Jump to content

Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 19

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

  1. Is an organization which calls itself "communist", "Maoist" or "Marxist" properly considered by Wikipedia to be "communist"?
  2. Is an organisation which has been found guilty of "terrorism" properly called "terrorist" on Wikipedia?
  3. Is the combination of a "communist organization" and a "terrorist organization" #referring to one organization# properly called a "communist terrorist organization"?
  4. Would such a putative organization properly be considered under "communist terrorism"? Collect (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If "communist terrorist"="communist"+"terrorist", then that is synthesis. We should follow the definitions in reliable sources for "communist terrorist", rather than creating our own. TFD (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
C. J. M. Drake states in his book "Terrorists' target selection": "Examples of communist terrorist groups include the Red Brigades and Front Line in Italy, the Red Army Faction and the June 2nd Movement in Germany, the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India and the Japanese Red Army."[1]. On the basis of TFD's assertion that we should follow the definitions in reliable sources for "communist terrorist", and Drake's book is a reliable source, we seem to have consensus to add these groups to this article. --Martin (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
1 & 2 are covered by WP:RS. We normally use reliable secondary sources to establish facts, not self-identification or court documents. 3 & 4 are covered by WP:SYN. We use definitions in reliable sources, we do not create our own. TFD (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you have asked several questions, I believe you don't mind me to re-format your RfC post. Below are my explanations and answers:
  1. No. Any statement of terrorists themselves is a primary source, and the usage of such statements should comply with WP:PSTS policy. Concretely, these sources can be used only via quotation, and they are reliable only as a proof of terrorist self-identification. This is a policy, so editorial consensus cannot change that. If you disagree with that, go to WP:RSN.
  2. The question is unclear. "Found guilty" by whom? By court? If it is a court of some non-democratic state, then probably no. Some authors explicitly refuse to call insurgents fighting against non-democratic regimes "terrorists". Anti-colonialist partisans should also not be considered as terrorists, otherwise we would have to concede that e.g. the US were founded by terrorists.
  3. Please, read WP:SYNTH. "She sells seashells by the seashore. The shells she sells are surely seashells. So if she sells shells on the seashore, I'm sure she sells seashore shells." Is "seashore shells" a separate category of shells?
  4. No necessarily. I would like to see an example of general typology of terrorism that contains a category "Communist terrorism". I haven't found it so far, because all typologies available for me (see the refs in the Comments on proposal 2 section) include left-wing (along with nationalist, religious etc), but not Communist terrorism. See also #3 ("seashore shells") --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ethnic Profiling and Counter-Terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions page 41 categorizes communist terrorism as a type. As does Regional Integration in the Asia Pacific: Issues and Prospects page 248. Terrorists' target selection does as well. There are many more of course. Tentontunic (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ethnic profiling does not establish "communist terrorism" as a type. Rather it contains a footnote that refers to Amy Zalman's typology, and uses the term "socialist or communist terrorism".[2] Drake did not intend to create a typology, but was explaining ideological influences (liberalism, conservatism, communism, etc.) on terrorists.[3] TFD (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes "socialist or communist terrorism" your point being? Your personal thoughts on what Drake "meant" has no place here. We also have this Peter R. Neumann Old & new terrorism Polity. September 23 2009. ISBN 978-0745643755 page 29 Old terrorism- Nationalist/Marxist. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Another source of interest Rueckert, William Howe Encounters with Kenneth Burke University of Illinois Press. February 1, 1994. ISBN 978-0252063503 "Marxist terrorism, Islamic terrorism, fundamentalist Christian terrorism, democratic terrorism, fascist terrorism, or racial terrorism." An amusing one that. Tentontunic (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My point being that no one (or almost no one) uses the term "communist terrorism" as a type, including your latest sources. The most commonly used terms are "left-wing", "leftist" or "Marxist-Leninist" terrorism. And I am not providing my personal thoughts on Drake, merely reporting what he said he was doing. TFD (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You then do not in fact, have a point. For if no-one used it as a type, then why are there so many sources which use it? And yes, you are once again attempting to interpret what Drake has written, you really ought to let it go, it is unhealthy to obsess on it. The RSN board says it is fine, a consensus formed here which also said it was fine, really, just give up on it. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if you interpret Drake as positing a type which he termed "communist terrorism", you have not found a single other source that uses this term as supposedly defined by Drake. TFD (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, the classification mentioned by Drake and proposed by Zalman (btw, why do you cite Drake, who just briefly summarised it, and not Zalman himself?) essencially coincides with that proposed by William F. Shughart II. (An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39.) and Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks (Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2010 54: 902), who defined this typr of terrorism al "left-wing terrorism"; the same category is referred to as "leftist terrorists" by Christopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, J. Craig Jenkins. (Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism. Social Forces 84.4 (2006) 2009-2026.) and Kevin Siqueira and Todd Sandler. (Terrorists versus the Government: Strategic Interaction, Support, and Sponsorship. