Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 5

In actuality, this section must be rewritten to avoid synthesis. I agree that Marxist writers (as well as some other contemporary political leaders) sometimes used rather inflammatory language which later was used by some extremist groups as a "theoretical" base for their activity. However, we need the sources which would support this claim explicitly. The present version, which implicitly equates terrorism and Marxism is quite unsatisfactory and biased. I moved this section from the article and I propose to work on it here, on the talk page to avoid problems with edit warring. That worked perfectly for other articles. Please, propose your improvements below.

"In his article “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna” Karl Marx wrote: “The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”^[1] Benjamin Valentino interpreted these words as a theoretical justification of violence.^[2]

Similarly, in his book "Terrorism and Communism" Trotsky emphasized that "...the historical tenacity of the bourgeoisie is colossal... We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish." ^[3].

On the other hand, they were opposed to individual terror, which has been used earlier by Russian "People's Will organization. According to Trotsky, "The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister—all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international Social Democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism and does so in the most irreconcilable way."^[4]

Many later Marxists, in particular Karl Kautsky, criticized Bolshevik leaders for terrorist tactics. He stated that "among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all".^[5] Kautsky recognized that Red Terror represented a variety of terrorism because it was indiscriminate, intended to frighten the civilian population, and included taking and executing hostages."

I think the Marx quote needs to be checked against a reliable source, as it may actually now be a composite of two different translations (my fault, I hadn't realised the translations differed when I added the first part - doh!) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul i have put this back in the article as i see no reason for it`s removal while it is under discussion, i`ll comment on this later when time allows mark (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, there is a reason for its moving to the talk page. It is synthesis and not neutral. In addition, as you probably noticed I didn't propose to remove it completely, just to reword and then put back. Please, do not re-introduce this text into the main article until we come to agreement. Frankly, I believe we are able to achieve a consensus in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m not seeing the synth here paul, all the quotes are just that, quotes. Please expalin what you think is synthy about quotes? mark (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can explain. The examples of synthesis on the policy page demonstrate that even the sentence "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." is a synthesis, because it draws the conclusion that are not explicitly stated in the sources.

The text we discuss is even a worse case: it creates an impression that a consensus exists that leftist terrorism (i) represents some uniform movement having some common ideology (ii) is a direct consequence of Marxist theory. That is obviously not the case, at least is not recognised by majority scholars.

Importantly, many sources telling about Red Brigades etc also add that the Communist parties used more legal and parliamentary tactics and did not support these movement (at least openly). However, the people who add materials about terrorist groups fully ignored these facts.

In conclusion, what I believe should be written in the article is:

1. Communist theorists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) rejected individual political terrorism as useless, and condemned such actions.
2. However, in their works they sometimes used rather inflammatory rhetoric which later (after WWII) inspired various radical groups who decided to resort to terrorism for achievement of their political goals.
3. Most official Communist parties (except some Maoist ones) officially condemned such activity, although sometimes provided unofficial support for some of these groups.
4. Although the term "terrorism" is usually applied mostly to the actions of NGO's only, some analysts have put forward the idea that state terror against its own citizens also falls in this category, so such actions as Red Terror, Stalin's purges, Maoist repressions etc. can also be considered as Communist terrorism. (The later statement should be added to the article's end; we do not need to talk much about that, links to corresponding articles would be quite sufficient.

All of that reflects my understanding of what I read on that account. Of course, we need sources which would explicitly support what is said here, however, it would not be a problem to find them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I don't think there was consensus for removing sourced content in the first place, you should really self-revert. Do you understand what you have just said above? You have advanced a four point position of what viewpoint you think the article should present, then propose finding sources to fit that viewpoint. In any case you proposal gives to too much weight to the notion of "individual political terrorism" and totally ignores the role of organised party political terrorism. --Martin (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul, a rebuttal if you will (I agree with martins comment above BTW) 1 Communist theorists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) rejected individual political terrorism as useless, and condemned such actions What they actually said was anyone taking action of any sort against the communist state would lead to a death penalty as it was deemed a terrorist action to even go on strike. 2 rather inflammatory rhetoric is a, shall we say mild? way of putting it. They advocated terrorism to help their cause, that`s all she wrote really. 3 All governments will condemn terrorist activity, even when funding it. And yes there are sources for that. 4, state terrorism, yes wikilinks ought to do the trick, but with a brief descriptor of what these acts were mark (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. My reading of the rejection by Communist theorists of "individual" terrorist acts is because they viewed it as less effective than party organised systematic terror in achieving their revolutionary goals. Of course any kind of individualist acts were eschewed when collectivism was the order of the day. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from primary sources that are not explained by secondary sources are totally unacceptable. This is POV-pushing of fringe views, and we are supposed to reflect what is found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: " You have advanced a four point position of what viewpoint you think the article should present, then propose finding sources to fit that viewpoint." No. I summarised what I learned form the sources, although I did that from memory. Frankly, I do not remember which concrete source is better to support these claims. I am ready to present the sources if my proposal is accepted.

Re: " too much weight to the notion of "individual political terrorism" and totally ignores the role of organised party political terrorism" NGO's political terrorism is how peoples usually understand the word "terrorism". "State terror" is something different, and only recently (and only by some analysts) it has been proposed to consider these two terrors as two sides of the same medal. However, this point of view ("State terror = terrorism") has not become a mainstream (probably yet). Therefore, it would be more correct to present the facts in the way I propose, especially because most state terror events differed from each other dramatically, had their own specifics, which was poorly connected with Marxist ideology, and because each of them already have their own articles.

Re 1 "What they actually said was anyone taking action of any sort against the communist state would lead to a death penalty as it was deemed a terrorist action to even go on strike." I doubt you are right. At least in general that was not the case. You can find quotes that support this claim, and even more quotes that completely refute it.

Re 2 "They advocated terrorism to help their cause, that`s all she wrote really" One has to discriminate between theoretical works (e.g. the work "State and revolution" where Lenin proposed the idea about gradual abolition of state under Communism), with some practical decisions made during arguably the most brutal civil war in history, when terror was used by both parties.

Re 3 "All governments will condemn terrorist activity, even when funding it" Therefore the Communist states just obeyed common rules. In addition, many, if not majority of terrorist NGOs described in the article have not been funded by Communist states or parties, or this funding played no critical role. We must reflect that.

