Talk:Communist terrorism

More proof that there was no consensus to move/delete

[1]. Obviously there are editors who are opposed to the gutting of this article and the turning of it into a (POVd) disambiguation page. This was born out in the move discussion - which is where the decision was made NOT to move. The fact that a couple others wish to cram their desired result down everyone else's throats - in contravention Wikipedia's guidelines and its dispute resolution process - of is not a justification (I consider Igny's and Paul's suggestions constructive - though they need to be acted upon). At least Ludwigs above explicitly states that he doesn't give a fig for consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit war isn't necessarily proof of lack of consensus, as I see it. The consensus in question is that of the participants involved in the discussion, and need not include those who choose not to take part in the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I suggest that WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with that novel interpretation. Open an RfC here if you wish to delete an article in this sideways manner. Collect (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly novel: it is explicitly stated:

"Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic" (from WP:CONSENSUS).

There has been a marked reluctance to 'persuade' or 'reason' over this issue, by those who wished to retain the status quo. Instead they have resorted to reversion without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Start an RfC then. I assert that several editors disagree on the "consensus" asserted, and that there is no reason to believe that a "consensus" exists at all for this sideways deletion of an article. Absent an RfC, I shall continue in that assertion. Collect (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

With the article now protected, an RfC seems hardly an immediate priority. Can I assume that you will now discuss the issue as to how this type of terrorist activity is best covered, rather than arguing over interpretations of what exactly WP:CONSENSUS means? If progress is to be made, endless going over old ground will achieve nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the move made by me has been reverted. In connection to that, let me remind you that the content has been moved after long discussion where I presented exhaustive evidences that a significant part of the content belonged to another article. I also pointed the editors' attention at the fact that in the situation when the neutrality criteria are violated no consensus is needed to fix the issue. I also outlined possible ways to question my conclusions about the article's non-neutrality and encouraged other editors to present their counter-arguments against the prospective move. No reasonable counter-arguments had been presented,, however. In that situation, after waiting for a comparatively long period, I moved the content, and that my step was supported by majority editors.
Regarding consensus, I am very disappointed that the content has been reverted by the editor who proposed no reasonable arguments in preceding discussion, and made no good-faith efforts to reach a consensus, as required by the policy. The concern about the article's non neutrality raised by me was quite legitimate, and this concern was not addressed by the opponents of the content move. The idea that consensus is equal to a right of veto (a right to prohibit something without providing any reasonable explanations) is deeply flawed. I request the editors who renewed this nasty edit war to address to the blocking admin to unblock the article, and then to self-revert. Otherwise, this post (supplemented with needed diffs) will be posted to ANI.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am inclined to agree with Radek that to turn the article into a disambiguation page was at least premature. I would rather support the idea to add into the article some content having a direct relevance to Communist terrorism proper. However, to do that we need some concrete content. The arguments like "Look, folks, the source X described the event Y as Communist terrorism" are not satisfactory in the situation when the sources A, B, C and D described the same fact in quite different way. And, in any event, the content that had already been proven to belong to another article (based on the neutrally formulated search) must be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as I've inquired of Igny above (not that he's had time to respond yet), what do YOU think should go into the article? Somewhere above I believe you state that you think the link between Marx and terror/terrorism does belong here. Likewise out of the list of terrorist groups that are in the article I think there certainly are several, such as the Shinning Path and Communist Party of Philippines which properly belong here and not in "Left wing terrorism" - yes, yes, I know, gscholar searches. But as I've pointed out the difference in hits is mostly due to the fact that one topic ("Communist terrorism") is a subset of the other ("Left-wing terrorism"). This is also indicated in the Left-wing terrorism article via the "See Also Anarchist terrorism etc." link. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, independently of what should go into this article, a considerable part of its former content should not be here. This issue must be resolved in one week, otherwise I will have to take further steps.

Secondly, regarding the possible article's subject, I have no concrete idea, because it is not an area of my interests, however, I already proposed several times to give concrete proposals on that account. The discussion of the relationship between Marx, Marxism and terrorism can be included into this article, provided that the evidence (I mean a real evidence, not few fringe books) is provided that we do have something to discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

VM, anarchist terrorism is not a subset of left-wing terrorism (which is Marxist-Leninist) but is classified separately as are nationalist, right-wing, state-sponsored, religious and single issue terrorism. You are taking up other editors' time in responding to you so at least you could read something about the topic before posting to discussion threads and editing the article. You could start by reading the Wikipedia article on Terrorism and the sources provided for Left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists would beg to differ. Marxism-Leninism is an element of the set "Left-wing". Anarchism (at least some of it) is another element. This is pretty basic. Would YOU stop taking up other editors' time by making non-productive statements which deny the obvious. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They may, but we must use the definitions used in mainstream writing that differentiate between Left-wing terrorism and Anarchist terrorism. Could you please note that we are supposed to use reliable sources for writing articles not original research. If you believe the typology used by experts is wrong, this article is not the place to correct their misunderstanding. TFD (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They differentiate between the two in the same way that biologists differentiate between "oranges" and "citrus". Where is this typology used by experts which you refer to? You know, the one that I allegedly contradict. Link please. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See:

• Understanding, assessing and responding to terrorism: There are seven basic types of terrorists: nationalist, religious, state sponsored, left Wing, right Wing, anarchist and special interest".[2]
• The new dimension of international terrorism: Six basis types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist.[3] (Excludes special interest terrorism.)

