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)

Let's restore

Sorry for not following all details of this lengthy discussion. There was a very specific and well sourced information in this article, as summarized in the following two sections [1]. I believe it should be restored.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first section deals with the state sponsored terrorism and should be discussed in the article devoted to that subject. The second section is about sabotage (not terrorism), and, more importantly, about alleged sabotage. Moreover, these sections contained mostly allegations, were based on hearsays and unverifiable statements, which served as an additional arguments for their removal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is "hearsay", everything is supported by multiple RS. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

These RSs mostly reproduce various unsupported claims. It is especially valid for the second section, which is devoted not to terrorism, and even not to sabotage, but to the allegedly planned sabotage. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not so. The Molniya (explosive trap)s were actually found in Europe (a matter of fact). Most other claims are supported by multiple RS provided in book "KGB in Europe" by Christopher Andrew (historian). A couple of claims were published in books by GRU and SVR defectors but never officially disproved. Biophys (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the question being why was it removed? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained why.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean your explanation above? If so your wrong. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not meet even TLAM's definition of terrorism carried out by Communists. It's mostly conspiracy-theory stuff anyway, I'm surprised 9/11 isn't included. TFD (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What definition of terrorism carried out by communists have I got then? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"I have pointed out no definitions, terrorism committed by communists is CT, get over it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC) (my emphasis)" TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

strangely enough that is not my definition, it is what reliable sources say. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If that were true then you have been able to present one of these "reliable sources". In any case, that definition does not include Muslims and other non-Communists, which is what the section was primarily about. TFD (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cite for the strange claim that somehow Muslims can not be Communists? Cheers - this sort of blanket statement ill-suits the discussion, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See Benningsen's "The Communist Party and Islam" (SUNY, 1989). Communism and Islam are "absolutely and irreconciliably incompatible".[2] In any case, I have not read anything saying that Islamic terrorist groups such as al Qaeda are Marsist-Leninist. TFD (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support noting that the reams or repetition on this talk page and archives shows precisely how much verbiage contains so little new argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the above posts contain at least some new arguments, your post contains no arguments, and, therefore, can be safely disregarded per WP:VOTE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the nature of my comment was clear and to the point, and I see Boojums aimed at me. Cheers - your comment is far afield here. Collect (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you resorted to mention of such a well defined term as "Boojum" is an indication of how vague and inconcrete is the text we are discussing. Of course, such an unencyclopaedic content cannot be included in WP in any event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should Douglas Pike be described as a historian or a US foreign service officer in this article?

• Historian pike has been praised for his scholarship and is described in all sources as the leading expert in the field. [3] with but one line in all obituaries and other sources mentioning his foreign dept service. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question is incorrectly stated, because, as you have already been explained on your talk page, these characteristics are not mutually exclusive. For instance, David Glantz is both Colonel (retired) and Professor, and both titles are used by different sources. Therefore, it would be correct and uncontroversial to say that Pike is an "American author". I already made this proposal, but you seem to totally ignore it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to describe him as anything. He's wikilinked to his BLP. Writegeist (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Using term "historian" gives an undue weight to American anti-communist POV, since Pike has been characterized as instrumental in US war propaganda efforts by numerous sources, see a section on Pike above. Using his proper title in State Department service on the other hand should not besmirch Douglas Pike in any way. Either way his claims should be properly attributed. "American author" sounds strange given there are other American authors who criticized Pike's account on these event. (Igny (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

What numerous sources? All your sources thus far have been junk. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• US foreign service officer The book refers to Pike as a "writer", quoting his book The Vietcong strategy of terror, which was published by the United States Mission in Saigon in 1970, where Pike was employed for nine years by the United States Information Agency to "explain and advocate U.S. policies". While Pike would contribute to academic knowledge as an historian, I think that calling him an historian (something the source does not) would be an endorsement of his views and therefore a violation of neutrality. TFD (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Historian as that is the profession of the person involved. [4] is a reliable source calling him an "historian." [5] the New York Times called him an "expert" and that President Clinton consulted hm about Vietnam in 2000. Also:

Mr. Pike provoked attacks from antiwar partisans by publishing evidence, hotly disputed by some, that North Vietnamese troops massacred civilians at Hue during the Tet offensive in 1968. But he was far from a cheerleader for the South Vietnamese, strongly criticizing their organizational weakness compared with that of their well-organized northern foes; he had made himself particularly expert on the structure of Vietnamese Communist forces and their order of battle. His persistent message was that the war was so complex that final judgments were necessarily elusive. 'Vietnam has become the great intellectual tragedy of our times,' he wrote in 'War, Peace, and the Viet Cong' (M.I.T., 1969).

