Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:00, 2 March 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communist terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communist terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Communist terrorism was copied or moved into Revolutionary terror with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Communist terrorism was copied or moved into Left-wing terrorism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Communist terrorism was copied or moved into Terrorism and The Soviet Union with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Communist terrorism was copied or moved into Left-wing terrorism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

A 1RR restriction is now in effect

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, and after a discussion at WP:AE I am placing this article under 1RR. No editor may revert this article more than once in any 24-hour period. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. Violations of the 1RR may be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for new lede

Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).

These groups, which Dennis Pluchinsky states found their ideological guide in Marxism- Leninism and the 13 principles he has identified which believes form the core of their ideology are.

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

Suggestions for improvements

The above content is taken from a blocked users page but was mentioned above so I took a look at it. Tentontunic (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake's typology does not appear to be standard. The term "Communist Terrorist", or "CT", normally refers to insurgent groups in the Malayan emergency. TFD (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Having looked into this I would have to disagree, the term has been used to refer to actions in Vietnam, Cambodia, the USSR, Europe, South America, North America, Africa and Japan. Do you believe the source fails WP:RS? Tentontunic (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that refer to both the Vietnamese insurgency and the "fighting communist organizations" as communist terrorism? Do you have any sources that say that "fighting communist organizations" are normally called "Communist terrorists" and not some other name, for example "fighting Communist organizations? Because articles are supposed to be about topics, not the usage of words to describe different things. TFD (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again, and please focus on the question, do you believe the source fails WP:RS? Tentontunic (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask whether the 'blocked user' was User:marknutley? If so I'd point out that there have been questions concerning copyright regarding this text, not to mention the issue of using content from a banned user. I think it would be highly questionable to use the text, even if it were acceptable (it isn't, in my opinion, but that is another issue). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this content was taken from his talk page . It was mentioned above by Silver Seren. Why do you think it is a copyright violation when it is on his talk page? Tentontunic (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Gather the copyvio evidence and see if the edits to remove it can be made without removing factual material from the article. Mark was not blocked for anything to do with this article. Nor is he a "banned" user. "Banned" has a specific meaning on WP. Collect (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, there is no suggestion here to remove content, rather to add in fact. Please look above Suggestion for new lede. The content there is from the blocked users talk page. Tentontunic (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the "there have been questions concerning copyright regarding this text, not to mention the issue of using content from a banned user" to mean that material from a "banned user" should be eliminated (which is pretty clearly a "removal" of content). As the person is not banned, the suggestion is ill-founded. WP does not delete material from non-banned users. Collect (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I take that to mean you support inclusion of the suggested content? Tentontunic (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=411657137&oldid=411656731 and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Blocked user Marknutley claiming a copyright violation.. I think that Mark may have started to draft the article here, then continued on the Mises Wiki. Given the comments at AN/I, I suspect we'd do as well not to use his early draft either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That would appear to deal with the fighting communist organizations, not this article. If you follow his link to Mises you will see he has created an Communist terrorism article as well as one about the fighting communist organizations. As this content is already on this