TFD (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

<--[4]. [5]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those - they clearly establish that this should be a disambiguation page --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting somewhat lost in who's replying to whom, but the sources I provided do not establish that THIS page should be a disambiguation page. They might suggest that the "Left wing terrorism" page should be a disambiguation page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be a disambiguation page, but have started a discussion thread below asking editors why it should not be. TFD (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek. Probably agreed with your first point, but cannot agree with the second. Please, provide more detailed explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I was careful to put the word "might suggest" rather than an outright "should" in there. Hmm, actually left-wing terrorism shouldn't really be a dab either, but rather more of a 'meta-article'. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

VM, so you provide a source that shows "Left-wing terrorism" as an accepted topic, and there is no mention of "communist terrorism" and your conclusion is that ct is a topic while lwt is not. Could you please explain your reasoning. TFD (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't switch topics on me mid-discussion. You were asking for sources which show that "Anarchist terrorism" is a sub category of "Left wing terrorism". I did. Now you bring up the left-wing vs. communist thing and misrepresent what I'm saying. Ok, look, in all likelihood both ct and lwt are both legitimate topics and Wikipedia articles. But they are not the same thing - as the sources show there are types of lft that are not ct - and hence one article should not redirect or disambiguate to the other. IF, let me emphasize that IF, one title was going to be a disambiguation, redirect, or meta article for others, then it obviously should be lwt since that is the more general term. In an ideal world though neither one should be a disambiguation and both would be well written and focused. But we're dealing with so much mess here - for example, editors misrepresenting each other's statements and switching topics mid-discussion - that at this point I'm just hoping for something reasonable not perfect.

I mean seriously, are you really saying that (most) anarchists are not "left-wing"? Or are you saying that all "left-wing" is "Marxism-Leninist" by definition, which is also nonsense? If anarchists are in fact "left-wing" and if they are in fact NOT "Marxist-Leninist" then obviously the category "left wing" includes elements OTHER than communists. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the conversation became confused. Your first source is about terrorism in asymmetrical conflict. The type of terrorism involved is nationalist terrorism The book refers to "anti-colonial, other national liberation and ethno-separatist groups that used terrorist means". They often hold ideological or religious views but are considered separate because the goals of their actions are national liberation. Your second source omits anarchist, state-sponsored and single issue terrorism, although it mentions anarchism's influence on left-wing terrorism. It recognizes "separatist terrorism" as a separate group, even though many of them are Marxist-Leninist. However, notice what it says on p. 20: "...the most powerful ideology behind terrorist violence is nationalist separatism. It is successively followed by communist-socialist, leftist-anarchist and lastly religious terrorism.... A small number of attacks were carried out...by left-wing and anarchist terror groups."[6] So it seems to be following the standard typology as well, even if the terminology may vary. Notice that no one calls themselves "left-wing terrorists" and the typology was developed in order to understand these actions and the various groups may not fit into neat pigeon-holes.

I am not claiming that anarchists are not left-wing, but that they are normally grouped separately in terrorism studies.

Incidentally, left-wing terrorist groups, e.g., the United Freedom Front, are not necessarily led by people who have a strong grasp of ideology, so it may be difficult to determine exactly what their ideology is. The same applies to right-wing terrorists. While fascism is an influence, would we really use it as a sub-category and try to determine whether Timothy McVeigh was a fascist? TFD (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you wrote above, saying, "I'm looking at google books and I'm finding different results, for example [7]. This links to a footnote in Ethnic Profiling and Counter Terrorism which is sourced to "Terrorist Groups - - A List of Terrorist Groups by Type" at About.com. Zalman follows the same typology but calls the group "Socialist/Communist". She does not distinguish between socialist and communist, and excludes anarchists and "National Liberation" groups, such as ETA and PKK. TFD (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am curious - how would you classify the Irgun? It had both nationalist and political aspects to be sure. There is no doubt that Communists (broadly defined as modern groups deriving ideology from Marx, and not including Amana-tyope groups) are a subset of all terrorist ideologies. Collect (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Moghadam classified them under "ethno-Nationalist/Separatist Terrorism".[8] Their objective was the liberation of Israel. Although they were religious and right-wing, they gave up terrorist tactics when the state of Israel was established. TFD (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources required for article

Editors who believe that this should be an article rather than a disambiguation page should provide one book or article that defines the topic and outlines the main issues. The current lead sentence in the article is sourced to a book that does not even use the term Communist terrorism, while the article was originally created with an unsourced lead and sections imported from other articles.

As has been discussed before the major use of the term CT was by the British to describe insurgents in the Malayan emergency and also to describe other Asian insurgencies in the 1950s and early 60s.

Please do not provide long lists of sources - just one good source that establishes the concept exists will suffice.

Meanwhile the terrorism in the article is identified in books about terrorism as "Left-wing terrorism and is described in that article.

TFD (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed before the major use of the term CT was by the British to describe insurgents in the Malayan emergency - no, as indicated before this is just one of the ways the term has been used.

Meanwhile the terrorism in the article is identified in books about terrorism as "Left-wing terrorism and is described in that article. - no, as explained above what is going on is that the terrorism is identified as "communist terrorism" but since this is a sub-category of "left-wing terrorism", it is also described as such. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide one book or article that defines the topic and outlines the main issues. TFD (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what is going on is that the terrorism is identified as "communist terrorism" but since this is a sub-category of "left-wing terrorism", it is also described as such." What is going on is the tendency of some fraction of editors to put everything that is described as "left wing terrorism" (a more general category), and, simultaneously, to put everything described predominantly as, e.g. "Maoist terrorism" (a more narrow category) into this article. This is illogical, and serves as an evidence of someone prejudice against certain words.