Re 4. Exactly. Please, propose your wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "My reading of the rejection by Communist theorists of "individual" terrorist acts is because they viewed it as less effective than party organised systematic terror in achieving their revolutionary goals." Obviously, not. The central concept of Marxist theory is economical determinism, which states that all social changes can happen only if needed economical prerequisites already exist. Since it is impossible to accelerate economical progress by pure political means, no social changes can be performed by political means only, including terror. Lenin's concept of "revolutionary situation" also meant that some prerequisites had to be achieved, and that could not be done by terror. However, since Marx and Lenin correctly predicted that ruling class would strongly oppose to expropriation of the means of production, they expected that its resistance would be necessary to suppress by all possible means, including terror, if necessary. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to continue this discussion Paul, by TFD wants to stop it, so I'll have to wait for the outcome of my Clarification request. --Martin (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly continue this discussion on my talk page if you want. I promise you that if we will achieve consensus I'll try to take your opinion into account even if it will be confirmed that this article does come under the Eastern European topic ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been claimed by the Marxist apologist camp - and let’s stop the silly pretence that there is no Marxist apologist camp here - that the Encyclopedia is “at best a tertiary source”, the implication being that it shouldn’t be used for the purposes of this article.

The truth of the matter is that:

(1) the IET consists of carefully written and properly researched articles signed by the authors, and it contains valuable references to further relevant sources,

(2) the IET is a well-researched, scholarly and objective work.,

(3) the IET contains much material that is relevant to the present article/discussion.

For example, on the academic view of terrorism the IET says:

“Scholars from various universities have come close to agreement on a definition of terrorism … The resulting academic definition of terrorism was finalized in 1988. “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organizations), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience (s)), turning into a target of terror, a target of demans, or a target of attention, depending whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.” Although the definition is rather long and clumsy, the core elements are now generally accepted” (Alex P. Schmid, “The Problem of Defining Terrorism”, IET, p. 17).

On state terrorism:

“The term ‘’terrorism’’ has been used to describe violent political acts carried out by informal, illegal, and basically private groups. In recent years a number of analysts have criticized this approach. They argue that acts carried out by governments, or security forces, should also be included …. It is not always easy to distinguish between state and non-state terrorism since the strategies and tactics may be identical. But terrorism carried out in the service of a government is classed as state terrorism … Most analysts distinguish between three types of state terrorist activity. The first, state terror, is the use of terrorism by a government turning against its own citizens to enforce its rule … [the other two are state-sponsored terrorism involving terrorist groups operating abroad, and state-supported terrorism, involving the provision of an independent terrorist group with funds or supplies by a government] …” (“State Versus Non-State Terrorism”, IET, p. 215).

On revolutionary terrorism:

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right. Both ideologies emerged in the first decades of the twentieth century. Each was influenced by the revolutionary socialists of the late nineteenth century, who are often numbered among the first revolutionary terrorists” (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203).

On Karl Marx and terrorism:

“Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, IET, p. 138).

On Lenin and terrorism:

“However, as a Russian, he [Lenin] saw terror as having a role in carrying out the revolution once open resistance had begun. As he wrote in 1906, “The party must regard the fighting guerrilla operations of the squads affiliated to or associated with it as being, in principle, permissible and advisable in the present period.” But Lenin was specific about the objective of all such guerrilla operations, which was “to destroy the government, police, and military machinery.” Furthermore, Lenin maintained that terrorism should always be under the control of the party to prevent effort from being dissipated uselessly” (ibid. p. 141).

Quoting Lenin:

“The purpose of terrorism is to produce terror” (Alex P. Schmid, “The Problem of Defining Terrorism”, IET, p. 11).

Quoting Trotsky:

“A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, IET, p. 143).

What becomes evident is that:

(1) Marxist ideology does in fact regard terrorism as “the direct continuation” (or manifestation) of the revolution.

(2) my (simplified) formula, History = Class struggle = Revolutionary violence = Terrorism, is correct.

(3) my assertion that revolutionary terrorism has two phases,

(a) pre-revolutionary phase of anti-state terrorism (prior to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)

and

(b) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat),

is also correct.

(4) the artificial separation of anti-state terrorism and state terror/terrorism is unwarranted and illegitimate in a Marxist context as both are functions, and serve the purposes of, revolutionary violence which in turn is a manifestation of class struggle, the very essence of Marxist revolutionary ideology.

At any rate, it is beyond dispute that the Encyclopedia is a mine of relevant information; it throws a good deal of light on the points at issue; offers important guidelines; and provides a useful theoretical framework within which a solution to the problem may be found. It follows that it cannot reasonably be dismissed or suppressed as a source for the purposes of the present article, and that it is legitimate to entertain the suspicion that its suppression is a politically-motivated device. I therefore request that at least some material from this important source be included in the article, especially, but not exclusively, in the section on Marxist terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, my Oxford Russian Dictionary (1984) has:

(1) strakh fear, terror

(2) terror uzhas, strakh (my transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling).

This demonstrates that though English “terror” in a political sense may be rendered in Russian as “terror”, ‘’strakh’’ can mean both “fear” and “terror” (depending on the context), which explains why the English translation of the Russian has “terror”! As far as I am concerned, this indisputably settles the matter in my favor.

Your assertion to the effect that Marxism (including, presumably, Marxist terrorism) is "scientific" shows which camp you belong to.

Finally, there are a number of further Lenin quotes, including the one from the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism showing that Lenin did endorse the use of terror/terrorism and such quotes ought to be included in the article in the same way as the Marx and Trotsky quotes were included. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If we simply ignore such posts per WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP, not to mention WP:OR, does anyone think that he will just go away? (Igny (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Discussing a source is none of the above IGNY, and suggesting that we ignore an editor is rude. I see not reason why the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism can`t be used as a source, who said it can`t BTW? mark (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring a rude editor is hardly rude. In my opinion we have two alternatives: either ignore him or do not ignore his rude behaviour (I mean reporting him). I prefer the first one. BTW, the fact that the editor is rude means that he himself feels that his arguments are not strong enough. Regarding the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, how this user can demand us to take into account his source if he repeatedly ignores the arguments of other users, who point his attention on what other sources say? In addition, the encyclopaedia says

"“The term ‘’terrorism’’ has been used to describe violent political acts carried out by informal, illegal, and basically private groups. In recent years a number of analysts have criticized this approach. They argue that acts carried out by governments, or security forces, should also be included..."