• • Thus - considered an expert by President Clinton, published by university presses, noting that the Hue massacre was "hotly disputed by some" but clearly implying that "some" != most historians, seems more than adequate to list him as an historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note also [6] from the New York Times (which referred to him as an "historian" numerous times, by the way). Pike was a sufficient historian and expert to write a featured book review of two major works by Karnow and Isaacs. Proof positive that the NYT considered him an historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Neither: balance any POV issues with other sources - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV simply requires that potentially biased sources be identified, and that is already done in the article by including Pike's name and linking to his WP article (an occupational qualifier might be appropriate if he did not have a WP article). It appears that the deeper issue here are claims that Pike is biased, and that bias should be communicated to the readers. The best way to address that concern is to see if there are any sources that state that Pike's views on terrorism is anti-communist, or a propagandist, or otherwise biased, then those sources can be used to add balancing material immediately after Pike's assertion. If there are no such sources that refute/dispute Pike, then just leave Pike's comment on its own. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • • Um -- the New York Times and LA Times are biased in some way when they repeatedly name him as an "Historian"? UCBerkeley had him head the Indochina Center - they are noted as biassed against the left in some way? Sorry - he was an historian, and was respected as such by UCBerkeley, the NYT (His books, all on Vietnam, were praised for their authoritativeness. In The Washington Post, Col. Harry G. Summers Jr. called his book on the North Vietnamese Army, 'PAVN: People's Army of Vietnam' (Presidio, 1986), 'without question the best work available on what is now the world's third-largest military force.' ), LAT, etc. His position on the Hue massacre was unchanged in 1996 [7] belying claims that his position was proven false by anyone. Etc. Historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no WP policy that requires us to identify the occupation of every person named in this article, particularly when that person has a WP article, particularly when there are some editors that feel that the person's occupation is in question. Just include what Pike has to say, period. If some editors have sources that say Pike is wrong or crazy or whatever those sources can also be included to balance the material. Nuances about Pike's occupation should be addressed in the article on Pike, not here. --Noleander (talk)

• Historian And regarding wikilink to Pike's biography, there has been historian dilution via experience and credentials placement, for example, at his biography too, the last I looked. @Paul's self-attributed objective proposal of "author" (abject lack of "historian") is guaranteed to be read by a reader unfamiliar with Pike as diluting objective valuation of his expertise. Same with TFD's "US foreign service officer," which, again, diminishes his status as historian and implies bias in favor of the US government simply by its mention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Igny, what is "biased" is the tendency by some editors to label anything which is critical of communism, the Soviet legacy, etc. as communist "bashing" and Soviet "bashing", i.e., "biased" at best. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That is absolutely untrue. I have always insisted that all political groups be treated in a neutral manner, and have defended neutrality for right-wing and liberal groups as well. My view is that readers do not need to be told what to think. If we present the views of experts in a neutral tone, then they have enough intelligence to form their own opinions. In this case we do not need to lend credibility to someone employed by the U.S. government to present their policies in a favorable light as an historian. BTW, when we distort history in order to present a POV in a positive light, then we alienate people who otherwise might agree with us. TFD (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re V. In a similar debate here, you labeled Prof. Simonyan's support of official Russian position with regard to Occupation of the Baltic states as WP:FRINGE simply based on your personal contentions (i.e., with out any source provided in support of your claim) that his views were minority and thus he was nothing more but an advocate of the Russian fringe view. In the debate here I actually provided several RS unambiguously labeling Pike as US war propagandist, and yet here he is a historian according to you? That is just demonstration of your double standards. (Igny (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