One more search result (if someone have already done that, sorry for plagiarism): "Communist terrorists" -Malaya [9] 282 results, "Communist terrorists" 675 results [10]. One third of all academic sources discuss Communist terrorists in a context of Malaya.-Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A better search is "communist terrorists" -malaya -malayan -thailand, as the Thailand commies were in fact Malayans. With only 199 results it is evident that over 2/3 of the scholarly results are about the MAlayan Emergency and its aftermath. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

put everything that is described as "left wing terrorism" (a more general category), and, simultaneously, to put everything described predominantly as, e.g. "Maoist terrorism" (a more narrow category) into this article. - well, I think I've already made it clear that I disagree with that. Groups which are "left wing" but not really communist do not belong in this article. Maoist terrorism does, though it's more narrow, especially until someone starts a sub-article on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what groups you believe practice "left-wing terrorism" but you would not classify as communist? TFD (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From the list in the article or in general? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From anywhere. TFD (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Historically, for example the FAI [11]. Present day, some of the eco-terrorist groups, or various "anarchists" (anarchists don't always like to form groups, for obvious reasons). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, anarchist and special interest terrorism are categorized separately from left-wing terrorism. Do you have any examples that are classified as left-wing terrorism but are not Marxist-Leninist? TFD (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

All of which is not needed per WP. Unless and until there is consensus, as defined by WP, to change the title, the title stays. Nor does WP have any ruyle that titles must be terms found in "peer reviewed literature" at all. In short - the end-run around WP policies is improper, and is conceded to be improper with the claim that "consensus is not needed". Note, by the way, that I have not made any claims as to what I [WP:KNOW]] here, nore have I done "research" on the topic to reinforce any claims at all. My position has been, and remains, that WP has policies which should be followed, if if an editors "knows" it is wrong. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."[12] TFD (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally done by a small hatnote at the top of the article - not by removing the article and only having a dab page. See Template:about. Commonly used on WP pages, by the way. Collect (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page)." Is there is a primary topic and if so what is it? Please provide one book or article that defines the topic and outlines the main issues. TFD (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "primary topic" is as defined in the lede of the article. Any "secondary topics" for which articles exist are then listed in the hatnote as specified by the template. Simple. Collect (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is defined in the lead is not the "primary topic". As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum the most common use of the term was to describe the Malayan insurgency. However, there may not be a primary topic. See for example Tea party. You may believe that it was a chapter in Alice in Wonderland. You may not however rewrite that disambiguation page to make your own interpretation the "primary topic". TFD (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The present contents is an WP:OR WP:SYNThesis and a WP:POVFORK of material elsewhere. It is only kept upright by the scaffolding of page protection. It will melt away as soon as the page protection ends, if not earlier.

If someone wants to keep an article here, he should better start preparing new content from new sources and place it in Communist terrorism/Temp. None of the current content is acceptable under this title.

I have no idea what this new content would be. Most likely it would have to be derived from obscure printed sources, not yet available on the Internet, as any on-line search for suitable content has not been able to find anything. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Absent a consensus to get rid of this article, the POVfork is the "new article" created by TFD. Especialy since it contains mateial specifically taken from this article, and has no pretense to be an entirely new article. Read the POVFORK definition - it is making a NEW article in competition with an EXISTING article, which is precisely what has occurred. If you find OR - state which sentences are OR - that is how WP editing works. Not by game-playing and moving things around in contravention of any RfC. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A POV fork is "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)". Are you now claiming that left-wing terrorism and communist terrorism and are the same subject, and rejecting your earlier thesis that the first was a subset of the second. TFD (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

People keep beating this dead horse. Per the section TFD links to, POV forks "arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". That it not at all how this article arose. At the time this article arose the other article esssentially did not exist, as it was a mere redirect. Indeed, that article had absolutely no influence upon this article. So this is unequivocally NOT a POV fork. In a sense, the other article is a POV fork, as it was merely a redirect and arose out of a content dispute here. Mamalujo (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If communist terrorism is a subset of left-wing terrorism, then neither would be a fork. Note that left-wing terrorism itself is a subset of terrorism, and there are various articles about the other subsets of terrorism, viz., right-wing, nationalist, religious, anarchist, state-sponsored and single issue. These subsets themselves often have subsets, e.g., we have articles about Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we agreeing then that both articles should remain? That is a sentiment I had previously voiced. I think the other article is broader and should include anarchist and other non-communist, leftist terrorism. Mamalujo (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources for left-wing terrorism show that it is a generally understood concept and therefore it meets Wikipedia:Notability. Whether or not "communist terrorism" meets notability, it has not been shown. As the sources used show, anarchist and other non-communist terrorism is not usually considered left-wing terrorism. Terrorism is classified according to the objectives. Left-wing terrorism "is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government". Anarchists of course do not seek to set up any government. As a result their organiations will be less cohesive or non-existant, and their targets different. In the same sense Abu Nidal and al Qaeda are categorized separately as nationalist and religious terrorist groups, although they were both led by Muslims who happened to be terrorists. TFD (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the article should only remain if you can prove it is discussed in the way this article addresses the topic , in mainstream sources - not u.s govt appartchiks pamphlets and the christian science monitor. The lead is hopeless - makes out communist violence is all about revolution and change, then holding on to revolutionary power, - what ive read of the 1930s for example , the show trials for example, is that it was a counter-revolutionary force, Stalin directed it against dissident leftists like trotsky,and a very different character like bukharin, as well as against other random people that crossed the powers in control- the lead convinces me, as does the father of the article being mmalujo who created it, solely for POV reasons and not a disintersted desire to share knowledge and understanding, that this article is a complete toilet. Sayerslle (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the Christian Science Monitor is a perfectly reputable newspaper and a reliable source. You're confused by the fact that it has the word "Christian" in it. It's not a religious newspaper and if anything it's leftist (though generally it's known for its objectivity). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I do tend to equate 'Christian American' with intolerant right wing. Sayerslle (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Mamalujo. This your statement ("I think the other article is broader and should include anarchist and other non-communist, leftist terrorism.") contradicts to your actions. Are you going to self-revert after the article will be unprotected?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Collect. I also think that conversion of this article into the dab page was at least premature. However, that does not mean that re-insertion of the content moved by be in full accordance with all possible WP policy was justified. Are you going to self-revert after the article will be unprotected?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The self revert would be to the dab - so no. I have not stood in the way of any responsible edits within the article (I am not really actively involved in editing this article, if you look at the edit history), and articles properly do evolve over time. The modus used, however, offended my sensibilities as it violated WP processes and policies. Why not simply edit using the material at hand, and not delete the whole shebang (a term used at Andersonville, which I just visited)? Collect (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Paul. I said both articles should remain. So my answer is no. Of course, if the other article was resurected solely for covert purpose of deleting this article, when advocates of that know it would fail, then maybe that article should return to a redirect. I don't have a problem with that article, if it is going to serve it's proper encyclopedic purpose. But if it is going to serve merely as a subterfuge and pretext to delete this article, then that is another matter. Such duplicitous moves made under false prextexts are a problem. Mamalujo (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Collect and Mamalijo. Straw men arguments. As I already wrote, I do not support conversion of this page to dab. My request concerns only the content I moved to the Left wing terrorism article. Since you provided no serious arguments against this move, and since this move was done to comply with neutrality criteria, you should self-revert, and after that we can return to the discussion of the content of this non dab article. Are you going to do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I demur. Unless you can show that the claims made in this article are not supported by the cites given, the material in those claims belongs in this article. Is any of the material unsupported by the cites given? Collect (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to show its WP:RELEVANCE. TFD (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Onus? 1. The material is and has been in this article. 2. The material seems to have reliable sources for claims (else you would have raised that argument) 3. Changes in articles require something called "consensus." 4. Absent consensus to change, the material stays. 5. As I was not the one who wrote the article, it is not up to me to have to show relevance - it is up to others to show that the material is improper in a WP article. Clear? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 5. The WP:BURDEN says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Therefore, it is up to you.