wiki I see no issue with copyright. Do you have any other objects? Tentontunic (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)MN set this up as a proposal with refs - I actually think that the refs may reasonably be used without any conceivable problems, and I would suggest that some of the material is far too detailed for a lede (though not for the body of an article). Thus, the cavil is moot from my point of view. Note also that the WP copyright license would require, at most, that we credit the editor in the article edit history - which I think is a prudent and simple thing to accomplish (WP simply says that edit histories should credit the editors involved). Is that an onerous thing to do? I do not feel the material, as written, makes for a good lede. Collect (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the 'edit history' might be problematic - some of it seems familiar, and may be from an earlier Misplaced Pages article. The sourcing is inadequate, as Collect notes. I'd think we'd also have to confirm whether the 'Dennis Pluchinsky' bullet points are actually a paraphrase, and not a copy, before we used them - Mark wasn't always as careful with sourcing as he should have been, and this was only ever a draft. In any case, no, I do not think it is a suitable lede: it looks like synthesis AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which parts do you think are synthesis? The Pluchinsky points are in a blockquote, I assume this means it is in fact a direct quote. Tentontunic (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake never uses the term "communist terrorism" and uses the term "communist terrorists" only six times. His book uses the term "left-wing terrorism" 20 times and left-wing terrorists four times. It would appear that he is describing left-wing terrorism, and his book would be a reliable source for that article. TFD (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, are you seriously saying that Drake talking of communist terrorists means he is not speaking of communist terrorism? Tentontunic (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) The name has been discussed at length. Over and over and over. Always with the same results. Iterating arguments about the article name is tendentious at this point entirely. Collect (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that Drake's book uses the terms "communist terrorism" or "communist terrorists" only six times, while it uses the terms "left-wing terrorism" or "left-wing terrorists" 24 times. It would appear that he is describing left-wing terrorism, and his book would be a reliable source for that article. TFD (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point is flawed, your guess at what Drake is describing is WP:OR, he clearly defines "Communist Terrorists" in the book, thus a more than suitable source for this article. Tentontunic (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out the obvious, please. the lead of the article is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. the current body of the article contains basically nothing, and even the current lead is probably inappropriately long and detailed. What you've given above is the typology established by one author (Pluchinsky) and I see no evidence that this typology is widely accepted in any particular academic discipline. In other words, there are notability concerns for the entire article. In fact, the whole idea here seems to be to lump a wide variety of disparate behaviors (insurgent campaigns, military interdictions, governmental crackdowns, independent acts of violence from ideological crackpots, etc.) under the rubric 'terrorism' explicitly because they have an identifiable connection to communism, and thus can be used to defame communism. very 1960's antidisestablishmentarianist, which is cool in its own way, but unfortunately too OR-ish for wikipedia.--Ludwigs2 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Um - perhaps you think that removal of content by editors then becomes an argument for deletion of an article? Did you note the dab deletion at all? Give this article an opportunity to have material added before trying deletion again, please. Collect (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, are you arguing that Pluchinsky is fringe? He has authored several books on terrorism and is cited in hundreds of others he is a highly respected scholar in this field. Could you please point out were you believe the WP:OR is in the suggested lede. Tentontunic (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pluchinsky does not use the term "communist terrorism" but "fighting communist organizations". TFD (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And the "fighting communist organizations" are? Also please respond above to 15:30, 12 February 2011. Tentontunic (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, since "fighting" ≠ "terrorism" "fighting communist organizations" ≠ "terrorist communist organisations". Let's stick with the terminology used by the sources.