• Comment The following sources all call pike an Historian. Hagopian, Patrick (2009) The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing University of Massachusetts Press ISBN 978-1558496934 Topmiller, Robert J. (2006) The Lotus Unleashed: The Buddhist Peace Movement in South Vietnam, 1964-1966 University Press of Kentucky ISBN 978-0813191669 Rigal-Cellard, Bernadette (1991) La guerre du Vietnam et la société américaine Presses universitaires de Bordeaux ISBN 978-2867811227 Anderson, David L. (2011) The Columbia history of the Vietnam War Columbia University Press ISBN 978-0231134804 All from the academic press, all highly reliable sources. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And I am almost certain that they would all have noticed his position at the US State Department as well? I haven't checked them out, because frankly this is a non-issue. There are sources out there that mention he was a US State Dept employee and there are sources that mention he was a historian. And I am also taking a wild-arsed guess here, but I would suggest that many sources make mention of both facts. I don't think you understand, what Douglas Pike is or was is absolutely irrelevant for this article, for this is an article on Communist terrorism, not Douglas Pike. It seems that editors are drawing their battle lines in the sand over an absolutely irrelevant issue. This is not directed at you, but to everyone involved in editing this article, is it really that difficult to write in the article...."According to Douglas Pike yadda yadda yadda" and leave it at that? For every keystroke that editors are wasting on this trivial non-issue, it is one keystroke less that could be devoted to actual improvement, expansion or creation. I know that in the time that it has taken me to remind all editors of this, I could have uploaded probably half a dozen or so photos to Commons, or filled in some references on another article. Priorities people. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is no need to call him anything. As noted above he has his own article, so wikilinking to his name is enough. His article is where the fact he is regarded as both a US government employee and a historian can be discussed. This article is not the place for it. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, no double standards here. If we describe Dyukov as a "historian" in the the Soviet Story article, then we can certainly are editorially obligates to label a bona fide historian such as Pike as such. Dissing Pike's credentials in narrative is a double standard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not apologize. US Foreign service officer is by no way dissing Pike's credentials. Attempts to discredit Noam Chomsky and Gareth Porter which occurred on this talk page above or ru:Симонян, Ренальд Хикарович here were based on your personal contentions and clearly was dissing their credentials. By no standard these scholars were any less prominent than mr. Pike.(Igny (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Well apart from the fact that your sources were not RS, neither were the authors historians, Chomsky is an activist and philosopher and Porter is a journalist and self proclaimed investigative historian. Perhaps those reading Ignys comments in this thread ought read the one he has pointed to. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got your point and in fact pointed it out when I mentioned "attempts to discredit... Chomsky and Porter". You might also notice how high and relevant I valued your characterization of these scholars. (Igny (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I did not try to discredit anyone, it amuses me that you will insist on calling Pike a government flunky, even though all sources praise his scholarship, but insist on calling two activists one of whom is but a journalist scholars. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, regarding prior dialog noted, e.g., "The fact that Russian officials use the word присоединение (joining, incorporation stressing what in their view was a voluntary event) rather than аннексия (literally, annexation) is a red herring [my emphasis], considering that annexation is one of acceptable translations of the term присоединение", that is your personal contention, as joining = voluntary and annexation = forcible, but in Soviet historiography "annexation" is portrayed as an act in accordance with the express wishes of the peoples of the Baltic states. which gives rise to interchangeability in Russian language sources of a certain ilk, but runs counter to the fundamental meanings of the two distinct terms under international law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Historian, Pike achieved notability as a historian and foremost scholar on the Vietnam War and the Viet Cong. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Either historian or a wikilink Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Resistance as an instance of CT

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Resistance to Nazi occupants was a manifestation of terrorism. Taking into account that Communists were the leading force in Yugoslavian, Italian, Chinese, Malayan, Vietnamese, Soviet and other resistance movement, I believe, we need a section devoted to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources which say that the communists fighting Nazis were in fact terrorists? That strikes me as a rather odd statement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read carefully my posts. I wrote that EB (the "Terrorism" article) describes resistance (concretely, French resistance) as terrorism. Since there is no articles in EB devoted to such a category as Communist terrorism (it uses the term "revolutionary terrorism", which includes, among others CT also), it does not separate Communist from non-Communist resistance, therefore, the term "terrorism" is applicable to both.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even Black Book of Communism did not mentioned resistance to Nazi as an example of "terrorism" or "terror" by Communist organizations. May be Nazi labelled them "terrorists"? Biophys (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This your "even" hardly makes sense, because the main point Courtois was trying to make in the BB was the similarity between Nazism and Communism, so, it is quite understandable that the resistance was not mentioned in the BB as not fitting into this concept. In addition, as I already explained, the resistance was characterized as terrorism by EB, which is a reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You will require more that one source to show this concept is notable, personally I have never heard of anyone who fought the Nazi`s being described as terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, might you point to us to the exact spot where EB makes the statement that equates to "resistance to Nazi occupants was a manifestation of terrorism." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is:

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

@Paul, your interpretation is completely mistaken. The intent of the passage is that the general definition of criminality of violence regarding "terrorism" does not necessarily apply to popular insurgencies reflecting the broad will of the population (as opposed to acts of terror directed against the broad population, which are clearly terrorism). This is completely in line with scholarship which specifically alludes to movements which started as communist terrorism against authorities and subsequently took on popular support, giving rise to insurgencies. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the TLAM's concern, EB mentions French resistance among "frequently mentioned examples".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PS you failed epically to address my concerns, you need more than one source to show this notion is notable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, since only reasonable concerns need to be addressed I do not think I need to provide additional sources in a situation when Encyclopaedia Britannica describe resistance as a frequently mentioned example of terrorism.