Re 3&4. Consensus is " a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised". What was your legitimate concern? Consensus in not a right of veto. You virtually abstained from the discussion and then re-inserted the material without any explanation.

Re 2. I demonstrated that according to majority of reliable sources the material belongs to another article.

Re 1. So what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The "other article" is a POVFORK, and, as such, it is not valid to claim that an article must be moved to a POVFORK, And second I have stated clearly that the use of a POVFORK to effect a title change which fialed on this page is improper. As for your quaint assertion that I have not used this talk page regarding this dispute - READ the page. I trust this is clear? Collect (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided the arguments for the move and I have been waiting for more than three weeks before I moved the content. During that period you provided no counter-arguments others than the other article is a POV fork (which is not a counter argument per se: that would be true if "Communist terrorism" and "Left wing terrorism" were synonyms, which obviously is not the case), and that google scholar results are not autoritative (why???). That meant you de facto abstained form a serious discussion. You definitely interpret consensus as a right of veto. That is a violation of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I could see how you could be misunderstand the sequence of events here and how you could misapply POVFORK issue so badly. But you'd just have to understand that this article has been a POVFORK of that article since its creation, and everything would become much more clear to you, as well as to other misguided souls. (Igny (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

@Paul. Your edit essentially gutted this article. Most of the groups which you removed self identify as communist. Some may use terms such as Marxist or Maoist, but all are generally identified as being communist or having communist ideology. There never was a consensus for such a drastic change. If you are going to gut an article, simply posting an argument and waiting a dozen or so days doesn't do it. At least you should not be surprised when it is reverted. @Igny, this article is in no way a POV fork. Although technically the other article predates it in time (it was merely a redirect when this article was created), there was no content dispute there that lead to the creation of this article. I created this article and was completely unaware of that article when I created this one. NONE of the content in this article came from that one (the reverse cannot be said). The list of organizations in the aricle were extracted from the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Mamalujo (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "Your edit essentially gutted this article." Yes, it did. However, that happened because the article was focused on a wrong subject (as I have demonstrated).

Re "Most of the groups which you removed self identify as communist." They are not reliable sources about their own nature. (For instance, Nazi self identify themselves as Socialists. Can their claim be taken seriously?) Most reliable sources describe them as Left wing, but not Communist.

Re "Some may use terms such as Marxist or Maoist, but all are generally identified as being communist or having communist ideology. " Again, the majority sources disagree with this your assertion.

Re "If you are going to gut an article, simply posting an argument and waiting a dozen or so days doesn't do it." I wasn't waiting. The move was a result of a long and extensive discussion where most editors supported this move.

Re "At least you should not be surprised when it is reverted." I am really surprised when the article has been reverted by persons who provided no reasonable counter-arguments during the long discussion preceding the move.

Re "Igny, this article is in no way a POV fork." I would say, the article can be not a POV fork, so it can be neither deleted not converted into the disambiguation page. However, that is not an argument for re-insertion of the content that was moved to another article to comply with neutrality policy.

Re "The list of organizations in the aricle were extracted from the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations." One more argument in favour of the non-neutrality of the article: the governmental sites are not considered neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith article

This article is a complete bullshit.

- From the very beginning this article was arranged to be an attack on the USSR. First it mixes revolutionary terror and terrorism - two completely different things and presents political repressions as a form of terrorism, with an aim to prove that the USSR was a "terrorist state". I already raised this issue.

