Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Merger proposal

{{editprotect|See talk below}} I propose that Left-wing terrorism be merged into Communist terrorism. The content in the Left-wing terrorism article was split as a POV fork from Communist terrorism because there was no consensus for a rename. Note most of the terrorist organisations listed in Left-wing terrorism are in fact communist, while "left-wing" is a broader category. In fact if the lede of Left-wing terrorism was changed to "Communist terrorism, sometimes called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing terrorism is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government", Left-wing terrorism would be virtually identical to the parent article Communist terrorism before the split. WP:TITLE does not require usage to be restricted only to academic sources, but also "the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets and quality encyclopedias". Given that most if not all organisations described in Left-wing terrorism are communist, the title lacks precision per WP:TITLE. --Martin (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, since this article is protected, could some admin please add a "Merge from" template to this article. --Martin (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. sorry, but it would have to go the other way. left-wing terrorism is a clearly notable term used in many sources. communist terrorism seems only to have been used with respect to malay insurrections (some here want to see it used more broadly, but the sourcing for that varies from weak to non existent). --Ludwigs2 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There seem to be next-to-no reliable sources that actually discuss 'communist terrorism' as an analytic concept (in the sense that it is used here), whereas 'left-wing terrorism' seems to be a much more common term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject matter for left-wing terrorism is well-defined in numerous sources. TFD (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Left wing terrorism" was split from this article, and it main content is from this article. The weird "dab page" game resulted in the dab page being deleted at [Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(disambiguation)] as a "blatant misuse of diambiguation." Collect (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object against the merger, provided, but only provided, that the Communist terrorism article will be merged into the Left-wing terrorism article as a subsection. Left-wing terrorism is a broader category, and the attempt to merge it into the narrower article simply demonstrates poor understanding of the subject. I also strongly recommend Martin to read the talk page archive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your suggestion makes little sense, you support Left wing terrorism be merged here, yet at the same time say communist terrorism be merged into left wing terrorism? I just drank a bottle of wine so forgive me if I have misunderstood your meaning. Tentontunic (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, read carefully what I write. I strongly oppose to the merging Left-wing terrorism to here for the reasons that have been discussed in details in 2010 (see the archives). However, I will not mind if merging this article will be merged to the Left-wing terrorism article as a subsection.

By the way, can anybody explain me what is the reason for the "editprotect" template?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is fully protected, for the merger to be within policy then this has to be on this article also, hence my "edit protect". Again your suggestion makes little sense to me, perhaps it is the wine. You wish this article merged as a subsection? Does this not mean a paragraph or two in the left wing terrorism article? This hardly seems right given the usage of this term over the years. Tentontunic (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Paul's comment: "Left-wing terrorism is a broader category, and the attempt to merge it into the narrower article simply demonstrates..." does not fit with the reality that the organisations mentioned in the article are all communist. Hence Left-wing terrorism is already more narrowly focused that the name suggests. --Martin (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, that's silly. 'left-wing' is not a subset of 'communist' under any possible interpretations of the words. Either communist terrorism stands on its own or it is merged in as a subset of left-wing terrorism. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request as there does not seem any reason to add {{mergefrom}} to this template as there seems to be enough editors taking part in this discussion already. If there is consensus to add this template to the article, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support The groups currently in the left wing terrorism article are for the most part communist terrorist organizations. Tentontunic (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Below are some quotes from one reliable source (Audrey Kurth Cronin. "Behind the Curve. Globalization and International Terrorism") published in International Security 27.3 (2002/03) p. 30-58. this is a peer-reviewed article published by Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Therefore, it has been vetted by a scientific community and by no means represents the opinion of a single individual. Its References section contains 69 references, so it is clear that the author summarised the opinions of other scholars. Firstly, the author states:

"Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reaction—such as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers."

Based of that, I propose to stop any attempts to start the article with some simple and concise definition, because any simple definition would reflect the opinion of only small fraction of scholars.
The author describes the origin of terrorism, as well as the root of contemporary terroris as follows:

"The Zealots-Sicarri, Jewish terrorists dedicated to inciting a revolt against Roman rule in Judea, murdered their victims with daggers in broad daylight in the heart of Jerusalem, eventually creating such anxiety among the population that they generated a mass insurrection. 6 Other early terrorists include the Hindu Thugs and the Muslim Assassins. Modern terrorism, however, is generally considered to have originated with the French Revolution."