However, since I do have other sources, I can present them here as an act of my good will. The second source is Scott Atran, Genesis of Suicide Terrorism (Review), Science 7 March 2003: Vol. 299, no. 5612, pp. 1534-1539 DOI:10.1126/science.1078854. In the first paragraph of his review Atran states that, although no strict definition of terrorism can be proposed, the US State department definition of terrorism ("the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.") is frequently used for for purposes of statistical analysis and policy-making; this definition is fully applicable to French Resistance movement. I believe noone can question the fact that Science is a top scientific journal, and that the articles published there are among the most reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You have read that wrong, what Atran is saying is that the US state debt definition would render the French resistance as terrorists not that they were terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Atran clearly says that, following this definition, the Resistance fighters are rightly characterised as terrorists. Note, he does not argue that this particular definition is wrong, his point is that no comprehensive definition of terrorism exists, and cannot be proposed (the viewpoint shared by many authors). Therefore, "one side’s “terrorists” may well be another side’s “freedom fighters”", and if we are going to discuss all examples of usage of terrorist tactics by Communists we should not restrict ourselves with just the examples of usage of terror against "good guys" only. Nazi (and other Axis authorities) were the Communist enemies, the Communists widely used terrorism against them and their collaborators, and I (along with Atran) do not see why should we ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail x 3 PS, he says under the US State Dept that they would be deemed terrorists, he does not say they are terrorists. And were the French Resistance communists? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your style is becoming more and more close to that of Mark Nutley. Please, try to be polite if you can. I also recommend you to keep in mind that, since no universal definition of terrorism exists, every particular definition is subjective, and, in that sense, it is impossible to discriminate between "true" and "false" definitions of terrorism. The State Dept's definition is not better or worse than any other. The article already labels some freedom fighters (in Vietnam, Malaya, Africa) as "terrorists", and I do not see why we can ignore the obvious fact that Communists used the terrorist tactics also against truly "bad guys".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Try at least to seem to observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Address the issues and not the editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And which issue had you addressed in this post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail is a term used worldwide and is hardly impolite, if Nutley used it that is hardly surprising, a great many people do. Please refrain from attempts to call me a sockpuppet in future. The fact still stands, your source does not say what you seem to think it does, it says under the State Dept definition then the FR would be terrorists, it does not say they are terrorists, nor does it say they are communists. Find a source which says those who fought the nazis were terrorists and then we can talk further. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Had I wanted to call you a sockpuppet I would make that openly. I just advise you how can you avoid such accusations in future. In my post I meant not the words "epic fail" (I do not remember if Nutley used it), but an overall impolite tone.

Regarding the issue we discuss, I have provided two sources that describe French resistance as terrorists (although they imply no negative connotations in this case).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You ought not make such accusations directly or by implication, read WP:NPA. You have not made your case whatsoever, your second source does not say that which you think it does. Until you present further sources which say resistance fighters were A Communist and B terrorist this discussion is over. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am making no accusations, I am just pointing your attention at the fact that your posts are redundantly impolite. By no means can it be considered as a personal attack.

Regarding sources, your request for additional sources hardly follows from our policy. Nevertheless, below is a quote that clearly confirms that anti-Nazi organisations had been engaged in terrorist activity:

"It might be useful for comparative purposes to realize that the European underground movements, so well developed during World War II, and so efficient in their systematic terrorist activities, were by any standards huge organizations. For example, the Polish Underground Movement (Armia Krajowa) in 1944 had over 380,000 "front line" troops plus at least an equal number of "support" members totalling 760,000 people. The total membership of the Italian Resistance was somewhere between 150,000-200,000; the French Resistance (FFI) for the Northern and Southern zone, about 425,000. " (JK Zawodny - Journal of Conflict Studies, 1981, p 24-31)

I believe, there is no need to provide a source to confirm the obvious fact that Communists were among the best organized part of French and Italian resistance.