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 878-898). Obviously, we discuss here the same terrorist groups that have already been described in the Left-wing terrorism article (and defined as "left-wing") by most scholars. To have two separate articles dealing with the same terrorist groups is hardly allowed by the policy and guidelines. I proposed the wording that would allow us to mention them in this article and to introduce the link to the main article devoted to this subject. I added almost all references you asked about. Judging by the absence of comments from you, you seem to have nothing to argue. Therefore, I simply do not understand what is the reason of this RfC. We need just add this text and think about further improvement of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, was this comment for me? I have not responded above as what you have written is rubbish. Tentontunic (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this your post has shaken my belief in your good faith: (i) I proposed some modifications; (ii) you replied they were awful and requested sources; (iii) I made a counter-proposal: since you are not satisfied with the text, let's discuss the content first and then add references; (iv) you insisted that you want to see my sources; (v) I provided needed reliable sources and changed the text in accordance with what they say - and what I've got as a result? A brief and insulting response that all what I wrote is "rubbish"? That is not how Wikipedia works. I made some work aimed to correct your POV-charged text, I added the content that I found in very reliable scholarly sources, so the content meets WP:V requirements; all statements I added to the proposed text (except few unsourced statements that I am intended to either support with online citations or to remove) can be found in the cited sources, they have not been taken out of the context, so these edits meet a WP:NOR criterion; the sources I use have been vetted by scientific community (they parred a peer-reviewing procedure), so they hardly represent minority views, so my changes most likely meet WP:NEUTRAL criteria. Therefore, this text, after minor modifications, can and should be added to the article, and I will do that in close future. Of course, I am ready to consider your constructive proposals, however, it would be naive from your side to believe that I will need in your approval for adding this text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
And to your sources not being a minority view [4] This paper published in 2003 has not even been cited once.[5] I would say it has been largely ignored and is a little, fringe. Tentontunic (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. The statement that the text is rubbish is not a legitimate concern. You abstained from commenting on concrete issues, therefore you raised no legitimate concern, consequently I simply have nothing to take into account. That is why I do not need in your approval, and you need in my: I propose arguments and sources, and you respond with just insults. If you want to further participate in the discussion, you should change your behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Re your "And to your sources not being a minority view..." Thank you for returning to constructive discussion. This article has been cited [6]. In addition, the article has passed a peer-reviewing procedure, which means that at least 3 scholars have read the article and considered it deserving publication. By no means can it be fringe. Moreover, the number of citations depends on the subject's area: the Malayan emergency is not too popular subject now, hence low attention of the scholars to this subject, not to this concrete article. In addition, the author's (P Deery's) list of publications [7] does not create an impression that this author (A Fellow of International Center for Advanced Studies, New York University) is a fringe theorist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
PS. One of the sources that cites Deery (Marc J. Selverstone. Constructing the monolith: the United States, Great Britain, and international communism, 1945-1950. Harvard University Press, 2009, ISBN 0674031792, 9780674031791, p. 162) seems to share the Deery vision that the it was essentially an official British and American line, and lists other authors (Yoshihiko and Cady) who share the Deery's viewpoint. Interestingly, he lists no authors who share the opposite viewpoint, namely, that the official British and American propaganda correctly reflected the real state of things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes.
2. Not necessarily. The criterion is more properly "described in reliable sources as terrorist". I'm sure we are all aware that there exist judicial findings that are politically motivated, and entire judicial systems that are rampant with corruption. Therefore, this can't be accepted as a blanket truism.
3. Maybe; more likely than 2, but still it would be better to lean on reliable sources.
4. This is starting to sound like new synthesis, but if OTOH 3 is satisfied by RS's describing an organization as a "communist terrorist" or "communist and terrorist" organization, then yes, it would properly be considered under "communist terrorism". siafu (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. [8] But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. [9] I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the editors supporting your content reminds me the WP:VOTE, which is not a way to achieve consensus. BTW, I would say that the statement that "two editors who agreed with the inclusion" is only a part of truth, because other editors expressed another opinion. In any event, I didn't replace your content with my one: you probably noticed that the text proposed by me is just a modification of the text proposed by you: the section title is preserved, the first para is essentially unchanged, and the internal logic of the rest of the text is preserved also. The only thing I made was removal of Cold War propaganda. I replaced it with the opinion of scholars found by me in peer-reviewed western academic journals. Therefore, we can speak here only about development of your version, not its rejection. In addition, I would say that by stating that these my changes are "rubbish" or "propaganda", and by refusing to explain in more details about concrete issues with the sources I used and the way I represented the sources' content you de facto abstained from further discussion, so your attempt to introduce the initial version of the text fully ignoring my proposal can hardly be interpreted as your adherence to the WP:CONSENSUS policy. I am open to the discussion of the changes made by me, however, it must be a serious discussion, without insults or the references to some vote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No. Consensus is a universal principle of Wikipedia. However, your actions were farther from this principle than mine, because you completely rejected my edits, whereas I just developed your text in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
PS Your " You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral." is simply false. The article you refer to as a "fringe uncited paper" was published in peer-reviewed western scientific journal, and it has been cited. The author has published many articles on this subject and cannot be charecterised as not notable or fringe. Besides this single article, I provided several other references, including the references that cite this "fringe uncited paper", so it is simply incorrect that I "have made an entire hash" of this sole article. By contrast, you provided no evidence that all what you wrote "was mainstream and neutral" (by contrast to the text proposed by me). Therefore, this your post can be simply disregarded as soapboxing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian revolution