Finally, the author provided the following classification of contemporary terrorism:

"Leftist, Rightist, Ethnonationalist/Separatist, and "Sacred" Terrorism

There are four types of terrorist organizations currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or "sacred" terrorists. All four types have enjoyed periods of relative prominence in the modern era, with left-wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement,¹⁴ right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from Fascism,¹⁵ and the bulk of ethnonationalist/separatist terrorism accompanying the wave of decolonization especially in the immediate post-World War II years. Currently, "sacred" terrorism is becoming more significant.¹⁶ Although groups in all categories continue to exist today, left-wing and right-wing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier decades. Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas¹⁷ —but usually one ideology or motivation dominates.

Categories are useful not simply because classifying the groups gives scholars a more orderly field to study (admittedly an advantage), but also because different motivations have sometimes led to differing styles and modes of behavior. Understanding the type of terrorist group involved can provide insight into the likeliest manifestations of its violence and the most typical patterns of its development. At the risk of generalizing, left-wing terrorist organizations, driven by liberal or idealist political concepts, tend to prefer revolutionary, antiauthoritarian, antimaterialistic agendas. (Here it is useful to distinguish between the idealism of individual terrorists and the frequently contradictory motivations of their sponsors.) In line with these preferences, left-wing organizations often engage in brutal criminal-type behavior such as kidnapping, murder, bombing, and arson, often directed at elite targets that symbolize authority. They have difficulty, however, agreeing on their long-term objectives. ¹⁸ Most left-wing organizations in twentieth-century Western Europe, for example, were brutal but relatively ephemeral. Of course, right-wing terrorists can be ruthless, but in their most recent manifestations they have tended to be less cohesive and more impetuous in their violence than leftist terrorist groups. Their targets are often chosen according to race but also ethnicity, religion, or immigrant status, and in recent decades at least, have been more opportunistic than calculated.¹⁹ This makes them potentially explosive but difficult to track.²⁰ Ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists are the most conventional, usually having a clear political or territorial aim that is rational and potentially negotiable, if not always justifiable in any given case. They can be astoundingly violent, over lengthy periods. At the same time, it can be difficult to distinguish between goals based on ethnic identity and those rooted in the control of apiece of land. With their focus on gains to be made in the traditional state-oriented international system, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists often transition in and out of more traditional paramilitary structures, depending on how the cause is going. In addition, they typically have sources of support among the local populace of the same ethnicity with whom their separatist goals (or appeals to blood links) may resonate. That broader popular support is usually the key to the greater average longevity of ethnonationalist/ separatist groups in the modern era.²¹

All four types of terrorist organizations are capable of egregious acts of barbarism. But religious terrorists may be especially dangerous to international security for at least five reasons."

Based on all said above, as well as the fact that the author even hasn't mentioned Communist terrorism as a separate category of terrorism, it is obvious that any merge should be discussed only in a context to merging this article into the Left-wing terrorism article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One reliable source which does not mention communist terrorism. How many have been supplied on this talk page showing there is communist terrorism? I do not have access to that article would you be so kind as to tell me, is communism mentioned in it at all? Tentontunic (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I moved a significant part of the content from this article to the Left-wing terrorism article, I demonstrated that more reliable sources are used the term "Left-wing terrorism" to describe these terrorist groups, than the term "Communist terrorism". Please, look in the archive, read the old discussion, and debunk my argumants, only after that can we move further. In addition, per WP:V "as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Therefore, the sources that just use the words "Communist terrorism" without attempts of systematic analysis weigh far less than on reliable academic source that dissects the issue in details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We also have Mathematical Methods in Counterterrorism published by springer, which has communist terrorism, but not left wing terrorism as a type. see page 243. Tentontunic (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have indeed said that communist group have been behind terrorism, and they call it "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - There are a lot of assertions above that "left-wing terrorism" is a "common term". I've only briefly looked into this, so I can't speak with much authority, but I have to say, this doesn't really appear to be the case. Frankly, so far, I've only seen a single article that has explicitly defined "left-wing terrorism" as meaning terrorism arising from socialist/communist groups. One source does not a widely accepted term create. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the question is not in the number of sources, but in their quality.