In other words, according to this source, the term "terrorism" is traditionally used to describe individual or group terrorism, and only recently some analyst have criticised this approach. Encyclopaedia does not tell us if the opinion of these analysts became mainstream.

In connection to that, I propose to return to what I said before: remove all theorising from the article, focus on Red Brigades, and add a separate section at the article's end where we can tell that, according to a number of contemporary analysts (it would be desirable to find concrete citations), state terror should also be included into the "terrorism" category. Based on that, these analysts include Bolshevik's Red Terror, Stalin's repressions and the Great Purge, in particular, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Democratic Kampuchean genocide, and some similar events into a Communist terrorism category. It is necessary, however, to supplement each of that with references to reliable sources which explicitly characterise each of these events as Communist terrorism, otherwise that would be a synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"my (simplified) formula, History = Class struggle = Revolutionary violence = Terrorism, is correct." No, Justus Maximus, your theory is (a) utterly idiotic (it states that History = Terrorism, unless your '=' signs don't actually conform to conventional mathematics), and (b) since it is Your Theory it is Original Research.

I know it is bad practice under most circumstances to edit other contributors comments on talk pages, but given such a blatant disregard for normal Wikipedia conventions, what would be the consequences of just deleting the lot?

Paul Siebert, I'm not entirely sure why you say the article need focus on the Red Brigades, as opposed to other 'communist terrorist' non-state groups. Perhaps I've misunderstood? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. I meant "'Red Brigades' and similar groups" as opposed to other tangentially relevant things like state terror or sabotage (in addition, most of that has their own articles).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, according to this source, the term "terrorism" is traditionally used to describe individual or group terrorism, and only recently some analyst have criticised this approach.

According to the source (IET) many analysts "argue that acts carried out by governments, or security forces, should also be included". See my quote. In fact the source (IET) does include state terror in its analysis of terrorism, which ought to clarify its position.

Of particular relevance to the article are statements by Lenin and other leading Marxists endorsing terrorism. The fact that they did so is not my "original research". It is evident from the statements made by such leaders and is suported by the Encyclopedia and other sources such as Robert Service.

Nowhere have I suggested that my opinion be included in the article. What I have requested and am repeating again is the inclusion of relevant quotes from the writings of those leaders themselves along with references from sources such as the Encyclopedia. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading primary sources and forming your own conclusion is original research. Could you please read the article in the internal link and stop arguing from original sources. TFD (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing from original sources. I'm requesting the inclusion of passages (ANY relevant passages, you can pick your own) from sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Robert Service showing what they have to say on the views of Marxist leaders in respect of terror/terrorism. Having established that Lenin DOES refer to terror/terrorism in The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky and elsewhere - as expressly stated in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, and other sources - this should be reflected in an article on Marxist terrorism. If you refuse to quote IET and Robert Service, what alternative sources do you want to include and why?

your theory is (a) utterly idiotic (it states that History = Terrorism, unless your '=' signs don't actually conform to conventional mathematics)

Equating history with terrorism is as idiotic as equating history with class struggle and the latter with revolutionary violence. However, the formula History=Class Struggle=Revolutionary Violence=Terrorism is NOT what I believe to be the case, but what logically emerges from Marxist theory. Thus the idiocy pertains entirely to the Marxists (and their supporters) and in no way to myself. This also demonstrates how "scientific" Marxism really is.

Furthermore, it isn't my fault that certain Wikipedia editors identify so strongly with Marxist leaders that they feel all criticism addressed to the latter is directed at themselves.

Also, Marxist state terror is not "tangentially relevant". It is central to any critical and objective analysis of Marxist terrorism, which is why it figures prominently in scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"the formula History=Class Struggle=Revolutionary Violence=Terrorism is NOT what I believe to be the case, but what logically emerges from Marxist theory." Really, and you can provide us with a reliable source that confirms that 'logic' can you? Of course not, you've just come up with this nonsense yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already shown what the sources are and I don't need to repeat myself. On the contrary, it is you who have to produce evidence in support of your view that sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Robert Service should be excluded from an article on the views of Marxist leaders regarding terror/terrorism! Justus Maximus (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You cannot request anything if you ignore the point of view of others. Please, propose the way to neutrally reflect what all sources (including those provided by me) tells in rough proportion to their prevalence.

Re "the formula History=Class Struggle=Revolutionary Violence=Terrorism is NOT what I believe to be the case, but what logically emerges from Marxist theory." Source, please. Concretely, please provide a reliable source that states that, according to Marx:

1. History=Class Struggle. I doubt you will be able to do that, because the Marx's point of view that the class struggle is only a history's major driving force;
2. Class Struggle=Revolutionary Violence. I also hardly believe you will be able to support this point with sources, because revolutionary violence is just an highest manifestation of the class struggle, which doesn't mean the latter can be reduced to the former;
3. Revolutionary Violence=Terrorism. You also need to support this statement. For example, Marx or Lenin noted that the means of production have to be forcefully expropriated, which implied to use a violence for that. However, would it be correct to characterise forceful (violent) expropriation of landlord's land by peasantry as terrorism or even terror?

And, finally, do you really think it is correct to turn this talk page into a general forum?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, propose the way to neutrally reflect what all sources (including those provided by me) tells

That's exactly what I intended to do before you started to edit my contributions and claim that Lenin doesn't refer to terror/terrorism in his statements, that strakh doesn't mean "fear" or "terror" depending on the context (as evidenced by the Oxford Russian Dictionary, vide supra) and all that Marxist apologist garbage.

would it be correct to characterise forceful (violent) expropriation of landlord's land by peasantry as terrorism or even terror'

Absolutely. It all depends on how the victim experiences the expropriation and how it is intended by the perpetrator to be experienced. "Wealthy" Russian farmers (kulaks) were to be systematically terrorized according to Lenin, Stalin, and others. There are lots of reliable sources on that topic (Service, Conquest, Montefiore, Pipes, etc., etc.) and it's not my fault that you haven't read them or are incognizant of their existence.

please provide a reliable source that states that, according to Marx

Have already done so. I have no need to repeat myself and I won't provide any more reliable sources so long as I keep being accused of doing so. I would rather start a blog or website on the subject and provide all the sources there (where they can't be removed by apologists for Marxist terrorism). Wikipedia isn't everything, you know.