I removed a new section about the Russian revolution. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article which is based on a (mis)interpretation of Drake's description and defined as "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". Drake was referring to non-government actors, not governments, and the actions he referred to were "actions they believe will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system". It is unlikely that the Soviet government undertook actions that they believed would inspire the masses to overthrow them. TFD (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And you ought not have removed it, given all those sources described communist terrorism. Next time read the sources before blindly reverting. Tentontunic (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
After I Removed this section, the same editor has now inserted a new section beginning, "In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam...." This is not a neutral way of describing the insurgency in vietnam. TFD (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have set up an RfC about this issue and also posted to the NPOV noticeboard. TFD (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lede statement supported by the source?

Does this lede statement accurately reflect the source: "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology"? (C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection, p. 18)[10]) TFD (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No The text is sourced to Drake's section on ideology "by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims, and justifies its actions" (p. 16). He classifies only those groups that use terrorism in order to achieve communist revolution (p.19). He classifies communist groups that have other objectives differently. For example, he classifies the ETA and LTTE under "separatism", because, although they are communist, the objective of their terrorism is to obtain separation from national governments (p. 17). TFD (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This is incredibly disruptive, we now have to spend a further 30 days [11] arguing the same points again. Why not accept there is a consensus for inclusion of the content and actually make some suggestions for article improvement? Tentontunic (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The RfC question was stated incorrectly, because the result of this RfC is supposed to be used as a justification of addition of this text to the lede. However, since WP:V cannot be separated from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, the answer "yes" does not mean the approval of the addition of this text to the lede without attribution. However, the phrase "According to Drake, Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology" belongs to the "Terminology" section rather than to the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: This is going to be very difficult, since this definition is at the intersection of the difficult-to-define "terrorism" and the difficult-to-define "communism". Using attribution, as Paul proposes above, seems like a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, measure. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Drake did not actually define "communist terrorism" as stated in the lead, so we cannot say "according to Drake". TFD (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes This has already been discussed extensively above and this RfC is getting dangerously close to being wikilawyering, since the nominator seems to refuse to accept consensus, even when an admin states that there is a rough consensus for the change that was made. Yes, this is what Drake says, as has been expressed above already. Read pg 19 and be done with this already. SilverserenC 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Lede is OK. If the RfC is only and precisely over the technical question of what is the exact wording used in a particular book, I can't say - I haven't read the book and don't have a copy, but it would seem that someone who does have a copy should be able to clear this up forthwith. However, if the RfC is over the broader question "Is this lede OK?" that's different. And the lede sure looks OK to me. "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". Well this is obviously true on its face. Isn't it? What else would the term "Communist terrorism" describe? Acts of kindness committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology? Acts of violence committed by groups who don't subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology? It seems like a succinct and accurate lede to me, and if someone says "Communist terrorism!" to me it sure puts me in the mind of "Well, this person is probably talking about acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." Is there an alternative lede that someone else has suggested? If so could it be put forward? Otherwise let's go with the lede given. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the source. The source does not support the lede and if we choose to use the definition in the lede then we should find a source that supports it. TFD (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, as worded it's needlessly restrictive. Self-ascribed "communist" should be sufficient, otherwise we bind terrorism to the ideology and arguing whether or not a particular group adheres to the ideology to qualify as having engaged in communist terrorism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ideology is extremely important to any terrorist group. Without an Ideology to fight for, then why fight? Tentontunic (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
[The Possessed (novel)|For the fight itself]]? Ok, that makes for better movies and novels than for real life.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Many sources agree that most terrorist groups in Europe and North America used just Communist phraseology, not ideology. That is why reliable sources do not describe them as Communists.
Re "self-ascribed". North Korean regime self-ascribes itself as democratic. Can we draw any serious conclusions from this fact? Of course, no. The statement of terrorists about themselves are primary sources, and they have almost zero value in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you asserting that groups which call themselves "Communist" are not "Communist" if they do bad stuff? Therefore no "Communist" does bad stuff? I would have assumed that groups calling themselves "Marxist-Lenist" etc. are, indeed, "Marxist-Leninst" on their face. Sorry - I do not buy that argument. Do you have an RS saying "Communist groups which just use the Communist name are not actually Communist" or the like? Collect (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, refrain from such arguments, otherwise it would be easily for me to put forward a counter argument that you are asserting that all bad stuff in the world were made by Communists (even whan the sources state the opposite). I found numerous sources which discuss alleged "Communist terrorist" groups without using the word "Communism" at all. These sources use different terms: "left-wing terrorism", "Euroterrorism", etc, and, they draw no connection between the activity of these groups and Communism at all. And this is in a full accordance with the theory of Marxism ("revolutionary situation cannot be created by individual/small group terror campaign") and with history of earlier Communists. Yes, Communists frequently resorted to authoritarian or totalitarian methods, they are responsible for state terror; in addition, some Communists were involved in partisan wars which were characterised as "terrorism" by some writers. However, terrorist groups like "Red brigades" had no direct relation to them, and most sources available for me confirm that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As I made no comments which could be in any way construed as saying that, you could not do it per WP policy. Note particulalry the claim above that a group which calls itself "communist" is not "communist." Which I find to require a remarkable straining of the imagination. Collect (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Paul, I have to wave the red flag here (sorry for the pun), but exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your claim that the Red Brigades were not communist is certainly a very exceptional claim. The book Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations by Yonah Alexander and Dennis A. Pluchinsky, published by Routledge lists the Red Brigades as Marxist-Leninist terrorist group that was the largest fighting communist group in Europe at that time [12] --Martin (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the point of this discussion. The term "communist" covers Red Brigades, etc. Whether or not they interpreted Marx correctly is moot. TFD (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "As I made no comments which could be in any way construed as saying that, you could not do it per WP policy." I couldn't and I didn't. You probably noticed that I used a subjunctive mood. And, to make things clear enough, let me re-iterate that "I am asserting that groups which call themselves "Communist" may be "Communist", or bay be not "communist" depending on how reliable sources prefer to call them, and it is absliutely irrelevant if they do bad stuff or not". In this particular case, I found that most non-politicized sources that discuss the subject in details do not describe leftist terrorist organisations as Communist, although they all agree that these organisation do have some connection with Communism (at least at the level of declsrations or phraseology). Nevertheless, the fact that these sources prefer not to call them Communist is obvious.
@ Martin. For a person who read scholarly articles, not the writings of political journalists, this claim is not outstanding. You have an access to jstor. Try to read, for instance this [13]. This author describes an evolution of BR's self identification, and concludes that their ideology was affected by purist (not mainstream) Marxism-Leninism, WWII era partisan traditions and by the need to oppose to Fascists. Interestingly, it this article the author mentions the bombing attack in Piazzo Fontana, which was organised by Fascists and which served as an ultimate confirmation for leftists to act. The article stresses the fact that BR were direct opponents of Italian Communists (as well as of the mainstream Communist movement as whole) because they believed the Communists betrayed the early ideals of Communism (the article even mention the case when a Communist had been killed by BR members). In this situation, it is simply incorrect to talk about Communist terrorism without reservations that these terrorists were seen as radicals by mainstream Communists themselves, which did not support these terrorists. In my opinion, that is the reason why scholarly sources prefer to call them "leftists", or "ultraleftists", because the fact that terrorism was not immanent to mainstream Communism is obvious for everyone but Cold war hawks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably the reason they call them left-wing not communist terrorists is to avoid confusion with mainstream Communism. TFD (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Who argue with that? The question is what content should be added? The article should not be a fork of the Left-Wing terrorism article, and it should not discuss Communist terrorism as some strictly defined phenomenon. Instead of that, it should discuss various (not related to each other) examples of the usage of this term, as well as its (the term's) evolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The LWT articls is, ab initio, a fork of this article, containing, as it does, chunks hewn from this article. Collect (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Science Research Network This working paper I stumbled across today may be of interest. [14] Defines communist terrorism as "2.2.1 Communist Terrorism or (Communist terror) is terrorism committed by Communist organizations or communist states against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear. The term is also widely used to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union. German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky and other authors trace the origins of Communist terrorism to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution." Usable here perhaps? Tentontunic (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