Secondly, re "your guess at what Drake is describing is WP:OR", let me point out that "original research" means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. In other words, it has a relation to the article namespace, not to the talk pages.

Thirdly, the "removal" of the content was in actuality a move of this content to the more appropriate article (based on what majority sources say). Majority, and sometimes an "overwhelming majority of sources dealing with each separate topic that had been moved (not removed from Misplaced Pages) use the term "left-wing terrorism", and not "communist terrorism" to describe those topics. Accordingly, we had to move the materials to the more appropriate article.

Fourthly, and lastly, I strongly advise all newcomers to read the talk page archives to avoid repetition of the same arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PS I added a {Round In Circles|search=yes} template to this talk page. Please, read the archives before re-opening the discussion about this issue .--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly "fighting" ≠ "terrorism" "fighting communist organizations" ≠ "terrorist communist organisations" read Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations

Secondly "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" Are you saying Terrorists Target Selection is not a reliable source?

Thirdly please focus on the suggested edit, not the past. Tentontunic (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm suggesting that we work on the body of the article first, and rewrite the lead later after we see what the body contains. We should not try to dictate what the article by writing an OR lead and tryng to construct a body to fit. let's find some nice references for communist terrorism, write the body, and then worry about what the lead says. how does that sound? --Ludwigs2 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 in this section above, both yourself and The Four Deuces asked for a definition of communist terrorism for this article, now that they have been provided we see obfuscation and pointless argument. The references provided in the suggested lede above can also be used to expand the article. There is in fact no shortage of such sources. I have not seen you suggest any additions to the article, please do so now. Tentontunic (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic: first warning on personal attacks. it would be taken as a sign of good faith for you to refactor the attacks you made in the previous post

I haven't been on this page in something like a month, so I don't really remember what I said above, and don't really care. I'm offering you a better approach to this problem: let's work to create a body for the article, and worry about the lead after we have done so. I'm not judging your source (aside from the fact that I don't currently think it's particularly mainstream).

If you are interested in developing this page, I suggest you take my suggestion to heart so that we can move forward productively. If you continue with the kind of post you just made, that's fine, but please note that I will start asking for administrative sanctions after the third waning. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please point out this personal attack that I might redact it. If you do not care about what you have said before then why would you say it? This makes little sense to me. Now instead of threatening me with administrative actions for perceived slights perhaps you would suggest an addition to the article. Tentontunic (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of "obfuscation and pointless argument" when I am offering a productive direction for discussion. please strike that now. In general, please keep focused on content, and avoid making any comments whatsoever about other editors, and I will endeavor to do the same. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your confusion, I did not accuse you of anything Ludwigs, I was in fact pointing out that a definition had been asked for, and once one was provided the conversation went downhill, hence the usage of "obfuscation and pointless argument" No attack was meant by this, I believe I was in fact pointing out the obvious. So shall you now suggest a content addition? Or continue to insist this article ought to be deleted? Tentontunic (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this is a non-notable (or barely notable) topic that should be deleted or merged into left-wing terrorism. you seem to think otherwise, so it's your job to provide sources that use the term 'communist terrorism', so that we can see where and how this terminology was used in the literature. that will give us something to discuss. If you cannot provide such sources, then this article will most likely get merged as suggest. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re #1. Again, the fighting organisations can be described as terrorists only if the reliable sources do that explicitly in a context of this concrete organisation. Everything else is WP:OR;

Re #2. That was a response on your attempt to accuse TFD in WP:OR;

Re #3. Please, respect the time of others. Every polite newcomer is supposed to familiarise himself with the previous discussion, because old participants do not have to reproduce the arguments that have already been put forward on the talk page previously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, did you not even bother to read my response to you? Again 1 Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations the clue is in the title. 2 TFD was engaging in WP:OR by second guessing what a reliable source may be describing, especially as the source "Terrorists target selection" specifically says "Communist terrorists". I have looked over the previous discussions, they all seem to end up much like this one has. Tentontunic (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break

In response to Ludwigs from above. The term as it is has been used from the Malayan emergency, Vietnam, the Philippines, Western Europe, acts committed by China, the USSR, Cambodia and some African terrorist groups. I find myself somewhat surprise that you do not know this. Do you require citations or shall you take my word for it? I am of course still awaiting your content proposal based on the source already presented. Tentontunic (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would advise that you give up on this. As can be seen from my attempts in archives 11 and 12, it doesn't matter what evidence or arguments you present, the opposing editors will find some way to refute them, whether their arguments are logical or not. One of the main methods is by ignoring what you say. In light of this, there is no way to actually have a proper discussion. Nothing you present will help with this, that's the problem when you're arguing with users who fundamentally disbelieve in the existence of the subject.

However, if you're going to persist with this, feel free to utilize the information I have conglomerated here. I'm not going to do anything with it anymore. I've washed my hands of this subject. It's just as ridiculous as the Climate change and Israel/Palestine areas of Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 03:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Silver Seren: Focus on content and avoid casting aspersions on editors. If the only argument you have to make is that other editors are being mean to you, then you don't really have an argument at all, do you?

Tentontunic: I've seen the term used (not extensively, but to a notable degree) in reference to the Malaya. I have not seen the term used in other contexts, except here, where wikipedia editors try to argue the concept into existence. please show me specific sources who use the term 'communist terrorism' with respect to "Vietnam, the Philippines, Western Europe, acts committed by China, the USSR, Cambodia and some African terrorist groups" (quoted from above). I understand that you think this term is common; I understand that you think this term applies. However, I want to see it used in sources. is that clear? Sorry to be brusque, but I have wasted far too much time on this page listening to editors like Silver Seren waffle on about this without providing a single source, and I am tired of it.