Secondly, the question is not in existence or non-existence of such a topic as "Communist terrorism". It is quite likely that some phenomena exist that are being described by the term "Communist terrorism". However, I have demonstrated that the terrorist groups that are being discussed in the "Left-wing terrorism" article are characterised by majority sources predominantly as "left-wing" and not "Communist". Therefore, they should stay in that article unless you will demonstrate that my arguments are wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk)

Shining Path is almost invariably associated in the sources with the word "communism" or "communist". The Communist Party of Peru is also pretty much always connected with the same words. Your argument, then, should be that it properly belongs in this article. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Sendero Luminoso, etc., I reproduce my old posts containing gscholar search results below, because people seem to be too lazy to go to archive. SL results are underlined.

Gscholar results

1. The Scholar search for "Communist terrorism" gave 259 results [1]. Similar search for "leftist terrorism" OR "left-wing terrorism" gave 1020 results [2].
2. ""leftist terrorism" OR "left wing terrorism" AND "Red Brigades"" gave 319 results [3], whereas ""Communist terrorism" AND "Red Brigades"" gives 8 results [4] .
3. ""Red Brigades" "Leftist terrorism" -"Communist terrorism"" gave 67 results [5], whereas ""Red Brigades" "Communist terrorism" -"Leftist terrorism"" gave 8 results [6]
4. ""Shining path" "Leftist terrorism" -"Communist terrorism"" gave 19 results [7], whereas ""Communist terrorism" "Shining path" -"leftist terrorism"" gave 10 results [8].
5. ""Red Army Faction" "Leftist terrorism" -"Communist terrorism" gave 59 results [9], whereas "Red Army Faction" "Communist terrorism" -"leftist terrorism" gave only 3 results [10].
6. ""ETA" "Leftist terrorism" -"Communist terrorism"" - 52 results [11] vs ""ETA" "Communist terrorism" -"leftist terrorism"" 8 results [12].
7. ""Irish Republican Army" "Leftist terrorism" -"Communist terrorism"" 30 results [13] vs ""Irish Republican Army" "Communist terrorism" -"leftist terrorism"" 7 results [14].

Obviously, "Leftist terrorism" is more common in a context of Red Brigades etc. Since the WP:NEUTRAL "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus", we do not need to wait for consensus here. Move it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Origin of Revolutionary terror discusses Reign of Terror, i.e. Leftists, not Communists. Conclusion: belongs to Leftist terrorism.
2. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine: [15] [16]. Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 [17] vs [18]
5. ETA (already discussed) Conclusion: "Left wing"
6. Communist Party of Nepal Frankly, I doubted, but even in this case ("Communist" explicitly included in the name) "lef wing" wins 24 to 4 [19] vs [20].
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 [21] vs [22]
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" [23] and only 4 for "Communist" [24].
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 [25] vs [26]
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: [27] vs [28]
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: [29] vs [30].
12. Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201[31] to 2[32].
13. ERP ERP "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs ERP "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 33[33] to 2[34].
14. Irish Republican Army "Irish Republican Army" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Irish Republican Army" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 179[35] to 6[36]
15. Red Brigades: "Red Brigades" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Brigades" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 271[37] to 6[38].

In connection to that, can anyone explain me, what concrete in the WP policy can be an excuse for not renaming this article immediately to Left wing terrorism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion for the lede.

As the consensus on the reliable sources notice board appears to be in favor of Terrorists' target selection as a source I now suggest this lede to replace the current one which has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. '''Communist terrorism''' is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist/Leninist]] or [[Maoist]] ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the [[Common people|the masses]] to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system.<ref name="C. J. M. Drake 1">C. J. M. Drake page 19</ref> In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R.<ref name="David C. Wills">David C. Wills page 219</ref> However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).<ref name="Brian Crozier">Brian Crozier page 203</ref> ===References=== {{Reflist}} ===Bibleograpy=== *C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974 *David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291 *Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