Above all, not only have you failed to show that Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky doesn't refer to terror. You have also failed to show why the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, and other sources should be excluded from this article/discussion in favor of apologist sources. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, your last response to me contains the following: "...it is you who have to produce evidence in support of your view that sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Robert Service should be excluded...". Can you please indicate where I've suggested that either source should not be included? My only comments on these sources has related to your use of them to synthesise your 'formulae' and other original research. Please do not antagonise people further by making false statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you stated anywhere that they SHOULD be included? If not, then you have indirectly opposed their inclusion by ganging up with those who routinely dismiss and suppress them. As for me "antagonizing" you, the fact is you are antagonizing yourself. That's why you call yourself "AndyTheGrump", isn't it??? Justus Maximus (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough. I see no reason why we should tolerate this any longer. Can someone more experienced with Wiki than me advise of the correct procedure for dealing with baseless personal attacks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA here is were you need to start mark (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, mark. I'd probably best let things cool off a bit, and then consider taking this further, if Justus Maximus is unwilling to retract his remarks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to admit sometimes WP:SPAs are rather creative. The best way to cool things off is not to enable them. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

He is a newbie and it is a little premature to speak about him as a SPA. However, he is definitely rude and not prone to listen other's arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk)

I'd suggest everybody cool down, and remember don't bite the newbies. I'd certainly say it's a bit premature to start accusing the user of being a troll, SPA, sock puppet or the like. New users are not as likely to be aware of wikipedia policy and etiquette, but veteran editors ought to know to assume good faith. This has tended to be a controversial article but it is unlikely to go away. I'd suggest we take a more collaborative approach. Although I stuck my nose in briefly recently, I haven't been following the recent controversies. As someone who is, I suspect, closer to Justus Maximus' point of view, perhaps I could help reach a consensus. I will try to be more partial than usual. ; ) Mamalujo (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You probably meant "impartial" ;) Otherwise, any constructive suggestions are welcome. (Igny (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes, assuming you meant 'impartial' Mamalujo, can I concur that we'd do as well to work collaboratively, and on that note, can I suggest that your recent edit to the lede adding "at it's apogee, communism was the major source of international terrorism" really could do with a better source than a book which seems from a quick look to be on another topic. (oh, and BTW, you seem to have had an attack of the dreaded Greengrocers' apostrophe - they plague us all from time to time ;) )AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm "partial" to the Greengrocers' apostrophe. I'm not unaware of the rules of grammar and punctuation. In editing here I usually go quickly, and I don't usually take much care in those matters. After all, we're not being paid for it. My edits usually have typos and other errors. I sometimes catch them, myself. Thanks for catching it, though.Mamalujo (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I point this out to the experienced editors:

Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context.It's a jungle out there and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter." To avoid being accused of biting, try to:

1. Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good, etc.).
2. Moderate your approach and wording.
3. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
4. Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
5. Strive to respond in a measured manner.
6. Wait and postpone editing as soon as you feel that you're upset.
7. Be gracious.
8. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
9. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
10. Reciprocate where necessary.
11. Listen actively.
12. Avoid Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
13. Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them.

Standard welcome/warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning.

Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked easily, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia.

Bobanni (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree with that, but its a two way process and requires some listening on the other parties behalf. Most other editors who behaved in the manner above would have been an ANI a long time ago, people have been tolerant of a new editor but patience is wearing thin --Snowded ^TALK 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you Bobanni, up to a point, being a newcomer myself who got labelled a 'vandal' after deleting part of this article for precisely the reasons we've been debating for the last days - original research, unsourced statements, and out-of-context half-quotations. There have to be limits though, and when trying to discuss a controversial subject, an editor, new or otherwise, who refuses to accept any viewpoint other than his own as being evidence for anything except Marxist cabals, and repeatedly refers to others' actions as 'suppression', 'fraudulent', 'lies' and evidence for support of terrorism, I see no reason to 'Assume good faith'. Indeed, I'd be totally irrational to do so. Justus Maximus clearly either (a) doesn't understand how Wikipedia editing is done, or (b) doesn't care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you were not labelled a "vandal", but your deletion was reverted by a bot with the notation "Reverting possible vandalism by AndyTheGrump". TFD (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather off-topic, but to set the record straight, user Access_Denied wrote that my edits "constitute vandalism" on a comment he left on my talk page (I've not deleted it). From what I've been able to ascertain, they didn't according to Wikipedia policy, even if I was wrong to make them in the way I did. Of no great importance to me though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley placed a welcome template on the user's page on Oct. 5th with links to WP policy. I placed a welcome template on Oct. 10th explaining that the talk page should not used for general discussion of topics. mark nutley then advised him of WP:SOAP. The correct use of talk pages has been mentioned to him many times on the talk page. But no one should need to mention to him that personal attacks are unacceptable. I waited 7 days following mark nutley's advice to him before going to ANI. Your suggestion that other editors are "biting the newcomers" is insulting and disingenuous, and may in fact encourage this "new editor"'s disruptive behavior. TFD (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I have provided the material you requested. See section on Objectivity of the Discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the sources that Martintg and mark nutley have presented, I recommend re-naming the article "Left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange as the sources i have used in this article and presented here describe communist terrorism so i would have to oppose this rename proposal mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m guessing that question is for TFD yes? mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You mentioned some "sources you have". Please, explain what concretely do you mean, because at least Valentino does nor support your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see which sources TFD seems to think support left wing over communist, i`ll not waste my time posting up links when they may not be the right ones mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley has presented this source ("Extreme Left Terrorism") and martintg's book [] (Understanding terrorism) also discusses left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one with the list of communist terrorist groups and which has Some groups endorsed dogmatic forms of Marxism-Leninism in it? I fail to see how a source which describes communist terrorism and left wing extremism can be justification for renaming an article mark nutley (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So what distinguishes 'communist terrorism' from other 'left wing terrorism', Mark. If people are doing much the same thing for much the same reasons, why do they need a different article just because they claim allegiance to a particular ideology. Actually, from what I can see, if one wanted to break down 'left wing terrorism' this way, one could probably do the same with 'communist terrorism': the 'communist terrorists' listed almost all seem to be Maoists, in as much as they have any discernible ideology at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about communist terrorism, not left wing terrorists. The groups are different after all, unless you are saying all left wing groups are communist of course? Of the 23 listed within the article how many are Maoists? And is Maoism suddenly not communist for some reason? mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an argument. The article's scope and its name can be changed. In addition, you are simply wrong. The Leftist terrorism currently redirects to here, implying that these two things are the same. What we really need to do is to move all the article's context there, to expand accordingly and to convert communist terrorism into a redirect to the leftist terrorism. We also need to add more about leftist and noncommunist terrorist movements (like Socialist-Revolutionary Party) and about the position of Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) who condemned terrorist tactics of the laters. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yours is not an argument at all, are you using a redirect on wikipedia as a reason to rename an article? Just because you assume this implies they are the same does not make it so. Perhaps a few reliable sources saying left wing groups are all communist would do the job? Be bad publicity for the Greens and Labour Party mind mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, respect your opponents and try to understand their point before posting your answers. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate support for or oppose to below. TFD (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to rename the article. You are absolutely free to do what I proposed: to move the content to the Leftist terrorism article mutatis mutandi, expand it adding Narodnaya volya etc., and to make the current article either a redirect page or a daughter artilce. Per WP policy you don't have to wait for a consensus for doing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As this is a potentially controversial move per WP:RM i have listed it for wider community input mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That will not be a move, because no article will be renamed as a result of that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a general section (or sections) on the general subject itself, its nature and history. There have been a number of attempts to do that over the history of this article but they have been met with strenuous objection by a number of editors. I have attempted in good faith to draft such a section. I have attempted to be impartial and sourced the material to reliable sources - mostly general works on terrorism. Your input would be appreciated. Mamalujo (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide us with a source that explains what this article is supposed to be about. TFD (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me summarize this section.