At present it is a working paper and no sources are provided for the definition used. It also contradicts both your and Drake's definition by adding in the actions of Communist governments. TFD (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have not provided a definition. This source does not contradict Drake, it does in fact add to his work. How do you think an addition can be a contradiction? Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Your definition says, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system." Communist states do not carry out terror against civilian populations in order to "inspire [them] to rise up and overthrow the existing [Communist] political and economic system". TFD (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, it is not my definition, please stop saying that. The term is also widely used to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union. This is an addition do Drakes work. It adds to it. There is no contradiction here. Should I just ask on the RSN board about this? Tentontunic (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Unpublshed essays by law students do not meet rs. You also must explan why ths student's essay deserves more than e.g. Drake's book. TFD (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I need explain nothing, I was asking if the source was usable as an addition to drakes work. Tentontunic (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I'm shocked that after months/years of bickering on this issue, the people supporting the concept of "communist terrorism" have yet to find the sources or even the accurate language necessary to describe the concept in a way that isn't original research. Surely you guys can find a non-controversial definition in a reliable source, if one exists? csloat (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please point out were the original research is in the lede? As I most certainly see none. Tentontunic (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The first four sentences. csloat (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Still not seeing it, all I see there is what a source says, although BoogaLouie below makes a better suggestion. Please point out what you think is OR in the first four sentences. Tentontunic (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
All of it. Please find any of it that isn't OR. Seriously. It is amazing to me that after all the arguing on this page none of you can be bothered to go find an actual source that backs up this concept. I mean, it does exist as a serious concept in serious literature somewhere, or you wouldn't be arguing about it, right? csloat (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"All of it" is not an answer. The content is not OR as the source meets WP:RS. This was the consensus on the RSN board. It is right there, I recommend you go read it as given your responses here I suspect you have not. Or please explain how the current four lines is OR based on the source. Tentontunic (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Classic begging the question. This isn't about whether the sources are reliable; it's about whether the sources back up the notion of a concept of "communist terrorism." Not just whether they identify communists who are also terrorists, or that they mention communism as one or even the major source of terrorism, but that they identify "communist terrorism" as a distinct form of terrorism, distinct from state-supported terrorism for example (we don't have a "capitalist terrorism" article for terrorist groups supported by capitalist states, or do we?). If I sound cryptic it's because we've been through all these arguments for years and gotten nowhere; it's like arguing with a wall. I don't know if folks are being disingenuous in order to push a POV or if they really don't understand what WP:SYN means, but either way, continuing to assert something false over and over again really doesn't make it true. csloat (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sort of. The proposed lede could follow what the source says a little more closely. The source says:

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

The lede currently says:

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they were according to the US official position and position of the Cold War propaganda. However, the scholars who analyse this subject in more details are more cautious in their conclusions. See, e.g. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. Moreover, taking into account that no single strict and generally accepted definition of terrorism has been proposed so far, it is simply senseless to expect to get some general answer on such a question. As William F. Shughart II asked (rhetorically): "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?" (William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39). --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, read the question carefully. Whereas the question was about compliance of the text with WP:NPOV policy, not with WP:V, you answer was "yes, the text is neutral, because it is verifiable". By writing that you demonstrated your deep misunderstanding of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The author uses the term "Communist Terrorist`in scare quotes and claims the term was used by the Kennedy administration in order to draw a connection in the public mind between communism and terrorism. Notice the first section of that chapter is called `Labelling the threat`. She does not endorse the term.[15] TFD (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? She does not endorse the term? Were exactly in the book is that?
She also use the phrase VC terrorists three times. Tentontunic (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

No - it is propaganda, plain and simple. It is worth noting that these same 'terrorists' were earlier backed by the US in their fight against the Japanese invaders (not that the US seems to have learned that lesson...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You have a source that supports the claim this is propaganda, or is that your own personal synthesis? --Martin (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, she does not say it is propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the book says that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorists" in a context of Vietnam was the Kennedy administration, and that the US administration used this term as a justification for the American involvement in Vietnam. The term "propaganda" is used during the talk page discussion for brevity, and it should not be used in the main article. Ironically, the most correct and neutral formulation (this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures) has been recently removed from the article under odd pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The question is not in verifiability, but in neutrality. Since other sources (see above) do not share this view (directly or indirectly), this type statements should be done only with attribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No The current text such as in the quote below falis to fulfill WP:NPOV. First, because the viewpoint that communist actions were terrorism is disputed and not attributed. Secondly, because Wikipedia should not use a loaded term—here, "terrorists"—to substitute for a verifiable noun, specifically denoting which actors are being described. This quote typifies the current text:
"In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand."
If "terrorism" is to be used as a characterization, it should be attributed and debated in the text.--Carwil (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes per multiple sources provided here (see above) and elsewhere [16]. With only one refinement: not all "opponents" used typical terrorism tactics, like taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear among the civilian population. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources provided for this article say that the term "Communist terrorist" was invented by the Nazis and used by the Americans during the Vietnam war in both cases for propaganda purposes. And you think that we should use the term without comment. How does that fit in with neutrality? TFD (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What Nazi? The actions by Bolshevik government have been described as "terrorism" by communists themselves (like Trotsky) and socialists like Karl Kautsky long before Nazi.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Tentontunic added, "In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens."[17] Now he is adding a source that says the American president, John Kennedy, used the term to describe the Vietnamese insurgency. Do you agree with these additions? TFD (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that his additions are supported by sources (I do not have time to check), I do not have any problems with this. Many perfectly reasonable encyclopedic subjects were used for propaganda purposes in real life, which can be reflected in our articles. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Re "An RfC can not alter WP policies." Absolutely correct.
Re "If the reliable sources are available to support material relevant to the article, then that is sufficient." Absolutely wrong, because you mix necessary and sufficient conditions. It is necessary that reliable sources supported some material, but not sufficient: other points of view may exist, and, per policy, the statements supported by only some sources cannot be represented as generally accepted. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica (vide infra) directly contradicts to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No: Not unless we are also start referring to the US as "Capitalist imperialists". NPOV's view on propaganda seems clear - that we either avoid using it or use propaganda from all sides in order to achieve an effective balance. --Ludwigs2 05:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you claiming the authors Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg, Anthony James Joes are propagandists? Is this based upon a reliable source, or is this your personal opinion? --Martin (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you claiming they're not propagandists? Is that based upon a reliable source, or is that your personal opinion? --Ludwigs2 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You want me to prove the negative? You are the one claiming its all propaganda, I'm asking you what is the basis of your opinion. --Martin (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