Comments on proposal

• Oppose Appears to be non-standard description and excludes most references of the term "Communist Terrorism". Questionable whether Drake even uses the term. He was writing about how terrorists may subscribe to various ideologies, including liberalism and conservatism. No suggestion that we should now have articles about liberal terrorism and conservative terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable whether Drake even uses the term. Please look at p19 of the source. He very clearly states communist terrorists. To say otherwise is pointless. Tentontunic (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support with removal of "however" as being unneeded. WP states we only need know that Drake used the term - not that we try to interject that we WP:KNOW that he meant anything other than what is written. Collect (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, the only use of the word "However" is used to convey how these groups were so successful at one time. I really do not see how it`s removal can help. Tentontunic (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. No universal definition of the term "Communist terrorism", as well as of the term "Terrorism" has been proposed so far, therefore, the lede pretending to propose such a definition is inevitably non-neural. The same is true for the current lede, btw. In addition, some sources do not connect "Euroterrorism"([39], p. 6) with Communism at all. For instance, P Fritzsche in the article "Terrorism in the federal republic of Germany and Italy: Legacy of the '68 movement or 'burden of fascism'?" (Terrorism and Political Violence, 1989, 467-481.) draws a connection between Germano-Italian terrorism and the Fascist past of these two countries.
  One more important point: the article with such a lede is a POV-fork of the "Left-wing terrorism" article, which is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Your oppose makes little sense, given there is no universal definition for terrorism. The source provided for this has reached a consensus on the reliable sources notice board. And again, I will point out to you regarding the western Europe terrorist groups, Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations I have looked over the archives on this article, a few editors her have stated a definition was required, one is now provided. Please give a reason within policy as to why this proposal is not acceptable. Also this argument would work on your left wing terrorism article no? There is after all, no universal definition of left wing terrorism. At least there is no consensus on such, given there is no definition of terrorism full stop. Tentontunic (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason is simple, and I presented it below. Please, keep also in mind that reliability and neutrality are two different and independent policies, and the fact that the source is reliable does not resolve neutrality issues. In different works, written by different scholars, absolutely different definitions are proposed for Communist terrorism PLUS some sources claim that the very term "terrorism" is vaguely defined. Therefore, I oppose to any attempt to place any definition in the lede of this article. The lede must summarise the most imporatnt controversies connected to this term, and provide its different interpretations. If you really want to improve this article, let's discuss how to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You believe this proposal has NPOV issues? Then the same would apply for your article of left wing terrorism, no? I shall go put a POV tag on there based on your argument. Tentontunic (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the neutrality policy. There is no (and even theoretically cannot be) any neutrality problems with any single source. Neutrality issues are associated with the way different sources are presented in, not with the sources themselves.

In other words, in light of all said above, any lede starting with "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by ..." is non-neutral by definition. However, the lede that summarises all said below, namely, that "Communist terrorism is the term that lacks a commonly accepted and strict definition, and is used by different writers to describe different events, including Euriterrorism/Left-wing terrorism, guerilia warfare of pro-Communist national-liberation forces (especially Malayan emergency), and the state terror campaign conducted by some Communist regimes, especially in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR and Kampuchea" would be quite neutral and non-controversial. In addition, that would help to resolve the Left-wing/Communist terrorism issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In response I would have to say, no that would in fact be quite stupid. And also unsourceable in fact. You keep saying lets improve this article, yet you oppose a perfectly neutral proposition and suggest, that? You obviously have no intentions on improving upon this article, I suppose I shall have to turn this into an RFC and hope for some actual neutral editors to look in. Tentontunic (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "You keep saying lets improve this article, yet you oppose a perfectly neutral proposition" I believe I've already explained why this lede is not neutral. Sapienti sat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No you have not, what you have said cannot even be sourced can it. Or if you wish please prove me wrong and present your source to back your assertion Communist terrorism is the term that lacks a commonly accepted and strict definition Given we have a reliable source which gives us the definition which has been asked for it would appear to me that you are moving the goalposts. I shall ask on the NPOV board about this. Tentontunic (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How can we speak about a commonly accepted and strict definition of Communist terrorism when even the term "terrorism" itself has no strict definition? For instance, some (majority) sources define it as an individual or small group terror and trace its history back to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, or to Zealots; other sources include state sponsored terrorism into this category, so the Soviet or US acts of sabotage are also considered as terrorism by them; and, finally, some sources consider State terror to be terrorism, and, according to them, the French Reign of Terror is a progenitor of contemporary terrorism. And this is an inherent problem, because "Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers." (Audrey Kurth Cronin. Behind the Curve. Globalization and International Terrorism International Security 27.3 (2002/03) 30-58). In other words, whereas some RS provide various definitions of terrorism, and "Comminist terrorism" in particular, we have at least one reliable source that unequivocally states that different observers see it differently, and this problem is immanent. Therefore, no definition of CT should be placed in the lede, and the statement that different sources define it differently should be added instead.