Marx Terrorism. Terrorism Marx. Terrorism Lenin. Terrorism Mao. Terrorism terrorism. Terrorism terrorism? Terror. Terrorism.

All, I repeat, all sentences contain the word terrorism. I can say, you did a fine job googling for the word terrorism together with other keywords such as marx, mao, etc. Unless you find an article putting those profound thoughts together in one place and discuss the connections, this is pure synthesis. (Igny (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

"I have attempted to be impartial". Really? I'd have thought that given the contentious nature of the topic, 'impartiality' would require discussion on this talk page before making such a major edit. I see no particular reason for not reverting it. At least try to achieve consensus first.

As TFD says, without agreement over what 'the general subject' is, a section that attempts to define 'origins', or anything similar, is premature. This disagreement seems to have plagued the article from its own 'origins', possibly because it isn't actually about 'a subject', so much as an argument about what its subject should be AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Further to that, the edit is badly-written, with spelling mistakes and a general lack of logical structure. It reads more like a shopping-list than anything else. I'd struggle to even describe such a random collection of statements as a 'synthesis'AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source reads, "This deterministic view of history was to leave its mark on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and would be exploited by Marxist-leaning totalitarian regimes to legitimize their actions, including the use of terror". Mamalujo has rephrased this sentence as, "The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism". That is a total distortion of the passage. Could you please not misrepresent the sources. TFD (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even without the questionable interpretation of the source, I think the statement itself is bizarre: "The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism". Given the link to the Wikipedia article on determinism, one can only assume it suggests that either Marxists believed they had no free will not to justify terrorism, or alternatively that the terrorism would have occurred whether the Marxists justified it or not, in which case why should they have to bother? Or is this just a random conjunction of two entirely different concepts in the same sentence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see why Justus Maximus is having trouble. To Igny, it is most certainly not synthesis. Please read the sources I have cited. My edit is not saying anything other than what the sources say. It does not combine sources in a way to reach conclusions which are not found in the sources. As to readability, typos, spelling errors, I plead guilty. Of course, that is easily fixed. I don't think impartiality usually requires discussion before editing - I prefer wp:BRD. It seems some of the objections are the hackeneyed and meritless "there is no such thing as communist terrorism or marxist terrorism". The problem which that complain is that is contrary to the sources. To TFD, I don't think it was an unfair paraphrase. I certainly didn't intend it. How would you paraprase that info from the source (also in light of the few previous sentences in the source)? Mamalujo (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is clearly saying that the deterministic view of history was utilized by Marxist leaning totalitarian states to justify terrorism. If you've got a problem with the phrasing, edit it to comport with the source. Mamalujo (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"My edit is not saying anything other than what the sources say. It does not combine sources in a way to reach conclusions which are not found in the sources". Ok, so which single source says all that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source refers to terror used by totalitarian regimes, which you have changed to terrorism. while the source is referring to actions by governments, you have changed that to terrorism, the actions of small groups. In no sense does the source say that Marx defended bomb-throwing etc. This is just synthesis to connect modern terrorist groups with Marxist theory by misstating the sources. TFD (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I think you are misunderstanding synthesis. A single source is not require to say in whole what the article or any section of the article says. All that is require is that sources are not combined to say something that the sources don't. TFD - your argument is not correct. Take a look. The sources are talking about terrorism and terror. Most of the sources are general works on terrorism - they do not make the false dichotomy which you make. Mamalujo (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mamalijo, I think he does not. The text proposed by you creates a wrong impression that it reflects a mainstream opinion. In addition, it mix state terror and revolutionary terrorism. BTW, you mix the etymology of the word with the origin of the phenomenon: according to other sources, revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger or even in Harmodius and Aristogeiton ^[1], zealots and assasins ^[2], not in Reign of Terror.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism" It would be interesting to see how concretely this source prove such an odd statement. Marx's and Engels' theory about the role of an individual in history directly contradicts to that.

"After World War II Marxist-Leninist groups seeking independence, like nationalists" Nonsense. Either "Marxist-Leninist" or "nationalist", because Marxism directly rejected nationalism.