Misplaced Pages is not the place for you all to make the term 'commnist terrorism' happen - i.e., we're not in the business of rescuing minor jargon from half a century ago and building a case that it is an important and current concept. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The argument you make lost at the AfD. Collect (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect: I don't f%cking care. you cannot use the results of an AfD as a justification for not providing sources. --Ludwigs2 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the request for sources which use the term outside of the Malayan emergency.

Vietnam

The sources below all call specific actions carried out in Vietnam as Communist terrorist actions.

• Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg. Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces. 1st edition. Texas A & M University Press 15 August 2008. ISBN 978-1603440592 pp 185-186
• Randall D. Law. Terrorism: a history. Polity Press 26 August 2009. ISBN 978-0745640389 p 189
• Nghia M. Vo. The bamboo gulag: political imprisonment in communist Vietnam. McFarland & Company 31 December 2003. ISBN 978-0786417148 p 28/29
• T. Louise Brown, War and aftermath in Vietnam. Routledge. 2 May 1991. ISBN 978-0415014038 p 163
• Charles A. Krohn. The lost battalion of Tet: breakout of the 2/12th Cavalry at Hue. Naval Institute Press Rev. Pbk. edition. 15 February 2008. ISBN 978-1591144342 p 126
• Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. La guerre du Vietnam et la société américaine. Presses universitaires de Bordeaux. 1991. ISBN 978-2867811227

Do you require quotes from each source or shall you WP:AGF Tentontunic (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic: we are having a disagreement about the application of this term, and disagreements on wikipedia are resolved by using sources. It's work for me as well as for you - I need to go through and look at these sources to see what they actually say so that I can assess them properly. I don't need a ton of sources, I just need enough to properly assess the prominence of the term in the literature, and the general way in which it's used, so that we can discuss what to do with it. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one questions that the Vietnamese Communists used terrorism as a tactic. Also, in the 1950s and 1960s the term "Communist Terrorists" (CTs), originally applied to the Malayan insurgents, was also applied to other insurgencies in south-east Asia. But none of these actions meet the definition supplied by Drake and are normally seen as nationalist terrorism - terrorism used in order to attain nationalist goals. TFD (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The actions carried out in Vietnam fits perfectly with drakes definition. I doubt you have in fact looked at the sources above given the speed with which you have replied. Ludwigs2, is there anything else you require or do you wish for some time to look at the currently provided sources? Tentontunic (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your first source. The Vietnamese communists used terrorism as part of a strategy to defeat South Vietnam during the Vietnamese war. TFD (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Also note that the NYT used the term "communist terrorism" in the 1940s ... making the claim that it "originally applied to the Malayan insurgents" absurd on its face. ~~

If you looked at the first source, and it says that which you just wrote, then what exactly is your issue? Please note, this refers to Viet Cong, not NVA Tentontunic (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be helpful if you could find a source explaining how the term has been used throughout history and the different meanings used by various writers. (Yes, you are correct, the Malayan emergency began in 1948, and the term CT was developed after the Communists ceased to be our allies. TFD (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to editors here to assert such. All we do is report what reliable sources say, not to interpret what they "mean." Collect (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

These philosophical discussions are not helpful to improving the article. We need reliable sources that explain the use of the term "communist terrorism" not just examples of its use. It seems that we are dealing with a term and its various meanings rather than a generally accepted term. TFD (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD your statement makes little sense, the term was of course used to describe terrorist actions carried out by communist groups. What else would it mean? Tentontunic (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It could mean a tactic used to "overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution." TFD (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you make little sense. You say "But none of these actions meet the definition supplied by Drake" Then quote Drake`s definition. Please be clear in what you are trying to convey, please. Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was quoting your suggestion for the lead that you made above and claimed Drake as the source. TFD (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you were quoting, I did in fact say so. Are you now saying that the actions carried out in Vietnam meets drakes definition? If so what exactly are you complaining about regarding the suggestion? Tentontunic (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gscholar results

1. The Scholar search for "Communist terrorism" gave 259 results . 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)

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 .
12. Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201 to 2.
13. ERP ERP "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs ERP "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 33 to 2.
14. Irish Republican Army "Irish Republican Army" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Irish Republican Army" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 179 to 6
15. Red Brigades: "Red Brigades" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Brigades" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 271 to 6.

