, although the term "Communist terrorism" is being widely applied to various phenomenae, in most cases the alternative terms are used more frequently. For instance, whereas many contemporaty terrorist organisations are called "Communist terrorists" (and, accordingly, their activity is characterised as "Communist terrorism"), the term "Left-wing terrorims" is used more frequently by scholars (compare, e.g. this [33] and this [34]). Similarly, if we discuss anti-colonial Communist led movements, the term "Communist terrorism" is used very frequently, but the term "querrilla warfare" is more abundant (see, e.g. [35] and [36]). Therefore, we cannot, for instance, merge the Left-wing terrorism article into this article (that would be a violation of the neutrality policy), and cannot discuss the same terrorist groups here as if no left-wing terrorism article existed. What we can do, however, is the following. We can devote this article to the history of the term and to the discussion of various examples of its application to different events and phenomenae, starting from Bolsheviks' Red Terror (or even from Trans-Caucasian Military organisation of RSDRP(b), and ending with Peruvian and Nepalese Maoist terrorist organisations.

However, there is one thing we cannot do, namely, we cannot present "Communist terrorism" as a strictly defined term with concrete and more or less permanent meaning. Most, if not all classifications of terrorism available from the literature do not include "Communist terrorism" as a separate category.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts:

1. there are no "problems" if the article treats "communist terrorism," i.e., both the use of the term and the acts against the populace to which it refers, over time; and proper content will provide a proper lead;
2. also, "Red Terror" refers to one specific period; that is simply a daughter article for September-October 1918 (potentially for the period of the communist civil war), there is no issue of forking or that "an article exists already".

It is your personal contention that what qualified as "communist terrorism" against the populace a century ago does not qualify as terrorism today. Quite frankly, you'll have to produce a pile of sources to substantiate that contention—for which you do not cite a single source. And, as I indicated regarding chronological treatment of acts deemed to be ones of "communist terrorism" (or labeled "communist terror"), your contention, even if it were true, is immaterial to the scope of the article.

As for "left-wing" versus "communist" terrorism, I do intend to have a look at that at some point as it seemed from the periphery, at least, that there was a feeding frenzy on the part of several editors quoting "NPOV" to butcher "communist terrorism" into piece-parts with the sad result being what we see in the article today, but that is a separate discussion, not for right now. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some quick answers:

Re "there are no "problems" ..." There is, and the name of this problem is WP:CFORK#POV forks: you cannot create two articles about the same subject that use different terminologies and present this subject from different points of view. At least, one of these two articles should always be the main one, and another should contain a link to the first one (and be consistent with the latter): "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article".

Re "also, "Red Terror" refers to one specific period;" Again, "terror" and "terrorism" is not the same according to many contemporaty sources, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica. With regard to the main article, Mass killings under Communist regimes quite adequately describe that.

Re: "It is your personal contention that what qualified as "communist terrorism" against the populace a century ago does not qualify as terrorism today." What about that:

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

" It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime."[37]

I see no interpretation for the last quote other than: "the term "Terrorism" has evolved in late XX century", and I do not see how that could be my personal contention. In connection to that, please, explain me why don't you read the previous talk page discussion before typing your posts?

Re "As for "left-wing" versus "communist" terrorism, I do intend to have a look " Please, do that. However, keep in mind that to present a handful sources about "Communist terrorism" is not sufficient: we need a proof that the term "Communist terrorism" is being used more widely in scholarly articles and university press monographs to describe post-war leftist groups than the term "Left-wing terrorism". I believe I am able to work with literature, and I do not cherry pick sources, so I am sure that it will not be easy to prove that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the term CT was applied to insurgencies that had links to official Communist parties, while none of the groups described as left-wing terrorists did not. In neutral academic writing CTs are grouped with nationalist terrosim. TFD (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a few cites to these academic writings that group communist terrorism with nationalist terrorism. --Martin (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand what TFD means. Probably they meant "CT and anti-colonial terrorism?"--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See for example Global Terrorism By Leonard Weinberg (2009). "The second wave of terrorism followed the end of that war and is associated with the cause of national independence...."[38] Vietnam is included. But CT is a broader term, because "To the extent that terrorism played a role it was a subsidiary one" (p. 41). During the Cold War, Western governments described all resistance by insurgents (even non-violent resistance) as terrorism. By the way Paul, "nationalist terrorism" is the most commonly used term, see for example Aubrey's "Typologies of terrorism".[39] The term "nationalist" sometimes has connotations of intolerance that do not apply here. TFD (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a large piece of sourced information.