- Second it presents organizations which even do not claim to be Communist as examples of "communist terrorism". Who for example, could imagine that Fatah can be represented as a Communist organization? This all is well covered in left-wing terrorism and included here only with an aim justify the existence of this article.--Dojarca (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and what you WP:KNOW about the reasons for this article. Collect (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Initially this article by 80% composed of the material related to political repressions in the USSR in 1920s-1930s and only a tiny portion was about other countries. The article's message was that the USSR was a terrorist state. It is only after the concerns were raised, and the article was suggested for deletion, the section about terrorist groups in other countries was expanded to include mostly non-Communist groups as of now.--Dojarca (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was not deleted by any WP process. And it appears that you can not state that any claims are not supported by RS sources. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason is not the lack of sources, the reason is that most material in this article is not related either to Communism or to terrorism. For example, revolutionary terror is not related to terrorism, and terrorism by Fatah group is not related to Communism. Thus this is a completely made up article. The related subjects are much better suitable for other articles, for example, terrorism by Fatah is related to Left-wing terrorism, revolutionary terror has its own article.--Dojarca (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please provide a book or article that that defines the topic and outlines the main issues and supports the inclusion of the material that was removed from the article. TFD (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP article can stand on its own if the sources are reliable and claims are accurate. There is no need for me to WP:KNOW anything here, and it is amazing that you so claim. Collect (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that connect them with the topic. Otherwise you could provide an RS for an apple pie recipe and add it. TFD (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Collect:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. The content was never deleted. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to undo neutral representation of material either. (Igny (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

I can't help feeling that Collect is arguing the exact opposite here to what he's just written in relation to another issue: "The main problem is that the claims MUST derive specifically from the cites, and not represent "combinations of cites". The amonth of SYNTH and OR in the proposal is excessive. Collect (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)": from here. Much of the difficulty with this article has always been its reliance on "combinations of cites", or WP:SYN as we customarily know it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, even is the claims related to fatah are accurate, how is it related to Communism whatsoever?--Dojarca (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

First - I have not done research into PDFLP (which is the more radical organization apparently linked to communism?). The PFLP is commonly described as "Marxist." [13] and [14]. It would appear at least that the term "Marxist" is apt and supported by reliable sources. Do you assert that "Marxism" is unrelated to "communism"? Collect (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

First. You are wrong: The PFLP is commonly described as "Leftist" and NOT "Marxist." 1720 [15] vs 572 [16]. In addition, it is also described as "left wing" (324 resulus) [17].--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided cites using the term - so as I do not assert that I WP:KNOW, I will trust that this is a case of you asserting what you "know." Alas - WP only requires that reliable sources use the term, and that is what is shown. BTW, using google counts is not a valid arguemnt in WP - what counts is that reliable sources cited use the term. Collect (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, most of the sources cited are probably irrelevant. The section is headed "Terrorist organizations claiming adherence to Communist ideology". The only valid RS would be one that states that the PDFLP actually claimed such adherence. If one is to instead include groups that others claim adhere to communist ideology, one would then potentially have to deal with disputes in every instance about what exactly 'communist ideology' is, and about whether there was RS to validate such claims. Since many of the groups in question are clandestine, I'd think such RS might be difficult to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@Collect. You still are not able to see the difference between google and google scholar (despite my numerous explanations). Re reliable sources, the discussion is not about inclusion or exclusion this content into WP, but about the most appropriate article. Google scholar is a quite adequate tool for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly do not patronize editors. I know full well how the google count game works - and "google scholar" is not a research tool in itself. Using numbers from google scholar does not make google scholar a RS for any statements at all. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) [18] [In line with its Marxist- Leninist doctrine, sec below), the PDFLP formed its own party:] appears to assert indeed that the PDFLP followed "Marxist-Leninist doctrine." Would you consider "Marxist-Leninist doctrine" to not be "communism"? [19] (Routledge) appears to state POPULAR DEMOCRATIC FRONT FORTHE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE (PDFLP) Marxist resistance movement . [20] also refers to the PDFLP as "Marxist." How many RSs do you need? Collect (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

how about a RS that states than the PDFLP itself claims adherence to Communist ideology, as per the section title? What other sources say about its ideology are irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Scholar. It is a research tool (see, e.g. "A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar"Authors: Lokman I. Meho, Kiduk Yang Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology; Nov2007, Vol. 58 Issue 13, p 2105-2125)

Re RS. No reliable sources exists that allow us to say what title is more preferable for some concrete article. We have to decide that by ourselves based on what majority sources say. To use google scholar is the most optimal way to find that. If you know other, more neutral tool, please tell us what it is. Otherwise, your references to separate individual ES cannot serve as a serious argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "How many sources?" We need a evidence that the amount of sources that call them "Marxist" is greater than of those that do not. For instance Hamas's Rise as Charted in the Polls, 1994-2005 (Jamil Hilal. Journal of Palestine Studies. Washington: Spring 2006. Vol. 35, Iss. 3; p. 6 ) writes:

"Finally, the leftist category includes the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front, the Palestinian People’s Party (PPP), and FIDA, all allied with the PLO."

However, neither the word "Communist" nor the word "Marxist" are used in this article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No we do not count sources - WP:V applies - if a reliable source makes a statement, that is sufficient for the claim made. I can find hundreds of articles which do not mention LBJ's religion - but that does not mean that a source which mentions it is outvoted <g>. Collect (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing on PDFLP. The Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a national liberation movement. By default all national liberation movements are "Leninist", as Lenin is the originator of the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. They also happened to be described as a terrorist organization. I cannot see how their "terror" differs from the violence practiced by many other liberation organizations, no matter what their philosophy. It would be original research to claim, that their terror is some kind of "communist terror". It is not, the terror is aimed at national liberation, not socialism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to find out that Paul Revere was a "Leninist." Perhaps this is too abstruse here -- but NOT ALL NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS ARE "LENINIST". Really. And the right of self-determination is found in the Declaration of Independence. A while ago. I do not think Jefferson was a "Leninist" either. Collect (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Petri. Your "By default all national liberation movements are "Leninist", as Lenin is the originator of the principle of the right of nations to self-determination." They are not more Leninist than "Wilsonist", because the same idea was put forward simultanoeusly by Wilson.