Anticipating your argument that the groups employing the terrorist tactics is not necessarily a terrorist group, let me point out that many "terrorists" that are being discussed in this article have been described by many sources as partisans who used terrorism as one of several tools for their struggle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe, there is no need to provide a source and in that you would be wrong, as stated already, you need sources which say these groups were A Communist and B terrorist. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Per our policy, the sources are needed for statements that are likely to be challenged. Do you challenge the statement that Communists played a prominent role in Yugoslavian, Italian, French etc resistance? If yes, you just demonstrate the holes in your education.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect I may just have to give up on you, you refuse to respond directly to my questions and statements. You will require sources which state "Any resistance group were communist/Marxist/Maoist/Stalinist terrorists". What you are doing is taking one source (EB) which says the actions of french resistance could be called terrorism. You are then looking for other sources which no doubt will mention communist partisans and combining the two to create a narrative. This is WP:SYNTH, this is why I have repeatedly said, you will need sources which explicitly state "Any resistance group were communist/Marxist/Maoist/Stalinist terrorists" and good luck on your quest for such a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are withdrawing your previous definition? "...terrorism committed by communists is CT...." (19:12, 11 September 2011) If so, would you mind explaining what this article is supposed to be about. TFD (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A search for "terrorism" + "French resistance" returns 1,140 hits on Google books. A cursory reading of the first page of hits shows that reliable sources say that the French Resistance used terrorism and that the German government called them terrorists. It meets TLAM's definition of CT. However it would be pointy to include it. TFD (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, do you accuse me in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia? If yes, then what point, in your opinion, am I going to demonstrate?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No. But as discussed above, CT was a term used by governments to associate Communism and terrorism in the public mind. The Nazis, the British and the Americans all used the term, but it fell out of use in the 1960s. Scholars categorize terrorism according to its objectives, and the term is rarely used to describe actions which the government of the day happens to support. TFD (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The term has been used by different sources in quite different context. Not only governments used it, and we need to discuss all events to which this term has been applied.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well no one has presented any sources that support that. TFD (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean that no one has presented sources that use the term in a different context than as a term used by governments to associate Communism and terrorism in the public mind. TFD (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Some non-governmental sources use this term for LWT, and, I have to concede that they had some ground for that. Thus, if we consider Maoism as a version of Communism then the acts of terror committed by Maoist parties' members can be characterized as CT. It this case LWT and CT are synonyms (although the former is more common), and that is not propaganda. In addition, we need to discriminate between the propagandist characteristics of some activity that took place in reality (Red Terror, activity of Sendero Luminoso, etc) and some totally imaginary events, such as "Communist terrorism" in Germany on the eve of Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Various authors may occassionally refer to LWT as CT, although there are several other synonyms that are more common. The term CT is confusing. None of the LWT groups were associated with the Communist Party, while what governments labelled "Communist terrorism" is not classified as LWT. In fact much of what was labelled CT was not even terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assetion of what you know to be the truth seems not in accord with how Wikipedia operates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merely repeating what has already been well-sourced. Since I am not the author of any of those sources, your comment is confusing. In any case the onus is on you to provide sources showing that the views for which you argue so tenaciously have received any recognition. TFD (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"I believe noone can question the fact that Science is a top scientific journal, and that the articles published there are among the most reliable sources" Well it would appear PS was incorrect on this statement, "even such top ranked journals like Science and Nature do not fully warrant reliability of the materials published there" The irony it burns :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

His point was that there may be errors even in reliable sources. However, we assume that the information in reliable sources is correct, unless it is in conflict with other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You TLAM seem to come to the understanding that my posts (even those made in past) have to be read carefully. The problem is, however, that, according to the standard formula ("have read and understood"), it is insufficient just to read them. I never stated Science and Nature are impeccable, my point was that they are among the most reliable sources, so it is highly unlikely that the material published there contains errors. Therefore, the priority should be given to this type sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

One editor recently removed (I believe appropriately) a POV tag. Another recently reverted it. If there is not a current dispute explicitly explained on the talk page, the tag doesn't really belong there. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". That policy goes on to state:

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

These tags are not meant to be a permanent badge of dishonor. If there is a valid dispute it should be clearly stated on the talk page, otherwise it is appropriate to remove it and I or another editor will properly do so. Mamalujo (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

An AE I am going to submit is not about this particular content dispute, which I am not even going to discuss at AE in much detail. It is about TLAM's persistent disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings. If you have any comments with regard to TLAM's behavior in general, you would be welcome to comment there.