By this edit[40] Tentontunic removed a large piece of text that was supported by good quality reliable sources. That has been supplemented with a false edit summary ("Restore a decent article"): no references to any decent articles has been restored, the text added by Tentontunic contains no new refs. In addition, the text they removed has been a subject of a long discussion on the talk page, Tentontunic abstained from. That is not how WP works. I suggest him to self-revert, otherwise I'll have to take other actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: I do not agree with your edit which (I read it as) seeks to remove the words "communist terrorism" from the actual acts themselves. It is a phrase which has been used to refer to specific acts by specific individuals and regimes at specific times, and thus embodies the acts themselves as well. I expect better from you than threatening other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep "expecting better" from your opponents. I haven't been following evolution of the Wiki etiquette recently, is it a new form of an insult in disguise, or something? Is it your own invention or someone else suggested it to you to tick your opponents? (Igny (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

PЄTЄRS J V, please, explain why didn't you express your concern during the last RfC? Your criticism was about some concrete issue, and I agreed that the story of Red Terror should be added to the beginning of the section. However, that had no relation of the rest of the text. One way or the another, below I reproduce the questions specifically for you. Please, answer, what concretely is wrong with the text:

1. Does this text adequately reflect what the cited sources say?
2. And are these sources reliable and mainstream?
3. Is it neutral, and, if not, what viewpoints need to be added?
4. Does it contain original research?
5. Is this text relevant to the article Communist terrorism?
   Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Vietnam section, as the NPOVN discussion demonstrated,[41], which had a direct relation to the disputable para, demonstrated that the ideas that are being pushed by this user violate neutrality policy. In addition, as this diff[42] it is not neutral to use the term "terrorists" as a major term for VC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PS Re "It is a phrase which has been used to refer to specific acts by specific individuals and regimes at specific times", I would say, it is a phrase which has been used by specific individuals to refer to specific acts... .Other terms are being used more widely, and if the same acts are described as "Left-wing terrorism" and "Communist terrorism", we cannot have two separate articles that use orthogonal terminology for the same events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in the Soviet Union

Since the article is not a sandbox, I propose to discuss this section on the talk page before adding it into the main article. My proposal is to move it into the beginning of the "Usage of the term" section, because this story is not about terrorism in its contemporary meaning, but about a state terror, which was seen as terrorism both by writers and by perpetrators in early XX century.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your misuse of twinkle is duly noted, as is your removal of well sourced content with a misleading edit summary, how dare you say explain my changes with good sources when all sources used were from academic publishers. And again, there is no consensus for your changes at all so I shall again remove your POV ridden rubbish when time allows. You may not use books from penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs for statements of fact. Your desperation in finding sources to back your skewed POV is showing. Tentontunic (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored this given your failure to respond. It is well sourced and all sources use the temr communist terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in the Soviet Union

The attacks on the Catholic church in the occupied eastern European nations have also been described as a terrorist act.

RFC on usage section

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.

The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact. There was support for the above content to be added, Paul Siebert`s proposal has achieved no support at all. I am looking for wider community input so a final consensus may be arrived at and this dispute put to rest. Paul Sieberts version is currently in the article, Here. I have created two subsections for uninvolved and involved users to help keep things tidy. Tentontunic (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments for involved users

• WP:RS does not regard sources which are clearly RS as being unusable becasue one or more editors asserts that they are not "peer reviewed" or "sufficiently academic." Wikipedia is based only on the precept that claims made in articles are supported by the cites given. This sort of argument has been made dozens of times now, and the results are consistent -- once a source is "reliable" it is usable. As an aside, this is my consistent position in articles of all sorts, and is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about peer review, I am saying that Paul Sieberts sources are not good enough RS for statements of fact. If you look at my proposed text above you will no doubt agree it is neutral. If you look at what PS has written you will see a hodgepodge of sentences written to push the POV that none of these terrorist groups were communist. It is an awful POV push and supported by sources which are simply not good enough. Tentontunic (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would say Tentontunic is right that good sources are preferable. That is in accordance with what the policy says: "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." However, it is incorrect to say that the sources I used were unreliable and non-scholarly. Let's look at the sources used by me (taken from the recent article's version [43]:

My sources:

1. Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247. A scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has published many scholarly books and articles [44]
2. Anthony J. Stockwell. A widespread and long-concocted plot to overthrow government in Malaya? The origins of the Malayan Emergency. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 21, 3 (1993): 79-80. A scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has published many scholarly books and articles [45].
3. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. A book published by the State University of New York press.
4. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39. An article in the journal that "is internationally recognized as an authoritative source for original scholarly work and book reviews written from the unique public choice perspective."[46]
5. Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks, Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2010 54: 902. The article in Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, for more than fifty years has provided scholars and researchers with the latest studies and theories on the causes of and solutions to the full range of human conflict.[47]
6. 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.
7. 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. The same. The scholarly journal published by SAGE[48]
8. Cronin, Audrey. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58. A journal published by MIT press.
9. Peter Chalk. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy. Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 44, Number 3, 1998, pp. 373-88. "The Australian Journal of Politics and History presents papers addressing significant problems of general interest to those working in the fields of history, political studies and international affairs."[49]
10. A Jamieson. Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15. The article in "Terrorism and Political Violence", a journal that "reflects the full range of current scholarly work from many disciplines and theoretical perspectives. "[50]
11. Cristopher Fettweis. Freedom Fighters and Zealots: Al Qaeda in Historical Perspective.Political Science Quarterly; Summer2009, Vol. 124 Issue 2, p 269-296. "Political Science Quarterly, published by The Academy of Political Science since 1886, is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy, both international and domestic."[51]
12. Richard Drake. Terrorism and the Decline of Italian Communism: Domestic and International Dimensions. Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 12, Number 2, Spring 2010 1531-3298. "The Journal of Cold War Studies features peer-reviewed articles based on archival research in the former Communist world and in Western countries. Some articles offer reevaluations of important historical events or themes, emphasizing the changes of interpretation necessitated by declassified documents and new firsthand accounts."[52]

These are the sources I added, and, I would say I left most references added by Tentontinic in the new version. Therefore, the Tentontunic's statement:

"The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact. "

is, speaking politely, not completely correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting, lets look a little closer shall we?

1. An uncited paper with no impact on the scholarly community what so ever. Published 07, and then forgetten.
2. A paper with very few citations, looks to be about 8. Not a lot since 93.
3. I introduced that actually, you cherrypicked a few choice sentences to push your POV.
4. This is not a peer reviewed journal or at least it does not sat so any were onsite. [53]
5. Another paper with next to no citations, looks to be about 6, and also does not support the statement usually referred to as left-wing terrorists [54] I shall look at the rest later, but this certainly proves your sourcing is junk. Tentontunic (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Um - are you asserting that I was "deceived" in some way? As I was the only other person commenting. I would, in fact, welcome a lot more material in the article as it is the reader, ultimately, who weighs wat is presented. Collect (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic. The sources I use meet the most strict criteria applied to highly reliable sources. If you have any doubts in the sources I use, feel free to go to WP:RSN. Your refusal to do so means that you do not believe in a success of this dubious enterprise.

@Collect. I am not asserting that you had been deceived, I am asserting that the intention was to deceive. And, although you have been the only person commenting, you hardly a sole person who have read, and will read that. In addition, I anticipate that further comments will follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Upon meditation, I realised where the statement about Penguin Books came from. I used this reference in another section. I took this ref from the Vietnam War article, however, I agree that the source should be replaced with something more reliable. I'll fix that (both here and in the VW article) in close future. Thank you for pointing at that problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not doubt that some would fall under RS guidelines, this however does not automatically make them reliable. You are in my opinion pushing a fringe perspective onto the article, as I said I am looking over the rest of your sourcing. And please remove your personal attacks, accusations of deception are not on. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are free to have any opinions you want, however, please, stick with what mainstream reliable sources say.

Re "please remove your personal attacks, accusations of deception are not on". Are you seriously insisting that the statement "The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact." is true? In particular, please, explain:

1. Had I removed a major part of your text?
2. How many sources used by you had I removed?
3. Which sources I cited in my version are non-scholarly or fringe?

Or course, I am ready to withdraw my statement about deception, when your deceptive statement will be withdrawn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "I do not doubt that some would fall under RS guidelines, this however does not automatically make them reliable." Firstly, not guidelines, but policy. Secondly, if you have any doubts in their reliability, or you believe they are non-mainstream, go to RSN, and stop posting the same baseless arguments. I provided the sources that fit all RS criteria, and now the burden to prove the opposite rests with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Another paper with next to no citations, looks to be about 6, and also does not support the statement usually referred to as left-wing terrorists(51)" I have no idea what do you mean, and what the refs provided by you is intended to demonstrate: this article ("Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism") contains not a single word "Communist", and just confirms my point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think it means? usually referred to as left-wing terrorists followed by two refs, neither of which support that statement. Tentontunic (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Term" versus acts

"Communist terrorism" is used as early as 1917 1919 in reporting by the New York Times--and that is only in a brief search. It is not a "term" which exists in and of itself and then is selectively applied to specific acts, it is the name for specific acts by specific individuals, groups, and regimes at specific times.