In general, the new section is poorly written and should be removed: Wikipedia is constantly being read, and such nonsenses simply discredit it. What concretely should be done is:

1. The section "Origin of revolutionary terrorism" (without connection to Marxism: Harmodius and Aristogeiton, zealots, assasins, Reign of Terror (Robespierre & Co), Narodnaya Volya(Nechaev & Co), Socialist Revolutionary party, Carbonari, etc.
2. Add the section to the end of the article that states that, according to some scholars and political writers, Communist terror should also be considered as a terrorism. After that, a brief discussion of state terror (including the refs to the Encyclopedia of terrorism, Servise, Pipes, Conquest etc) should follow. If noone wants to write that I can try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Andy, I think you are misunderstanding synthesis. A single source is not require to say in whole what the article or any section of the article says. All that is require is that sources are not combined to say something that the sources don't". Wrong: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" WP:SYN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have posted my disagreement to the NOR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the text form the article here. I propose to re-write it, to extend as explained above, to split and to place the first part in the article's beginning and the second part in the article's end (the latter as as the opinion of some scholars). IMO, that will resole neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems the only sensible course - rewrite, reach a consensus (or at least a WIP approximation) and then resume the usual custard-pie-fight. It was all getting rather silly anyway, after Mamalujo responded to my suggestion that his link to determinism was problematic by amending the link to instead lead to an article on Parametric determinism. I'd have been interested to see how he justified using this to explain how a theory advanced by a philosopher born in 1923 could be relevant to the 'origins of terrorism', Marxist or otherwise, but I'll never know. (I'm off to bed now, so I'll leave it to the rest of you) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I could only find one hit for ""Parametric determinism" terrorism" on Google scholar, although the article does not discuss the two together. I would be interested if Mamalujo could provide any sources on parametric determinism and terrorism. TFD (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion on this page which has got us off-track. The article is about groups that claim to be Communist/communist, which is grouped under "left-wing terrorism" in the literature. Left-wing terrorists may contain any combination of Marxist, anarchist or other left-wing ideology. Rather than look at sources for Marxism, we would be better to use the literature on left-wing terrorism to explain how these terrorists interpret Marx. Whether their interpretation is correct is not more relevant than whether Mormons are correct about the life of Jesus. In the meantime, I recommend moving this article to "Left-wing terrorism" so that we can resolved the inherent OR and POV problems. TFD (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the problem. Some want the article to be about terrorist groups that claim to be communist, but others want it to be about how Marxism is inherently a terrorist philosophy. The first ('terrorist/communist' groups) are a real phenomenon, and clearly merit an article. The second ('Marxism = terrorism') is another issue, about an academic debate. At least it would be if academics engaged in it. Though a few have, it isn't exactly a major debating point, as far as I'm aware, because it is such an abstraction that any reasonable conclusion reached would be so full of provisos as to be worthless.

I'm inclined to think that an article on 'left-wing terrorism' which included the 'terrorist/communist' groups in the existing article, along with other non 'communist' leftist terrorist groups, would be worthwhile. As to whether another article on the alleged continuity between Marx's ideas and modern-day terrorism is justified, I'd say it would need a better standard of evidence, and more reliable sources, than has been evident so far. In particular, it needs a reliable source that discusses the concept the hypothetical article is about. Then, of course, the question as to whether this viewpoint is widely accepted by scholars of the subject would need to be discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter what they want. What the sources tell is more important.

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

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)

It is a problem though, not only here but elsewhere; a small group of editors who are convinced that marxism=communism and that either or both ideologically imply terrorism, In all cases use of selected source material and OR is a characteristic of those editors involved. A move would help resolve that and would be easier to handle anyway as leftist terrorism or similar is a more coherent. SO I agree move it. --Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We should use the terminology in the literature which in this case is "left-wing terrorism". This source says that it is also referred to as "Marxist-Leninist terrorism". I believe we should always follow the most commonly used term, and note that no sources refer to it as "Communist/communist terrorism". Most sources say that these groups may combine Marxist and other ideologies, which is another reason not to call them Marxist-Leninist. As for the other topic, if you can find it described as a subject then by all means create an article, first checking to see if one already exists. TFD (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If that was to me its misplaced, I am happy with left-wing terrorism --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Google counts" are not a valid argument in any case. moreover shows it as a topic of Trotsky. Not a right-winger for sure. The problem of revolution, as of war, consists in breaking the will of the foe, forcing him to capitulate and to accept the conditions of the conqueror. The will, of course, is a fact of the physical world, but in contradistinction to a meeting, a dispute, or a congress, the revolution carries out its object by means of the employment of material resources – though to a less degree than war. The bourgeoisie itself conquered power by means of revolts, and consolidated it by the civil war. In the peaceful period, it retains power by means of a system of repression. As long as class society, founded on the most deep-rooted antagonisms, continues to exist, repression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side. is pretty clear, I would think. The more ferocious and dangerous is the resistance of the class enemy who have been overthrown, the more inevitably does the system of repression take the form of a system of terror. More so. But the revolution does require of the revolutionary class that it should attain its end by all methods at its disposal – if necessary, by an armed rising: if required, by terrorism. The "ism" word appears directly. If human life in general is sacred and inviolable, we must deny ourselves not only the use of terror, not only war, but also revolution itself. Get the point that Trotsky is making that "terrorism" is a legitimate and necessary part of a Communist regime? And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron. Enough? As for the article name - did you review RD232's reasoning for changing the aricle name? I think that is the first step, indeed. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not "Google counts", but "Google Scholar counts", which reflect the most common terminology used by scholars. In addition, your "in any case" implies that your assertion is self-evident, whereas in actuality it isn't. Re Trotsky, it is a primary source, and it has no relation to the terrorist groups that acted after his death.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky is a primary source, and our reading of his works are irrelevant to the article. Also, Collect, Trotsky died before any of the terrorist groups mentioned in the article were created. TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter what Trotsky said, the Red Brigades & Co belong to the "Left wing terrorism", because this term is more commonly used by scholars. If the proof of the opposite will not be provided in close future (within one week), the article will be moved.