"In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens.[1][2] 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[3] to deny the partisans' political legitimacy and to locate the Malayan Emergency in a broader context of the Cold War.[4] 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.[5]
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,[6][7] "leftist terrorists",[8][9]"Communist terrorists", the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO),[10][11] or "Euroterrorists" (the latter term has been applied to European terrorists only),[12] rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War.[13][14] As a rule, these groups were committed to the radical New Left ideologies[14] and their strategic goals were poorly articulated.[14] The founders of some of these organisations, e.g. Red Brigades, were ex-Communists who were expelled from their parent parties for extremism.[15] Some national-separatist terrorist movements, such as ETA or IRA also used Marxist rhetoric initially.[16] In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 such groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy.[citation needed] Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain.[17] These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments;[18] they were also condemned by parliamentary Communist parties.[19]"
  1. ^ Conway p17
  2. ^ Gadberry p7
  3. ^ Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247.
  4. ^ Anthony J. Stockwell, A widespread and long-concocted plot to overthrow government in Malaya? The origins of the Malayan Emergency. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 21, 3 (1993): 79-80.
  5. ^ Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.
  6. ^ William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39.
  7. ^ Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks, Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2010 54: 902
  8. ^ Christopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, J. Craig Jenkins. Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism. Social Forces 84.4 (2006) 2009-2026.
  9. ^ Kevin Siqueira and Todd Sandler. Terrorists versus the Government: Strategic Interaction, Support, and Sponsorship. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 878-898
  10. ^ Alexander p16
  11. ^ Harmon p13
  12. ^ Harmon p58
  13. ^ Cronin, Audrey. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58
  14. ^ a b c Peter Chalk. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy. Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 44, Number 3, 1998, pp. 373-88.
  15. ^ A Jamieson. Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15
  16. ^ Cristopher Fettweis argued: "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.)
  17. ^ Alexander pp51-52
  18. ^ Paoletti p202
  19. ^ Richard Drake. Terrorism and the Decline of Italian Communism: Domestic and International Dimensions. Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 12, Number 2, Spring 2010 1531-3298
    • This article is not about terminology, but about actual phenomenon: terrorism by communist organizations and states. Hence it should be more focused on the actual/factual events. Saying that, there is nothing wrong with describing terminology, including use of the terminology in propaganda. No reason for outright deletion of this segment. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's generally germane to an article to discuss the usage of the term involved, and this seems like a fair attempt to characterize the people involved. On articles about terrorism, we need to recognize that "terror" and "terrorism" are loaded terms. That said, the history should extend backwards to the use of terrorism within the communist movement itself, notably by Lenin and Trotsky.--Carwil (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. These authors (including also Karl Kautsky) did not make any distinction between words "terrorism" and "terror" (because they refer to terror/terrorism of French Revolution). This should be described in the article. More contemporary authors seem to make a distinction. This should be described too.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Appearing to blame the the Nazis for the etymology of "communist terrorism" to incite fear is laughable hopelessly POV. The New York Times uses "communist terrorism" as early as 1919. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Not "etymology", but "usage". The section does not discuss etymology at all, it describes different examples of application of this phrase to different, sometimes absolutely unconnected events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Paul, you present a chronology that starts with the (evil) Nazis seeking to demonize (apparently undeservedly) communists, with all the (implications) that creates. That is grossly POV. Whether chronological events are "unrelated" or not material to the discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you joined the discussion late, so you probably haven't noticed that I took a Tentontunic's version and modified it. Therefore, this chronology is not my. BTW, I never stated that this version is final, or that it does not need expansion/addition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this based on the fact it is written from a pro communist POV. Every sentence screams "These are not communists" Poor sourcing being used to back that it was all "propaganda", one being an ignored and uncited paper from years ago, I am of the opinion that my proposal was far more neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that the source is unreliable, go to the WP:RSN. The paper has been cited, as I have already demonstrated. Your unsubstantiated assertion that it is uncited and ignored is simply a lie. Your assertion that the text is pro-Communist POV is just your POV (also unsubstantiated), therefore, it can be simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Please actually point out were it has been cited. Tentontunic (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If your mean Deery's article, all needed information has already been provided on this talk page. If you mean other sources (I have provided many), would your be so king to actually point out what concrete article do you mean? In addition, since the text cites many reliable sources, I cannot understand how the problem with just one article may affect the whole text so considerably that makes it a propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Paul's proposal, and a more general observation:
  • Question: When are communists not communists?