In addition, you definition of Communist terrorism makes it a synonym of Left-wing terrorism, thereby converting the current article into a POV-fork of the "Left-wing terrorism" article, which is prohibited by WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely sounds better than the current lede. Though, I repeat once again to you, Tentontunic, it doesn't matter how you word things, users that disbelieve in the existence of the subject will perpetually oppose any attempts to legitimize the subject. Silverseren^C 23:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This your remark sounds somewhat offensive. This is not a question of belief/disbelief: I always present sources my thoughts are based on. In addition, I never claimed the term "Communist terrorism" does not exist, because I am not so stupid to reject the obvious fact that many sources do use it. My point was that despite a wide usage of this term, the term "left-wing terrorism" is being used more frequently to describe the phenomena we discuss, therefore, this term should be used in Wikipedia. That means that "Communist terrorism" should be either converted to a redirect page, to disambiguation page, to the general article devoted to different meanings of this term (at least three different meanings exist: (i) it is used to describe contemporary LW terrorism, (ii) to describe the terrorism supported by Communist states, and (iii) sometimes it is used to describe the state terror (without "ism") committed by Communist states, as well as the guerilla warfare of Communist partisans.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was referring to you. And Tentontunic has presented sources already. Communist terrorism is a subsection of left wing terrorism, much like anarchist terrorism is and much like right wing terrorism has its subsections. It has its own unique history and, yes, it is difficult to disentangle whether sources are discussing left wing terrorism in general or communist terrorism in specific, but it is possible to do. Silverseren^C 00:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "Tentontunic has presented sources already" I presented the sources that demonstrated that no unique definition of CT exists so far.

Re "Communist terrorism is a subsection of left wing terrorism" The more I think about that, the more I realise that in reality the situation is more complex. If you really want to improve the article, let's discuss it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to discuss this again. I argued it to death in the archives. It didn't matter what sources I presented, they could just be refuted as "well, that source isn't specifically saying what communist terrorism is...". Of course, this sort of response can also refute every type of terrorism in existence because, as Tentontunic said, there is no single definition for any kind of terrorism. Silverseren^C 00:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Drake does not say "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". He says, "Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system". He grouped Communists who used terrorism in order to achieved nationalist objectives under "separatism". He included the ETA, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, EOKA, all of which were communist groups, under separatist terrorism. More importantly, Drake did not name these categories, he was merely explaining how ideology influenced different groups. He was not commenting on the use of terminology by different authors. His description of terrorists influenced by communism is generally called "Left-wing terrorism by other writers. TFD (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a compromise solution. However, I would prefer something more clear, like this: "Communist terrorism (or Communist terror) is terrorism committed by Communist organizations or Communist states against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear". Sources? I suggest to rely on classics of socialism/communism movement, like German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky who traced the origins of Communist terrorism to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution. (see Terrorism and Communism by Karl Kautsky). He said:

"It is, in fact, a widely spread idea that Terrorism belongs to the very essence of revolution, and that whoever wants a revolution must somehow come to some sort of terms with terrorism. As proof of this assertion, over and over again the great French Revolution has been cited."

Important ideologist of these groups was also Sergey Nechayev, who was described in Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "The possessed". Nechaev argued that the purpose of the terror in not to gain a support of masses, but to the contrary, inflict misery and fear on the common population. He said:

A revolutionary "must infiltrate all social formations including the police. He must exploit rich and influential people, subordinating them to himself. He must aggravate the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel. And, finally, he must ally himself with the savage word of the violent criminal, the only true revolutionary in Russia".