In addition, since the article currently states that the roots of revolutionary (and, indirectly Communist/Leftist) terrorism are in the French Revolution, it is worth mentioning that, whereas Marxism didn't exist by that time, the term "left-wing" appeared exactly during the French revolution and it was applied to Jacobins.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article in current form has to be moved to left wing terrorism. All possible discussion about a connection to ideologies, including communism is just a section there (and not named origin or history but something like commentary, discussion, or debate, as in "scholars debate that..." with proper citations and attributions, rather than statements of facts). All debates on marxism= terrorism belong to revolutionary terror. (Igny (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

What we need is just to switch redirects: instead of Leftist terrorism -> Communist terrorism do vice versa. Incidentally, since NPOV is not a subject of consensus, the question is not in agreement vs disagreement, but in relative abundance of terms "communist terrorism" and "leftist terrorism" in a context of the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense, Paul. The current situation, where 'leftist terrorism' redirects to 'communist terrorism' is nonsensical in any case - it implies that there is no 'non-communist leftist terrorism' which is patently untrue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

there is no agreement for a move, and the above move discussion is still open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.7 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) And 358 hits "Communist terrorist" 287 hits "Leftist terrorist" on books 4,230 hits "Communist terrorist" 1,650 hits "Leftist terrorist" so what does your google hit numbers say about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.7 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re consensus. Neutrality policy cannot be superseded by editors' consensus.

Re scholar search. The search details have been provided. Since "leftist terrorism" and "left wing terrorism" are interchangeable, it would be more correct to do the following: . Since the article is about "terrorism" (a phenomenon), not "terrorists" (persons), my search is more adequate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask anyone who opposes the move how they propose to rectify the nonsensical redirect? Creation of a 'non-communist leftist terrorism' article and a disambiguation page would seemingly solve the problem, except that finding a NPOV source that justified the distinction might prove difficult. It seems to me that the existing redirect is either blatant POV, or more likely the result of not considering Wikipedia as a logical whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

communism and leftism are not the same thing, unless greenpeace are communist? and the sierra club of course. It is possible to have an article on left wing terrorism as well as this, that guy who attacked the discovery building was a left wing terrorist

Collect, I read the administrator Rd232's "reasoning for changing the article name". It was "no consensus" to move it from the current title. The vote was three to one. The three editors voting to keep it here were all mentioned in the "Eastern European Mailing List" case. How is this a first step? TFD (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If our anonymous IP cares to check, he will find that "left wing terrorist" gives 539 hits on Google scholar: Left wing terrorist. 'Left wing' is evidently used more often than 'leftist', perhaps unsurprisingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IP, you are referring to Eco-terrorism, which is not classified as political terrorism. Presumably members of an eco-terrorist group could hold different views on political issues such as tax rates, Sunday shopping, gun control, etc. TFD (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are, by WP policy and guidelines, perfectly acceptable to indicate what someone wrote. And I would note that Trotsky did not die before terrorism was used by Stalin, Lenin et al. So much for that sort of cavil. Collect (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I said "Trotsky died before any of the terrorist groups mentioned in the article were created". Read the article. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Shining Path, FARC, ETA, Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, etc. were not formed in Trotsky's lifetime. And while he may be used as a source for his views, I hope that does not mean that you are going to edit all the articles about capitalism, the United States, the Tea Party, etc., adding the views of Comrade Trotsky. He does not have the authority that you seem to ascribe. TFD (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that Trotsky died as a result of terrorism used by Stalin, but that would perhaps bring into question whether Stalin necessarily agreed with Trotsky's opinion on the subject. In any case, arguments about whether communist X or Y supported terrorism are irrelevant to a discussion of how left-wing terrorism in general needs to be treated in Wikipedia. What do you propose should be done about the nonsensical redirect, Collect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to any move or rename. It is obviously a controversial move for which there is no consensus. People here were telling me I need consensus to add two paragraphs, if that is the case (actually it isn't), then a move or rename would definitely need consensus. Leftist terrorism is a broader concept. It would be an overbroad moniker for the material in this article. If leftist terrorism is an appropriate article, then someone can write the article with a link here. Mamalujo (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source that says "Marxist-Leninist terrorism" is more commonly called "Left-wing terrorism". If you have a source that says it is more commonly called "Communist/communist terrorism" then please provide one. TFD (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "It is obviously a controversial move for which there is no consensus." This name does not reflect a majority POV ("leftist/left-wing terrorism" is used more frequently by scholars to describe the groups discussed in the article). As I already noted, that fact is sufficient for move, because neutrality requirements cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Re "People here were telling me I need consensus to add two paragraphs..." The problem is not with the paragraphs themselves, but with the way you did that. Instead of presenting these facts as opinions of some concrete authors, you pretended that you reflect a mainstream POV. In addition, you incorrectly transmitted what the authors say. One way or the another, I didn't propose to remove these para, just to re-write, extend and add into the different place in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A further point: 'right-wing terrorism' redirects to terrorism. If this article is to remain named 'communist terrorism', the redirect for 'left-wing terrorism' should also point to 'terrorism', surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

By the criteria proposed above the move/rename is not warranted. Google books produced 4080 results when searching for "communist terrorism" and only 1570 for "leftist terrorism". Google scholar produced 259 results when searching for "communist terrorism" and only 234 for "leftist terrorism". And this also fails to account for variations in phraseology. Sometimes scholars use, or intermitantly use, the term Marxist when discussing a category of terrorist which are exclusively communist. Mamalujo (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, carefully read previous posts. Since "left-wing" and "leftist" are used as synonyms, correct search would be ""Left wing terrorism" OR "leftist terrorism"" & .