  • Answer: When a non-communist calls someone a communist.
Really, the concerted effort going on EN WP for quite some time now to eradicate references to communists and terrorism, communists and genocide, et al. is getting a bit transparent. I'm glad to discuss details, don't accuse me of using talk as a forum. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say the opposite is true: the concerted effort to spam WP with redundant references to communists and terrorism, communists and genocide, etc. That can be summarised in a following general observations:
"When various sources describe some group that committed some crime as "left-wing", or "partisan", or "guerilla", or "insurgent", or "criminal", or "Communist", they should be considered as Communists, regardless of how many reliable sources use different definitions."
"When some act of genocide has been committed by a group that declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine, that act should be considered as Communist genocide, regardless of how many other caused and reasons are being discussed in the sources"
"The historical background of these events should be omitted at much as possible to demonstrate that all these atrocities were a result of the Communist ideology solely, and were not, at least partially, a result of objective reasons, including the actions of previous authorities, Western countries, centuries of barbarism and cruelty, etc. because, as we all know, the time before Communism was a Golden Age, and this Golden Age will come back immediately after Communism will be eradicated."
As I already demonstrated (many times), the language you use is not the mainstream language used by reliable sources, so, please, to not blame others in your own sins.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for soapboxing, but it was not me who started first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The sources show that the term "Communist terrorist" was used during the Cold War (as late as 1972) by Western governments who wished to draw a connection in the mind of the public between Communism and terrorism, in order to discredit anti-colonial independence movements. For us to ignore that and to resurrect the terminology would be anachronistic. TFD (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
For propaganda to be effective there must be some kernel of truth in it. One person's "propaganda" is another's "informing the public of the facts". --Martin (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The fact that almost all "Communist terrorists" (except probably Maoists) were not the members of official Communist parties is indisputable, therefore, a clarification is needed that parliamentary Communist parties did not support "Communist" terrorist groups, maintained no connections with them and even directly condemned. Otherwise, we will confuse a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You now claiming the Viet Comg where not communist? You text above is too Euro-centric in claiming that all these terrorist groups originated in student movements, which clearly is not the case. --Martin (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I do not claim that. As I already wrote, most sources do not describe national-liberation, revolutionary or partisan movements as "terrorists". With regard to Viet cong, compare this [18] and this [19].--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You search shows a significant proportion of sources discuss Viet Cong terrorism, generally in monographs and papers that specifically discuss terrorism as a topic. This "national-liberation" vs. "terrorism" is a straw man. These are two different aspects. "National-liberation" is a goal, terrorism is one tactic to achieve that goal, so the two concepts are not mutally exclusive or opposite ends of the POV spectrum, but can in fact complement each other. Were the Viet Cong a revolutionary national liberation movement, yes; did they adopt terrorism as a tactic, yes. --Martin (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We can speak about a straw man fallacy when misrepresentation of an opponent's position occurs. I don't see how did I misinterpret your position. However, taking into account that I didn't write "VC were a national-liberation movement, therefore they were not terrorists", and my actual point was that "VC were a revolutionary and national-liberation movement, and many scholars prefer not to apply the term "terrorism" to these categories of combatants", I can respond: "Physician, heal thyself".
Of course, this my statement needs to be supported by sources. I believe, Encyclopaedia Britannica will suffice. It states:
"Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”"[20]
You can see that such a reputable source as EB (i) clearly distinguish between regular troops, partisans and terrorists, separating each of them into separate category, and (ii) explicitly distinguish between terrorists and Indocina partisans (VC and KR). Therefore, it would not be a synthesis from my side to claim that, according to EB, VC were not terrorists in contemporary sense.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: "You text above is too Euro-centric in claiming that all these terrorist groups originated in student movements, which clearly is not the case." I would say, Euro-Japano-centric, because Japanese Red Army Faction also originated from ex-Communist led student movement. However, in general you point is valid. It would be good if you proposed some concrete idea how to fix/expand this piece of text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I see no consensus for this at all, nor any support in fact. I believe the version which I proposed is far more neutral and shall reinsert it. Tentontunic (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not do that. You provided no arguments in support of your version, other than, in your opinion, your edit is better. My version is supported by a larger amount of the sources of better quality, and, according to the comments, is quite neutral. Minor issues can and will be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not neutral at all, it is a joke. And to say your sources are of better quality? You mean penguin books and the like? I think not. I have restored my proposal which at least had some support, your version has none. I have also added a new section on the soviet union and repaired the Vietnam mess you created. Tentontunic (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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