Nechayev was quoted by Edvard Radzinsky in book Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives precisely to make the point that his ideas were actually implemented by the next generations of communists. Note that I intentionally quote Russian and socialist writers. Biophys (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot that Kautsky connected "Revolution", not "Communism" with "Terrorism", and he never proposed the term "Communist terrorism" as a separate category; you also overlooked the fact that Nechaev was not a Communist at all. Interestingly, the successors of Nechaev were Esers, not Communists. You should be aware of the fact that most of them were even not Marxists. Therefore, all of that has no relation to this article in its present form.

The term "Communist terrorism" is used by some scholar to denote Left-wing terrorism; in addition, it is used for some particular cases (the most imporatnt is Malayan emergency); in addition, it is used to describe the terrorism sponsored by the USSR and some other Socialist states; in addition it is used to describe Red terror, Great Purge and similar events. However, these are examples of different interpretations of this term by different writers, and this fact must be reflected in the article per WP:NEUTRAL.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the proposal seems to be a good compromise that succinctly articulates the topic at hand in a neutral way. Nothing is ever perfect and some will never compromise and oppose anything. This is just the lede after all, nuances can be discussed in the body of the article. --Martin (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As we appear to have five editors whom agree this is a decent and neutral proposal and only two who disagree might we call a consensus on this? Tentontunic (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't count five, the discussion thread was posted only two days ago and previous discussion would seem to preclude acceptance of the changes. TFD (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Four plus myself. Previous discussions do not really matter, this is a new proposal. Tentontunic (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the period of time is sufficient, and would suggest an RfC on the issue, based on the controversy the definitiion has attracted. I would also ask you to read the entire sections of the sources you presented. My reading is that they are using the term communism in reference to the motivation of terrorist activity. A communist who commits terrorist actions in order to achieve the separation of Northern Ireland, the Basque Country or the Tamil region of Sri Lanka would be seen as committing terrorist actions for separatist rather than revolutionary reasons. Also, Drake does not present a typology for describing terrorism, he does not for example talk about liberal terrorists or conservative terrorists, and is merely explaining the influence of ideology on terrorist groups. TFD (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the objections of two people who appear to have spent more time trying to delete this article rather than improve upon it does not a controversy make. There is nothing wrong with the sourcing, it is written in a neutral manner, you can have no objections within policy for this content inclusion. Tentontunic (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that your proposal does not accurately reflect the sources presented, as I have explained. TFD (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You should let the discussion go for five days. That would be my suggestion. If the consensus is much the same afterwards, then you would be free to change the lede. Silverseren^C 00:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, so in three days, assuming to other votes being cast I shall do a editprotect. The Four Deuces, the proposal reflects the source perfectly. See p22 for ideological hybrids. See p17 for the separatism issue. p33 would also be worth looking at. Tentontunic (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read them and it does not support your claims. Please provide a source that says, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you advocating that we should plagarise sources? --Martin (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are verging on disruptive behavior here. Of all the people who have commented here only you have taken issue with the sourcing. The source most certainly does support the proposal, please actually point out were you feel it does not. Tentontunic (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing economic and political system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will inspire the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system."

• Please explain why this text does not support this line. "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology."

Tentontunic (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it does not include "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology" and do not "aim at overthrowing the existing economic and political system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will inspire the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system". TFD (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Short of plagiarism, the statement appears to be entirely reasonable to explain what the source says. Collect (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Protect.

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

Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). References

Bibleograpy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The actual quote says, "At its height, communism was the major threat to world peace, and by far the major source of international terrorism: that is communist inspired and/or communist-supported terrorism. Its hold on terrorist movements was not universal, however, for in a number of countries, natinalist rather than communist terrorism prevailed, for instance in Ireland, through the IRA... Another example was ETA.... It is relevant to add , however, that both the IRA and ETA had accepted Soviet assistance" (pp. 202-203).[40] Note Crozier distinguishes between communist and nationalist terrorism, even though he claims the nationalist terrorists received communist support, and of course many of them subscribed to communist ideology. He does not define communist terrorism as "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology", which is the definition in the lead.