In addition, just to count the frequency of these two terms is not sufficient. What is more important that much more sources use "left/leftist terrorism" and do not use "Communist terrorism" in a context of, e.g. IRA then, conversely, use "Communist terrorism" and do not use "left/leftist terrorism". In other words, no matter how frequently the words "Communist terrorism" are used, they are used much less frequently then the term "left wing/leftist terrorism" is used for description of XX century terrorist groups (Red Brigades, ETA, IRA, etc).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, before wandering into these debates could you please read some of the sources for the topic. You have failed to present a single book that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" to describe the groups written about in this article. TFD (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is always easy to win an argument when you define the terms. Unfortunately I do not grant your premise. Despite your weak etymological objection, communist terror is usually used as a synonym, for example here. If you include those in the count the count for communist terrorism is higher. Also, as I mentioned leftist terrorism is overbroad. Communist terrorism would be a subcategory of that. So write that article, include a subsection on communist terrorism and within that subsection you can have a link to the main article, here. @TFD, I'm not just wandering into this argument. I am a long time contributor to this article. In fact, I created it. Mamalujo (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, since you suggest that 'communist terrorism' is a subcategory of 'leftist terrorism' (to which I concur), I'd be interested to learn why you created the subcategory article first - not that it matters really, if we end up with a genuine 'leftist terrorism' article that either links to a 'communist terrorism' one, or that discusses the subcategories itself. Having established that 'communist terrorism' is a subcategory, can we agree that as such, it cannot logically include topics not contained within the main category - ultimately 'terrorism', and that any arguments about the scope of the term 'terrorism' should be decided there, rather than on a piecemeal basis for each subcategory article? I think this would resolve a lot of the disagreements that have plagued this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I do not see any of the sources saying that it is a subcategory and just provided one that says it is the same thing. I suppose it must be hard for experts to determine if some crackpot who reads a diverse amount of literature, which he understands in an ideosyncatic way and commits an act of terrorism is a communist or non-communist terrorist. TFD (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You have found one book that uses the term "communist terror" on one page. It never provides a definition of "communist terrorism". Also the book was written for the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and published outside the academic mainstream. Can you please provide a reliable source that supports your definition of "Communist/communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, please, refrain from personall attacks. I always play honestly. Even if we take into account "Communist terror" (and, accordingly, "Left wing terror") the situation does not change. For ""Red brigades" "communist terror" OR "communist terrorism" -"left wing terrorism" -"left wing terror"" 11 results , for ""Red brigades" "left wing terrorism" OR "left wing terror" -"communist terror" -"communist terrorism"" 319 results . Note, I even didn't try "leftist". Independently of how frequently the words "Communist terrorism" are used in the literature, Red Brigades must be moved to the "Leftist terrorism" article. And the situation is the same for Shining Path, IRA, ETA etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's analyse the article sectionwise:

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: . Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 vs
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 vs .
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 vs
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" and only 4 for "Communist" .
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 vs
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: vs
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: vs ...

I think, it is senseless to continue. Every article's section I checked belongs to "Left wing terrorism", not to "Communist terrorism" article, according to sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly arguable, however, that "communist" IS "left wing" and, in the present context, vice versa. In any case the article should have a section on Marxist ideology connected to terrorism. We can't really have an article that gives the impression that communist movements fell out of the sky and have nothing to do with communist ideology. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is arguable, then, please, propose real arguments, not just speculations. The statement on vice versa is not clear, even in the present context. The article does not need to describe the origin of communist movements, because the article's subject is much more narrow, namely, the groups of Leftist terrorists, which, according to some (minority) sources are considered Communist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at the use of the term "Communist" then one sees it is used almost exclusively to refer to parties that were part of the Communist International. It is not used to refer to the Social Democratic Party of Germany even though until 1959 it was officially Marxist. I agree with Justus Maximus that the article should explain the ideology of left-wing terrorism. But we are more interested in knowing about how Marxism was interpreted by the Red Brigades, rather than how it was interpreted by the Communist Party of Italy. And the sources we must use are articles about left-wing terrorism not books about Communism or even worse, books by Communist leaders. TFD (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not 'perfectly' arguable , however, that 'communist' IS 'left wing' - it is part of history, as in Spain in the 1930s, and Orwell pointed out, that 'Communist terror' WAS right wing, counter revolutionary. Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Orwell did not call them right-wing, he referred to the Daily Worker as a "left-wing paper" and to Communists as part of the "left-wing forces". What is instructive however is that he used the term "Communist" to refer to the Communist Party, not to other Marxist-Leninists, e.g., the Trotskyists. Under that usage, none of the groups listed in this article would be called "Communist terrorists", rather they would be "Marxist-Leninist terrorists", which are more commonly called "left-wing terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Orwell in a letter to Frank Jellinek, 20 december 1938 " what complicates it and enormously increases the feeling of bitterness it causes is that the capitalist press will on the whole throw its weight on the communist side of the controversy..since about 1936 the attitude towards them in the democratic countries is very different. communist doctrine in its present form appeals to wealthy people, at least some wealthy people, and they have a very strong footing in the press in both england and France.. etc" In fact the Communist 'line' veered all over the place in this period, it was unprincipled, what Stalinism was is well known now, as Orwell continued in the same letter " I am not a marxist and I don't hold with all this stuff that boils down to saying 'Anything is right which advances the cause of the Party.' So in 1939 that was the pact with Hitler and helping Hitler defeat France in 1940, and in 1941 it was the Great Patriotic War - orwell saw them as the unprincipled people they were. " the Communist viewpoint and the Right-wing Socialist viewpoint could everywhere be regarded as identical." homage to catalonia, ch 6. Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

None of that says that Orwell claimed the Communists were right-wing and even if he had it would be irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Orwell was a writer, not a scholar, so the reference to him is irrelevant. Moreover, any reference to some particular schoral is irrelevant, because I have demonstrated that the scholars in general prefer to use "left wing", not "Communist" to describe terrorist groups discussed in the article. Based on that, the article's content should be moved to the Leftist terrorism (which, for some odd reasons is currently just a redirect page). That is necessary to do to meet neutrality criteria, which cannot be superseded by any consensus (therefore, various "oppose" are simply irrelevant). The only thing that may prevent that would be if someone demonstrated that the results of my search were not correct or not objective, and provided his own more objective evidences that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Orwell was writing about the "Communist Party". None of the groups listed in the article were Communist parties or had any official relationship with the Communists and therefore whatever he thought about Communists does not apply to them. TFD (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does not need to describe the origin of communist movements'

No one has suggested that. It ought to be obvious that I'm referring to the origin of the ideology that motivated the terrorist movements considered Communist. As observed by numerous sources, this ideology is not unconnected with Marxist theories. I would also like to remind you that the article is about Communist terrorism and this should be reflected by the discussion and arguments used in it. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)