@Paul, the burden of proof is always on the person bringing the source to the game. Saying you believe you have met requirements does not make it so and now it is up to someone to throw sticks and stones at your contentions (and then you threaten to report them for throwing sticks and stones). Clearly there is genuine disagreement over the suitability of at least some of your sources. So we should (a) discuss those sources one at a time and then (b) determine whether your contentions and suggested content fairly and accurately represent reliable sources or if there is some synthesis going on (speaking of result, not intent). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a term that was used during the Cold War as part of an effort by Western governments to educate the public and create a link between communism and terrorism. Post-Cold War scholars avoid the term. We do not for example refer to the current governments of China, Vietnam, Cuba etc. as "Communist Terrorists". BTW, could you please provide details about the 1917 NYT reference. TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 1919, here. I draw your attention to executing hostages and mutilating bodies. One can also readily find reference to China in the 1930's, also long before the Cold War. As for "post-cold war" avoidance, that's stretching credibility--exactly how many Communist regimes are there that today engage in terrorism against their populace? It is your personal synthesis that a decrease in usage is the result of a decrease in scholarly preference if the proverbial shoe fits. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, WP:BURDEN states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." However, nothing in policy suggests that, when a reliable source has been provided, and it has been demonstrated that this source directly supported proposed changes, I have to prove that my source is not fringe and that it is mainstream. To prove the negative in not what WP:BURDEN implies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the term vs use, I already presented several quotes on the talk page to demonstrate that the term "terrorism" has evolved during the last century, and, whereas old "terrorism" included the terror of the state against civilians, the new term "terrorism" usually refers to the acts of non-governmental organisations directed against the state. Please, read the talk page before starting the discussion about the subject that has already been discussed recently. Therefore, we need to make needed clarifications to avoid confusion. I personally believe that these clarifications should be added at the beginning of the "Usage of term" section, however, I cannot do that right now. try to propose your wording (I love to discuss the drafts on the talk page) as a starting point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, could you please provide details about the 1917 NYT reference. What does it actually say? TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I found another reference from 1919: "On May 4 Munich celebrated its liberation from Communist terrorism. Crowds thronged the streets and cheered the Government troops, which included a detachment of 800 Austrians. Bands played and national airs were sung outside the palace ...". Another reference from 1931: "50 hsiens out of the 69 hsiens of the province were at one time and another affected by Communist terrorism. More than 15 hsiens were sovietised in southern Hunan. Bands of Communist bandits were also roaming." Another source from 1932 discussing Communist terrorism in Italy in 1920: "It is easy to forget the condition of chaos into which Italy had fallen after the War, the Communist terrorism of 1920, the incompetence of Nitti, the degradation of a great nation.". So clearly the term has been in use long before the Cold War era. --Martin (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin seems to ignore the argument he fount inconvenient, namely, that the term "terrorism" has evolved since 1919, so now it means something else. I also expect Peters to address the same question. The sources and the quotes supporting this my claim have already been provided. Please, comment on that, and be advised that WP:V and WP:NPOV are two quite independent policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