With regard to this particular content dispute, thanks for starting a discussion (something TLAM should have done), and I will come back here sometime later. (Igny (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

If you do not actually explain what you believe is not neutral in the article I will remove the tag again, per policy. And you have some cheek calling me a disruptive edit warrior. Time to start collecting diffs methinks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support that POV tag. I have added a {Multiple issues} tag, since the article needs copyediting throughout. I have done something about the lead; but I am reluctant to touch the remainder because I find the material repugnant. I will, by way of compromise, be happy to polish things after someone else does the job. Issues include grammar, punctuation, referencing (order of entries; irregular page references), and much more.

I have also applied three {fact} tags, in the lead alone. The statements concerned are not given proper citation, despite the appearance. It looks as if the initial statement is supported in the first few citations. But in fact only one of the three sources in that paragraph (Clymer) seems to include the phrase "communist terrorism", and not in its own text but in a quote from a source it characterises this way: "one document intended to influence public and congressional opinion". This sort of thing confirms the suspicion that there is a strong point of view shaping the article. I recommend that this be addressed; and indeed I am inclined to start an RM, because the title itself is rather clearly biased. Would the community accept an article headed "Capitalist terrorism", cataloguing such things as CIA involvement in Chile, or covert US sympathy with (or collaboration with) the wholesale slaughter of suspected communists in Indonesia? With respect to all here, I think not. A neutral point of view, manifest particularly in our neutral expression of ideas, is hard work for everyone. But it is crucial to the Project's integrity.

Noetica^Tea? 11:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of fact: United States and state terrorism exists. Edited by TFD. Left-wing terrorism ditto. Right-wing terrorism ditto. Christian terrorism ditto. Sory -- the fact is that many articles with many titles quite equivalent to Communist terrorism exist, and are edited by the same people who decry this article's title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they all have clear definitions and are supported by a body of literature. Notice the U.S. article is not called "American terrorism" because sources do not call it that and that title would be POV. TFD (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. The objection does not concern coverage of the terrorism in question, but bias and accuracy in the coverage. There is no article Capitalist terrorism (though sources do use that term) to cover US-sponsored atrocities, because that would be biased and inaccurate concerning a political and economic ideology; so also with "communist terrorism". Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE there is no need for citations in the lede at all, putting in CN tags on a lede which is already heavily cited is ridiculous. To say the title is not neutral is also pointless as there are more than enough sources which discuss communist terrorism. TFD please read Europe`s red terrorists, it goes into extensive detail about communist terrorism. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not needed if the statement is supported. Please, demonstrate (on the talk page) that this statement is supported by RS and it is uncontroversial.

In any event, I suggest to finish with MKuCR first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is MKuCR? Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes. See also Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica`s tags

Noetica has just put a failed verification tag [8] on a source I added. I should like for him to explain were in policy it states a term needs to actually be in a source? The source states that the USSR (communist I believe) undertook acts of terrorism. How then does it fail verification? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I said "see discussion" in my edit summary; you should give me a moment to post here! I was stopped just now by an edit conflict, with you.

Now, I asked for a citation to be supplied for the very first statement by applying a tag; I would not have done so if the lead were clear of citations, so that the reader does not expect them there. In any case, the citation that has just been supplied in response does not support the statement that "communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace" (and the citation is opaque to readers anyway, being incorrectly formatted). See the location cited, where the phrase "communist terrorism" is not used. For that reason I have now applied a {failed verification} tag. I grant that a source need not use a term that is generally under discussion, in most cases; but here the claim allegedly supported by the source is directly about that term; yet the source neither uses it nor says that it is used. You could supply sources that use that term; but you do not do so here.

Noetica^Tea? 21:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring my question, now lets try again, which policy states an "exact term" needs be in source? The source states that the USSR (communist I believe) undertook acts of terrorism. How then does it fail verification? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not read my careful answer carefully. I will not repeat it. Please try again. Noetica^Tea? 22:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read it, you say the term does not appear in the source, so I ask again, which policy says an exact term needs be in a source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One cannot source the use of a term to an article that neither uses nor mentions the term. Shall we waste more editors' time by bringing this to a notice board? TFD (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that a reliable source which says the USSR carried out terrorist actions against it`s own people is not communist terrorism? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the source does not support your claim that "communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace". Please do not misrepresent sources and inject your own unsupported opinions into articles. TFD (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No. "Terrorism" and "state terror" is not the same, according to most sources, and the opinion TLAM advocates should be mentioned in the "controversy" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the sheer amount of bullshit from the pro communist cabal on this article I fully intend to rewrite the lede to reflect the article per policy, I assume there will of course be objections but as I shall be editing within policy you can all take a hike. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)