@ Collect. The ref to WP:V doesn't work here, because the issue is not in verifiability but in neutrality. Yes, although the info about PDFLP can be added to WP per WP:V, the decision about the most appropriate article for that should be made in accordance with WP:NPOV. Sorry, we do have to count sources for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, claiming that any organization described as "Marxist" is in fact "Communist" is original synthesis. Note for example Legal Marxism movement which was a pro-Capitalism party, the Mensheviks movement etc.--Dojarca (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We've been through this point already. Not all Marxists are communists, and not all communists are Marxists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, can you please point us to a book or article explaining what "Communist terrorism" is. You appear to have some sort of concept in mind, but I have difficulty following your reasoning. If no one has written about the subject, perhaps you could explain to us what you believe it to mean. TFD (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

IT IS NOT THE JOB OF ANY EDITOR TO ASSERT THE "TRUTH". Is that quite clear? You appear to ask me to do something which, as an editor, would be exceedingly wrong for me to do. It is up to the content of the article to explain what the article is about, not the function of any editor. Collect (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, TFD has just asked you to 'point us to a book or article explaining what "Communist terrorism" is'. How does that become asking you to 'ASSERT THE "TRUTH"'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Read again and also read WP:NPA. There is nothing in any WP policy which requires specific sources for the title of an article. None. Zero. Zilch. Nor is it up to any editor to assert what the content of an article ought to be - the article consists of sourced claims relating to the general topic of the article. Period. As I do not assert that I know what "communist terrorism" must mean, perforce it is not up to me to give you a source for such a meaning. Is this quite clear at this point? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is nothing in any WP policy which requires specific sources for the title of an article". Really? So if I start an article on 'Invisible blue unicorns that have stood for election to the UK parliament' (here), nobody can object on the grounds that the title refers to something with no RS to demonstrate its existence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW Collect, you do not know what this article is about. TFD (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote - it is WRONG for me to "know" what must be in any article - even your own BLP. Kindly indicate that this sentence was sufficiently clear. Collect (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is sufficiently clear from what you write that you'd rather carry on with this pointless Wikilawyering than deal with any substantive issues, Collect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If one does know what must be in the article then one's continued commentary may be considered trolling. TFD (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Read WP:NPA please.. It is not "wikilawyering" to point out that an RfC on the name is the best way to discuss the name of the article. Will one of you post an RfC on it if you feel strongly? Badgering me for pointing this out is inane. If and when a proper RfC is started, one may expect input from other editors, which is the proper WP process. Collect (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Collect. Can your refusal to respond on my previous posts be understood as the lack of counter-arguments from your side?

Re "There is nothing in any WP policy which requires specific sources for the title of an article." WP:NAMES states: "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article."

Let me also point out that I did not support conversion of the article into a disambiguation page. My point is that the content I moved to the Left wing terrorism article belongs to that article, not "Communist terrorism". Please, explain me what concretely is wrong with the arguments in support of this move. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again - your arguments would be valid in an RfC on the title of this article. My suggestion is that an RfC be started rather than your belaboring some sort of claim that I am obligated to defend the title - in an RfC, all editors get to weigh in on the best choice. So start a valid and neutrally woirded RfC. Simple. Collect (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"[W]hat concretely is wrong with the arguments in support of this move"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of RfC is to attract new users. There is already enough editors who commented here and many were attracted by the AE thread. So no need for a new RfC.--Dojarca (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not obligated to defend the title. However, taking into account that you are not more equal than I do, I am also not obligated to start any RfCs if I do not want to change the article's name (and I do not want to). I just moved a part of the article's content to the more appropriate article - and you still provided no satisfactory explanation of why did you re-inserted it back. And, believe me, you are obligated to explain me this your step (at least, per WP:BURDEN). Please do that asap.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is simple - the material had been in this article for a long time, and the newer article was a clear POVfork. Absent any refutation of the newness of the article involved, that part is clear. Now the reasons for removal of material from an existing article include improper sourcing, but do not include "I think this newer article is where all this stuff belongs." The burden is on those pushing a change, not on those who insist on following the basic policies of WP. Clear enough? Now either start an RfC, or accept that the title change was not accepted by any consensus. Your tendentiousness on refusing to start an RfC is the problem now. Collect (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is simple, but unsatisfactory. If you believe the re-created article is a POV fork, feel free to initiate AfD or to take any other similar actions. However, currently it is just your assertion (which is not supported by most other editors). For the beginning, try to demonstrate that "Communist terrorism" and "Left wing terrorism" are synonyms, because if that is not the case, especially if the former is just a subcategory of the latter, your statement is as ridiculous as the statement that World War II article is a POV fork of the Pacific War article.

The arguments that the material had been in this article for a long time also proves nothing (and, in addition, it is simply wrong, because many sub-sections moved by me were added recently).

Re "Your tendentiousness on refusing to start an RfC is the problem now." Please, explain me what kind of RfC should I initiate if I do not want to change the article's title? The current article may discuss Malaya, other examples of Comunist terrorism, the connection between Communist ideology and terrorism, but it should not discuss the groups that are described as "left wing" but NOT "communist" my majority sources. This is a neutrality issue, and your tendentiousness on refusing to recognise that tells for itself.