Viewpoint #1

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

Comments on viewpoints #1

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

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

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

Unfortunately, according to this POV the term "terrorism" should be applied to the regular and guerrilla warfare, which is not what scholars usually do ( "The degree to which it (terrorism) relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare."[21]). --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Collect, you are referring to the discussion of Valentino's book, which is the only source we have for the term "mass killings under Communist regimes". Although Valentino had a chapter calle4 "Communist mass killing", he listed killings during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan under "Counterguerrilla mass killings", rather than "Communist mass killings.[22] Since Valentino did not descibe killings during the invasion of Hungary, you need to explain why you "know" which category was appropriate. If you object to the "semantic dancing" in the source, then you should provide another one, but you have failed to do so. TFD (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint #2

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

Comments on viewpoints #2

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

I was "drawing from" the common English definitions of the words. Using English is not, as far as I know, "original research" at all. Just semantic dancing again. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I provided the reliable source that clearly states that no commonly accepted definition of terrorism exists. How can it be semantic dancing? If you want more quotes, below is another one:
"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime.
Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. "
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
All the more reason not to delve into philosophy here and to rely on English. Let the discussions about each type be made in their own sections, instead of insisting that a perfect all-purpose definition be found. Englsih is the language most of us use every day. And please let us avoid the UN wrangling about Hamas here. Collect (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why Hamas can be relevant to this discussion. Regarding "not to delve into philosophy here and to rely on English", I am afraid, the sole thing we have to rely upon is a scholarly and scientific literature. It clearly states that no clear, commonly accepted definition of terrorism has been proposed so far, and the term by its nature is deeply politically charged. In that situation, any attempt "to rely on English" to develop one's own definition of terrorism is either non-neutral (ignore what mainstream reliable sources say), or original research (push one's own definition).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to your insinuation that my definition is somehow entirely my own creation :), the wording is from reputable sources and dictionaries (including NOAD "terrorism" "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", AHD "1.The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons", WordNet " The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear", Webster's New World Law Dictionary "The threat or actual use of violence in order to intimidate or create panic, especially when utilized as a means of attempting to influence political conduct.", US Law defines it as "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents", The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, at §2(1)(b), defines terrorism as: "Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.") All of which substantially agree with the simple English definition. Done with the dancing, I hope. As for being "non-neutral" can you tell me in any way what point of view is encompassed in the definition proffered (based as it in on US and international laws and agreements)? I would gladly see if others also manage to see a point of view where, as nearly as I am able to ascertain, no point of view exists! Being able to see a POV where none exists is a most valuable talent, I would suppose. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I again strongly advise you to read my posts carefully. My last post contained no insinuation, it was quite clear and unequivocal: if you created a definition of terrorism by yourself (it was natural to make this conclusion, because you provided no sources), then it is a pure original research; if you took it from some reliable source, you thereby have ignored the sources presented by me, so your definition violates the neutrality policy. Consequently, your suggestion violates either one or another policy in any event.
Thank you for providing your sources. Unfortunately, that does not cancel the statements from the sources presented by me about impossibility to develop some commonly accepted and universal definition of terrorism, so by providing these sources you haven't resolved the WP:NPOV issue. In addition, the Convention you cite (you could also cite the U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d): "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;") is a primary source, and it should be treated accordingly.
With regard to the US position on that account, you may be interested to read this:
"By approving the treaty the Senate has endorsed an unequivocal definition of terrorism-the Reagan administration's. But unequivocal is not necessarily wise or just. Indeed, the extradition pact-and similar treaties that the administration is pressing with at least five other countries-may lock the United States into entanglements, obligations, and human rights stances it may one day regret. And it will permit the administration's obsession with terrorism to imperil one of America's proudest traditions: providing safe haven for political refugees on a nonpartisan basis. For more than 140 years, the United States has refused to extradite rebels against foreign governments. America has also refused to surrender foreign rulers to the regimes that ousted them. Prohibitions against surrendering such political offenders are found in nearly all extradition treaties signed by the United States and other Western countries. The list of alleged terrorists who have benefited from this protection at some time in their lives is long. The more distinguished include Sim6n Bolivar, the liberator of much of 19th-century Latin America; Lajos Kossuth, the 19th-century Hungarian revolutionary; Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi, two of the fathers of modern Italy; the late Irish President Eamon de Valera; the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir; and the late Philippine opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. The less distinguished include the late Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle; the one-time ruler of Cambodia Lon Nol; and the late Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi of Iran."(Defining Terrorism. Author(s): Christopher H. Pyle. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 64 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 63-78)
Note, the UC legal definition of terrorism has been criticised by a secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep LAWS are primary. "Legal dictionaries" are not primary. Articles on the US laws and treaties are not primary. As for saying "a secondary source does not like a law" - of precisely what significance is that? None as far as I can tell. The definitions are all congruent, from primary, secondary and tertiary reliable sources. More than the angel-counting excercises which have permeated too many discussions on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: " As for being "non-neutral" can you tell me in any way what point of view is encompassed in the definition proffered (based as it in on US and international laws and agreements)?" That is simple. Statement I: The sources A, B, C define terrorism as follows:"XXXXX". Statement II: "The sources X, Y, Z claim that no clear and commonly accepted definition of terrorism exists". A suggested WP text: "Terrorism is (the simple definition of terrorism follows)". Obviously, such a statement completely ignores the mainstream sources X,Y,Z, and, therefore, violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, taking into account that the main article dealing with the definition of terrorism is Terrorism, it would be correct, according to the guidelines and the policy, to move this part of the discussion there.
Re: "LAWS are primary. "Legal dictionaries" are not primary." Yes, they are tertiary (read WP:PSTS). The sources I cite (except EB) are secondary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Obviously, the real encyclopaedic approach is to have the article about Communist terrorism at any cost, and if that will require us to violate the policy, the policy should be violated, because the goal justifies the means. :-)
Speaking seriously, during another discussion with Collect I already outlined how I see this article (I do not want it to be deleted, by the way), however, that question hardly belongs to this thread. What is relevant to it, is my proposal to clearly explain that, whereas VC conducted a guerrilla war against the authoritarian regime, who terrorised its own citizens and VC themselves, the fact that VC frequently resorted to terror allowed some politicians and writers to describe them as "terrorists", which makes a VC story partially relevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

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

The semantic dancing, which has been the hallmark of all too many articles, is a tendency to convert an adjective "Communist" applied to various more general phenomnenae into new categories "Communist killings", "Communist terrorism", "Communist genocide", etc. The sea shells that are being sold by a seashore do not form a new category "seashore shells". Therefore, I would not be surprised if the statements like "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." is also be considered as "semantic dancing" by Collect some users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt, personalize discussions? A clear example of dancing at its worst. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologise. Changed the text accordingly. However, this my awkward phrase is hardly a reason for evading the answer. Please, explain if the statement "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." is a "semantic dancing" or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We should not normally refer to groups or individuals as terrorists. I suggest we follow the usage in academic literature that normally reserves the term for people and groups primarily engaged in terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Where US law, international law, and treaties all use a term in substantially the same manner, it is not up to us to say "but professional dancers have all sorts of caveats." The definitions above are unequivocal, and have the force of law. Collect (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you suggest to rely on primary sources and ignore secondary and tertiary ones? With regard to "and have the force of law", if I remember correctly, one of the US states adapted a law that set the "π" number equal to 4, so what? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note that your statement is singularly incorrect. Note that primary, secondary and tertiary sources use congruent language, which is plenty enough for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the statements:
"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial"
and
"the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets ..." (which implies that no controversy or complexity issues exist)
use "congruent" language?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The basic definition of the term "terrorism" is clear and unambiguous: "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets as a means of coercion through fear", look at any dictionary and there is basic concensus in the definition. Where the complexity and the controversy may come in when people dispute particular events are acts of terrorism. For example some people claim the mass killings, hostage taking, suicide bombings and beheadings by the Viet Cong was just part of a partisan insurgency, but claim the mass killings, hostage taking, suicide bombings and beheadings by Chechen rebels as terrorism. --Martin (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the quotes provided by me? I have a feeling that you simply ignore my arguments...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes Collect, and the converse is where they do not use a description, neither do we. These sources only use the term CT in its historical context, as part of an effort by British and American governments to associate communism and terrorism in the public mind. The message was that any country that did not accept a government imposed by Western countries was CT and was used to defend wars that killed millions of people, cost billions of dollars and ultimately failed. TFD (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something more basic