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

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

Would you aver that Chomsky holds a "majority opinion"? A "minority opinion" or a "fringe opinion" on that matter? See [41], [42] etc. Collect (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Request For Comment 2

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

Comments on proposal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peters, the question is not in what term is more abundant in all books published since 1900, but in what term is being more frequently applied to some concrete subject. For instance, using your methodology the term "Eastern Front" should be replaced with "World War II" because the latter is much more abundant [43], which would be absolutely incorrect. The point is not in which term is more abundant in the literature as whole, but in which term is more frequently used by scholars to describe the Cold War and post-Cold War era terrorist groups that use Communist phraseology. Most sources available for me do not describe this phenomenon as "Communist terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The first Google hit I find (other than WP) is Leon Trotsky "Terrorism and Communism." Second is [44]. Third is [45]. In short, the "southeast Asia" bit is a tad bogus as a cavil. Collect (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

" These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. The founders of the FCO argued that it would take violence to achieve their idealistic goals and that legitimate protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them."

must be changed, because "Fighting Communist Organisations" is not the most common term to describe them. Scholars use "Lefits terrorists", "left-wing terrorists", "Eeuroterrorists", or simply call them "terrorists" avoiding any common term. In addition, the sentence implies, although does not states explicitly, that those organisations had close ties with Communism, although in actuality most euroterrorists either had never been the members of Communist parties or were expelled from them for radicalism. Some sources (among those who mention a connection between these groups and Communism) describe them to be loosely committed to Communism[46], use just "Communist phraseology", or " intertwined with the Communist movement"(Cronin, International Security 27.3 (2002/03) 30-58), which implied that these two were different, although related phenomenae. Therefore, the alternative terms must be also explained and used here, and the link to the main article (Left-wing terrorism) should be provided. It is necessary to stress that none of these groups had a relation with the Communist parties of their countries, and they acted quite independently, i.e. their activity had no relation to, or was in a contradiction with the official policy of Communist parties. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

PS I checked in google scholar, and I found that my guess was correct: the term "Foghting Communist Organisation" is being used very rarely[47]. I should not be used as a main term (if used at all). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

As far as I know, FCO is being used as a partial synonym for euroterrorism, so it is incorrect to state that that term characterised the groups "throughout the world". Why don't you simply call them "leftist", or "left-wing terrorists" (this term is really frequently used by scholars)? The issue with FCO is that it is less common than other terms ([48] vs [49], or [50]). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I have used FCO as the sources used call these groups FCO. I do not think the term is as rare as suggested [51] given how many times it is used and Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations is cited. The Four Deuces I have added another page reference from the aforementioned book to cover your concern. Tentontunic (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Re: "I do not think the term is as rare as suggested" That is not the question of your or my "thought", and is not a question of taste. I you believe my search results are incorrect, please, explain why. I, for instance, can explain what is the problem with yours. Most of the books in your list contain the reference to the same book of a single author; if we exclude this author, the number of results drops dramatically [52]. And, in addition, whereas google books searches within all books, including unreliable ones, or even WP mirrors, google scholar deals predominantly with reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You can see from this [53] that to say "every" is an exaggeration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________

"In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens. In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war (known as "Malayan emergency") started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army . Since the insurgents were lead by the Malayan Communist Party, their actions were labeled as "Communist terrorism" by British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy and to locate them Malayan Emergency in a context of the Cold War. Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.

In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups, usually referred to as left-wing terrorists, "leftist terrorists", "Communist terrorists", the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO), or "Euroterrorists" (the latter term has been applied to European terrorists only), rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. As a rule, these groups were loosely committed to the Marxist ideology and their strategic goals were poorly articulated. The founders of some of these organisations were ex-Communists who were expelled from their parties for extremism. Some national-separatist terrorist movements, such as ETA or IRA also used Marxist rhetoric initially In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 such groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments; they were also condemned by parliamentary Communist parties."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist terrorist groups

C. J. M. Drake discusses the role of ideology in terrorists' target selection and identifies several communist terrorist groups in his book "Terrorists' target selection": "Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the exist political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system. Examples of communist terrorist groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India and the Japanese Red Army."[54]. Therefore it would be appropriate to mention these groups in this article. --Martin (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"During the American Revolution, terrorism was used against the British and their colonial sympathizers".[55] Would you call the Founding Fathers of the United States a terrorist organization? TFD (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Re IRA. This is may be helpful:

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