Regarding the burden, I sustained my burden, because you failed to provide any evidence that the search procedure made by me was incorrect, biased or flawed. Repeating the same baseless claims proves nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the organizations that were in the article self-identified as "communist terrorists", so that argument makes no sense. You indeed created this article without any source for the topic.[21] It is just your own original research that has no place in a serious encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you are wrong, the article Communist terrorism is a POV-fork of Left-wing terrorism. The history shows that Left-wing terrorism was created on 3 June 2003, while Communist terrorism was created 29 March 2007 - about 4 years later.--Dojarca (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that

WP is not a target of pushers of anti-communist and anti-soviet POV crap, this article should convince you otherwise. (Igny (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Lead

I have tagged the lead because the sources provided do not in fact mention "communist terrorism".[22][23] Could someone please provide a source for the lead. TFD (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to see if I could squeeze anything sensible out of the concept. I'm not sure I succeeded. --Ludwigs2 09:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I support changing it back to a dab page.--Dojarca (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank Ludwigs for his effort to resurrect the dead horse.

The article is still an unpublished synthesis of left-wing terrorism and Red Terror. Only one of the sources is about the purported topic of the article, namely Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations. The topic of the book is however already covered in left-wing terrorism. I have analyzed the sources, including reading page 223 of Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues that Ludwigs added as a source. As the book is about terrorism in general, it can give little insight on this purported topic, the title of which is not even mentioned in the book. (The concept of "liberating violence" may be notable by itself.) The other sources only mention minor details, and are irrelevant to the existence of this topic.

I will be reverting the article back to the semi-stable disambiguation page. Most important in my decision is the statements by Collect in the preceding discussion. He admits that he cannot name a single source that would define what this topic is about, yet he also claims that he lacks the insight based on a thorough understanding of the subject matter that would enable him to state what the subject matter should be. I raises the question what exactly prompted him restore the rejected content. I do agree with the statements made that his latest contributions to this page constitute trolling.

The other discussion during the last week has produced nothing that would enable or mandate the recreation of this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1. This article existed before the move of material to a POVfork. If an article is to be deleted because the material was moved to another article, where the renaming of the article was not met with consensus, that act is against the principles of consensus. 2. You have made clear elsewhere that, for example, the Ametrican Revolution was inspired by Lenin as he created the idea of self-determination. 3. You have breached WP:NPA and I ask you redact your personal aspersions. I trust you will redact them. Collect (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it is not correct to convert the article into the disambiguation page. Although I am not satisfied with the previous version [24], I am ready to discuss possible text of the future "Communist terrorism" non-disambiguation article. To avoid possible edit wars, it would be good if you proposed a new text on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So in the current state this article does not deserve anything other than being a disamiguation page. If Collect thinks it should not be a disambig, he is welcome to propose a text for this article on the talk page.--Dojarca (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, Petri Krohn has done no more than explain what you have said. By your own admission you know nothing about this topic and can provide no sources for it. If you believe that left wing terrorism is a POV fork, then request an AfD.

Paul, Siebert, I do not see how that could be done, but write something and we can look at it.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, the place to start is here: Communist terrorism/Temp. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kautsky citation

It seems that Kautsky does not use the term "terrorism" in the modern meaning.--Dojarca (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kautsky spricht Deutch. The title was Terrorismus und Kommunismus. <...> Whatever I wanted to say wbout what Kautsky meant is irrelevant now: I deleted this section, since it is grossly misattributed. This is the problem of relying in primary sources: a random wikipedian not only fails to know what Kautsky's termibnology meant, one also readily misinterprets the source. Lovok Sovok (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Well, this is a bit annoying. I'm trying to figure out why I'm being put under (collective) restriction, when I have never come close to abusing editing privileges here and was never notified of the discussion at AE (I chanced on it a day or so ago due to a different matter). I'll go and add a (late) comment there now, but I see this as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Wikipedia does not want to be restricting reasonable editors on pages like this. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The restriction is due to a recent pattern of edit warring on the *article*. Since the last protection expired on 24 November there have been a series of very large reverts. (You removed 25,237 bytes in your last edit). This does not suggest a gradual approach to consensus. If the 1RR does not contain the problem, the next option to consider would be indefinite full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How it is possible to approach consensus with people who even do not participate in discussion? How in the world the number of bytes removed matters if the whole material is irrelevant? Does it mean that if someone wants to insert some ridiculous info, he just have to insert as much bytes as he wants so other people could not revert him completely?--Dojarca (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring on this article is mostly done by user Petri Krohn who insists on deleting the proper article by turning it into a disambiguation page, despite the fact that a proposed move resulted in "no move". Even Paul Siebert and Igny, as well as many others, have said that the this page SHOULD NOT be a disambiguation page (though ideas on what exactly can go in here differ).

If the page is tentediously being turned into a meaningless dab page despite strong opposition and complete lack of consensus, how exactly can changes to article text be discussed and proposed?

And Dojarca, you haven't contributed anything constructive to this discussion except to make statements that make it painfully clear that you are not in the least bit interested in compromise (unlike - to give credit where it's due - some others like Ludwigs2 or Andy). This is in fact a dis-improvement on your position last time around when you just asserted (with a straight face!) that "all leftists call themselves communist anyway". Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed, one does not need consensus to remove synthesis - the consensus to do such is already established in policy. That large removal was a function of the material being moved to a different article where it is appropriate, and away from this page where it is (at best) coatrack material and (at worst) original research. I'm all for consensus discussion, but there hasn't been consensus discussion on this page in as far back as I care to look - all there is is an endless stream of justifications of novel viewpoints and the spurious addition of tangentially related sources. that's a carpet-bombing strategy - throw as many barely relevant sources and as much talk page text as you can at the page in the hopes that it will intimidate other editors - and the only thing one can do with respect to that kind of approach is take a machete to it and demand that material be added back slowly and deliberately.