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

Good point. That is the question I plan to discuss. My understanding of what the available literature says is as follows. The term "Communist terrorism" is used comparatively frequently in literature [23], [24], however, there are two problems with it. Firstly, since the meaning of the term "terrorism" has changed during last century (see the sources cited in the previous sections), what old sources called "Communist terrorism" is currently not conidered as terrorism by most sources, which characterise it as a manifestation of "Red terror" (which already has its own article). Secondly, although the term "Communist terrorism" is being widely applied to various phenomenae, in most cases the alternative terms are used more frequently. For instance, whereas many contemporaty terrorist organisations are called "Communist terrorists" (and, accordingly, their activity is characterised as "Communist terrorism"), the term "Left-wing terrorims" is used more frequently by scholars (compare, e.g. this [25] and this [26]). Similarly, if we discuss anti-colonial Communist led movements, the term "Communist terrorism" is used very frequently, but the term "querrilla warfare" is more abundant (see, e.g. [27] and [28]). Therefore, we cannot, for instance, merge the Left-wing terrorism article into this article (that would be a violation of the neutrality policy), and cannot discuss the same terrorist groups here as if no left-wing terrorism article existed. What we can do, however, is the following. We can devote this article to the history of the term and to the discussion of various examples of its application to different events and phenomenae, starting from Bolsheviks' Red Terror (or even from Trans-Caucasian Military organisation of RSDRP(b), and ending with Peruvian and Nepalese Maoist terrorist organisations.
However, there is one thing we cannot do, namely, we cannot present "Communist terrorism" as a strictly defined term with concrete and more or less permanent meaning. Most, if not all classifications of terrorism available from the literature do not include "Communist terrorism" as a separate category.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Some quick thoughts:
  1. there are no "problems" if the article treats "communist terrorism," i.e., both the use of the term and the acts against the populace to which it refers, over time; and proper content will provide a proper lead;
  2. also, "Red Terror" refers to one specific period; that is simply a daughter article for September-October 1918 (potentially for the period of the communist civil war), there is no issue of forking or that "an article exists already".
It is your personal contention that what qualified as "communist terrorism" against the populace a century ago does not qualify as terrorism today. Quite frankly, you'll have to produce a pile of sources to substantiate that contention—for which you do not cite a single source. And, as I indicated regarding chronological treatment of acts deemed to be ones of "communist terrorism" (or labeled "communist terror"), your contention, even if it were true, is immaterial to the scope of the article.
As for "left-wing" versus "communist" terrorism, I do intend to have a look at that at some point as it seemed from the periphery, at least, that there was a feeding frenzy on the part of several editors quoting "NPOV" to butcher "communist terrorism" into piece-parts with the sad result being what we see in the article today, but that is a separate discussion, not for right now. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Some quick answers:
Re "there are no "problems" ..." There is, and the name of this problem is WP:CFORK#POV forks: you cannot create two articles about the same subject that use different terminologies and present this subject from different points of view. At least, one of these two articles should always be the main one, and another should contain a link to the first one (and be consistent with the latter): "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article".
Re "also, "Red Terror" refers to one specific period;" Again, "terror" and "terrorism" is not the same according to many contemporaty sources, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica. With regard to the main article, Mass killings under Communist regimes quite adequately describe that.
Re: "It is your personal contention that what qualified as "communist terrorism" against the populace a century ago does not qualify as terrorism today." What about that:
""Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reactionsuch as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers." (Cronin, Audrey Kurth. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58 (Article) Published by The MIT Press)
" It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime."[29]
I see no interpretation for the last quote other than: "the term "Terrorism" has evolved in late XX century", and I do not see how that could be my personal contention. In connection to that, please, explain me why don't you read the previous talk page discussion before typing your posts?
Re "As for "left-wing" versus "communist" terrorism, I do intend to have a look " Please, do that. However, keep in mind that to present a handful sources about "Communist terrorism" is not sufficient: we need a proof that the term "Communist terrorism" is being used more widely in scholarly articles and university press monographs to describe post-war leftist groups than the term "Left-wing terrorism". I believe I am able to work with literature, and I do not cherry pick sources, so I am sure that it will not be easy to prove that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the term CT was applied to insurgencies that had links to official Communist parties, while none of the groups described as left-wing terrorists did not. In neutral academic writing CTs are grouped with nationalist terrosim. TFD (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide a few cites to these academic writings that group communist terrorism with nationalist terrorism. --Martin (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I fully understand what TFD means. Probably they meant "CT and anti-colonial terrorism?"--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
See for example Global Terrorism By Leonard Weinberg (2009). "The second wave of terrorism followed the end of that war and is associated with the cause of national independence...."[30] Vietnam is included. But CT is a broader term, because "To the extent that terrorism played a role it was a subsidiary one" (p. 41). During the Cold War, Western governments described all resistance by insurgents (even non-violent resistance) as terrorism. By the way Paul, "nationalist terrorism" is the most commonly used term, see for example Aubrey's "Typologies of terrorism".[31] The term "nationalist" sometimes has connotations of intolerance that do not apply here. TFD (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism/Archive_14&oldid=1040045081"