?? I'm not sure how you can draw your conclusion, I was merely replying to TFD. What my three quotes from before 1933 show is that in each case communist terrorism was perpetrated by non-governmental organisations against the state, in this case Bavaria, Hunan and Italy respectively, not by the state as you contend. What you need, Paul, is a source that states the term "communist terrorism" has evolved over time, so far this is just your personal argument. However if you publish you claim in a journal, then we could use it in this article, with attribution of course. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not contend, I took this info from scholarly articles and from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Regarding Bavaria and Italy, the same events were described as revolutionary movements by other sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The examples used by Martin were used at the time to describe the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Mao's army and the government of Francesco Saverio Nitti. None of these groups are described today as CT, nor do we (and we should not in Wikipedia) applaud the Freikorps, the Kuomintang and the fascists who are presented as the heroes in these old "news" stories. None of these examples btw meet the criteria described by Drake for CT. Doubtful anyway whether this amounts to a term or merely an adjective and a noun strung together. Do you have any sources that explain the historical usage of the term? TFD (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Except this isn't the viewpoints of the Freikorps, the Kuomintang or Italian fascists, but of the The New York Times, The China Weekly Review and the English Review. --Martin (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as the time. Mais où sont les neige d'antan? What do you suppose the writers meant by the term "communist terrorism"? Do you think that it meant the same thing as Drake meant? TFD (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to know that sort of thing. Nor for us to fret about Joan of Arc etc. per Villon. Collect (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If we do not know what the sources meant (because we have not sources to explain them), then we cannot use them as sources. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". TFD (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not find such a claim anywhere in any WP policy at all. It is up to us to represent what the sources actually state, and specifically not up to us to say what we think they should state. Collect (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that we should include them as examples of Communist terrorism? Should we accept that the Communist parties of Germany, Italy and China are all terrorists? Put in that China is governed by Communist terrorists? TFD (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not care - I only care that reliable sources are used and that claims follow from what the reliable sources say. I suggest that insisting that we "know what they mean" is irrelevant - it is not up to us to insert what we "know" into any wikipedia articles - it is up to us to strictly base wikipedia articles on what the sources state - wven if we "know" they are "wrong" or that "they do not mean what they say" or anything of that sort. Thank you most kindly. As for your absurd suggestion that I must think every Communist is a terrorist etc. - such arguments hold absolutely no water in genuine discussions. Ever. Really ever. Collect (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well should be put in the article what it says in the sources, that Bavaria was governed by CTs until "liberated" by the Freikorps or that Fascism rescued Italy from Communist Terrorism? TFD (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever reliable sources say. I do think your contention that Italian fascists were more highly regarded than the NYT at the time (did I understand that correctly?) is spurious and, even if true, irrelevant. "We don't know what sources mean?" They are in English, no? They use CT with regard to specific behavior and acts, no? By the very use of CT with reference to individuals and actions, what the "sources mean" is stated explicitly. Where is the confusion you speak of regarding not knowing what sources mean? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please do not misrepresent other editors. I wrote, "The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as the time". Whatever reasoning makes you think I meant more highly regarded that the NYT? Any reasonable reading of my passage would be that they were more highly regarded then than they are now. TFD (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as [sic.] the time.", i.e., at the time. For whatever reason, I took that "as compared to the New York Times (reporting at the time)." I did specifically ask if I was misunderstanding you, obviously I was, you did not have to respond by prefacing with a personal attack that I'm intentionally (as you request that I cease and desist from such further misrepresentation) misrepresenting you. Don't do that again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: New article: Terror

I have created a stub for Terror. Feel free to expand. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another POV fork. How quaint. Collect (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid attempts at sarcasm. It is not funny and is unproductive. TFD (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not a fork? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A fork of what? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way we were discussing (generalizing here by removing "Communist") the equivalence of "X terrorism" = "X terror". I'm not persuaded that "Terror" is not better served by a redirect to "Terrorism." While conceptually scholars do regard them somewhat separate, "terror" being parent to "terrorism," I'm not sure that separate articles are the best way to inform readers of that distinction. All things considered the best solution might be instead that Terrorism (being the progeny) redirect to Terror (being the parent) and become a section of Terror. That might make for more interesting reading as well, the focus of these sorts of articles as simply "list of atrocities by X" isn't terribly informative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Terror = Terrorism?

Now, what we really should do is have a discussion on whether or not Terror Template:Eq Terrorism? Better yet, we should have had the discussion two years ago. The outside world has differentiated between these concepts for the last one hundred years, but every month on Wikipedia we get new editors who cannot see the distinction. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They are separate but related concepts and are sometimes used interchangeably. Also, the term "terrorist" is used by leaders in the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and Libya in order to obtain support for civil rights restrictions. TFD (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources in the section you have tagged discuss terrorism, it is neither off topic nor needs to be merged, your tag shall be removed when time allows. Tentontunic (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In case someone does not understand the difference I will give you an example in the form of a Russian reversal joke:

In America, bin Laden terrorize state. In Soviet Russia state terrorize you!

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All that shows me is you have a poor sense of humor. Or such jokes do not travel well, ont or the other. It also has no bearing on this discussion. Tentontunic (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving/merging CT in the USSR elsewhere ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? the bolshevik`s never committed acts of terrorism during the revolution? And yo uar e sure of this? [55] Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "vietcong guerrilla -terrorist" give 4,730 results [56]
• "vietcong terrorist -guerrilla" give 2,570 results [57]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing your points in order:

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

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

re 2. And?

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

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

re 5. Exactly. That what I meant.

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

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

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

Re "as we know it today to your synthesis" Who? If you see synthesis here, go to the appropriate noticeboard. The attempt to question the sources I am using had recently failed[58]. The attempt to question the neutrality of the edits I made had failed also[59]. Of course, it would be good if you went to WP:NPOVN to complete the set of ridiculous accusations, and to finish all of that once and forever.

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

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

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

Communist Terrorism in Imperial Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my viewpoint, given:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peters, could you please provide a source that supports your statement "there are direct connections within the historical continuity of CT and ones which are more evolutionary". TFD (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)