If you want to encourage others to go through the material point by point and discuss it, I'd like that, but I object to your suggestion that the addition of and removal of unadulterated synthesis should be assigned the same moral value. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem of course boils down to the fact that some editors consider certain things SYNTHESIS and others don't. What the Wikipedia policy actually states is: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. [25]. The article is not doing that. What conclusion is being drawn or implied from combined sources? The article simply uses multiple sources to cover different aspects of the same topic, which is what is ALWAYS done on topics that have some depth in them. This is the way articles on Wikipedia are written. It's just that other articles are not subject to such strong ideologically motivated objections.

So how do we decide whether or not this is synthesis? I'm sorry, but your own opinion is not enough here. So we're back to consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't 'decide' if something is synthesis, we apply Wikipedia policy which states what synthesis is. If an article conflates different sources to demonstrate an argument for its existence, it is synthesis. The article consisted of the intersection of two (vaguely defined) concepts: 'communists' and 'terrorism'. No RS has been provided that shows this conflation is done elsewhere to any meaningful extent, so the act of creating the conflation is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't 'decide' if something is synthesis, we apply Wikipedia policy which states what synthesis is. - Right! And Wikipedia policy says that this is NOT synthesis. RS sources which discuss "communist terrorism" have in fact been provided and are already in the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the whole "baffle 'em with bull" approach doesn't work on me. You have a very clear task, Marek, should you choose to accept it: you provide sources that make the claims that we add to the article. If you do that, then you're golden - I sure as heck won't argue with you. But articles are not built on a keyword approach. The fact that you can dredge up a number of sources that happen to mention some varietal of communism (in any one of thousands of contexts) and happen to connect it with some use of the term terrorism (which has at least three distinct meanings in the political science community) is irrelevant. Tossing them all into a heap on a page and waving your magic wand over them does not mystically transform them into encyclopedic information. Do your homework and come back at it, or let it drop. --Ludwigs2 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed, by writing that "The restriction is due to a recent pattern of edit warring on the *article*. Since the last protection expired on 24 November there have been a series of very large reverts. (You removed 25,237 bytes in your last edit)" you became the party of the dispute, not an uninvolved administrator. Therefore, you should be better informed about the factual details of the dispute. The text removed by Ludwigs was essentially the text that I moved (not "removed") to another article, so this text has not been removed from Wikipedia. With regard to the procedure of this move, I did that in three steps: (i) using google.scholar I demonstrated that the terrorist groups discussed in these sections are discussed in reliable sources in a context of "left wing terrorism" and NOT in a context of "Communist terrorism", therefore to place them in this article would be against the neutrality principle; (ii) notified other users that I am intended to move the content, and proposed to demonstrate weaknesses and flaws in the search criteria by decision was based on; (iii) waited for about three weeks. Most users supported this idea. Although some (few) editors still objected to the move, that could not have any affect on the move, because no evidences that neutrality principles had not been violated were provided, and because editorial consensus (or lack thereof) cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements. In connection to that, can you point at at least one violation of WP policy or guidelines committed during that move?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned a 'recent pattern of edit warring' without making a judgment as to who was correct. The large reverts merely show that the article has been unstable recently. If you believe that your proposed restructuring has consensus, it would be more convincing if you could point to an WP:RFC where that was decided. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A WP:RFC could only ever establish 'consensus' (in theory, unlikely in practice), but consensus doesn't override policy. We cant reach a 'consensus' to keep an article pushing a largely-unsourced minority POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, Radek (Volunteer Marek) and Collect have political views that are outside the mainstream and cannot find any mainstream sources (or fringe sources for that matter) to support their views on this article. The latter two have poor records. Other editors who supported their edits - Justus Maximus and User:Marknutley are blocked, and User:Martintg and User:Biophys are under topic bans. There is no way that any of these editors will agree to following Wikipedia policy in writing this article. TFD (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and the Soviet Union

I have done some major rearranging of sections of text:

• I have moved two sections from Revolutionary terror in the Soviet Union to Revolutionary terror
• I have renamed Revolutionary terror in the Soviet Union to Terrorism and The Soviet Union (should go to Terrorism and the Soviet Union)
• I have moved the section Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology of this article to be the new lede section of Terrorism and the Soviet Union
• I have moved the parts of the lede section of this article to the lede section of Left-wing terrorism.
• As there was no content left in this article, I have reverted it to the disambiguation page.

My decision was partly based on the following: I read pages 202 and 203 of Brian Crozier's book Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars, that was used as the source for the "Western perspectives..." section. It was not really about "communist terrorism", but about Soviet sponsored and Soviet inspired terrorism. The word "communist" was only used to contrast Soviet sponsored terrorism against Islamic terrorism. I believe a better place to cover this Soviet sponsored terrorism is Terrorism and the Soviet Union. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No. What you did was:

• Propose a merger [26] at 00:28.
• Propose another merger [27] at 00:51
• Carry out the merger [28] three freaking minutes later before ANYONE had any chance to comment on the proposal
• Seconds later, once again, deleted the article out of process and against consensus, [29] by turning it into a disambiguation page.

Now, aside from the desirability of the RESULT of this action, THE WAY you have done it is highly disruptive. Why propose mergers in the first place when you don't even wait for input? Why go through the farce of renaming section within the article, when minutes later you delete the whole article anyway?

Will you please stop edit warring on this, and leave the article alone long enough so discussion can take place? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which discussion is that? The only constructive comments I've seen on any of these related topics has been from those seeking change. The 'keep it as it is' faction have simply used blocking tactics to maintain the status quo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you're looking because I see plenty of discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Constructive discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Radek, could you please provide an article or book that explains the concept of "communist/Communist terrorism". What do you think this article is supposed to be about? Even far right writers do not use the term. If you believe that they are missing something then you need to establish the concept there and wait until it is picked up by mainstream writers. TFD (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe a large part of what Marek and others EXPECT to see here is material that would be better covered in the article on terrorism and the Soviet Union. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)