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

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

Shining Path

I am suggesting this section from Left-wing terrorism be merged here as it is obviously a communist group. Tentontunic (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, we write articles based on sources, not on what appears to be obvious. TFD (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD your source says The Communist Party of Peru, more commonly known as the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), is a Maoist guerrilla organization It does not get more obvious than that. Tentontunic (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section introduction: "In The new dimension of international terrorism, Stefan M. Audrey identified the Sandinistas, Shining Path, 19th of April Movement, and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as the main organizations involved in left-wing terrorism in Latin America during the 1970s-1980s". TFD (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I.e. the "Communist Party of Peru" is not communist? Collect (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

May be. For instance, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is neither liberal nor democratic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, my personal views on the topic are of no consequence. TFD (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is quite rocket science to say that a "Communist Party" is "Communist." Moreover the Russian Liberal Democratic Party I am assured states that it is Liberal and Democratic. , , , , , etc. all seem quite explicit in connecting the "Communist Party of Peru" to "communism" indeed. Would you need more reliable sources than these to make that extraordinary leap that the Communist Party of Peru is Communist? I assure this is not a matter of my "opinion" at all. Collect (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to whether or not they are normally described as participating in "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But clearly any terrorism from an avowedly Communist Party, generally described by reliable sources as a Communist party, would certainly be terrorism by Communists. Unless you wish to say that members of a Comunist Party acting in a revolutionary manner for that Communist Party are not Communists? An interesting sort of claim, that. Collect (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. Although the Russian Liberal Democratic Party is free to characterise itself as it wants to, that doesn't change the fact that it is neither liberal nor democratic. Similarly, despite the fact that North Korea identifies itself as "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" it is arguably the most antidemocratic state in the world. Yes, Peruvian Communist party is nominally Communist, and some sources do describe it as such. The problem is, however, that other sources describe it as left-wing, and the latter term seems to be more common than the former one. That is the main problem, which you refuse to recognise: although all these movements are being described as Communist by some sources, the term left-wing, or leftist is more frequently used. Therefore, we must use this term despite the fact that another term ("Communist terrorism") can also be found in the literature.

In connection to that, there is one more argument in favour of the "left-wing" term as opposed to "Communist". Although "Communism" ("Marxism") is being described in popular literature primarily as some totalitarian concept, the central idea of Marxism is historical materialism. According to this concept, any social transformations are possible only if material prerequisites exist for them. Therefore, the very idea that the existing state system can be overturned in any arbitrary moment by a series of terrorist acts is deeply anti-Marxist. However, that idea does not contradict to other leftist doctrines. For instance, in pre-revolutionary Russia the Bolshevik party was building it strategy mostly aroung the propaganda of Marxist ideas and on the preparation of the full scale revolution, whereas the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (non-Marxist leftists) relied on the terrorist acts against state officials. In connection to that, literate historians prefer to describe nominally Communist terrorist groups as left-wing, because the activity of these groups had little in common with Marxism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Six clearly reliable sources say it is "Communist". That ought to be sufficient. And connect it specifically with Maoism in several cases. Collect (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we go by what sources say, in this case that they have engaged in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With regard to Maoism, you are right. This deeply revised version of Communism inspired majority of nominally Communist groups in Latin America and Asia. Since Maoism as a very specific version of Communism, and, since it was its specificity (concretely, some Mao's ideas) that inspired terrorists, maybe we should combine the Maoist terrorist groups under the category "Maoist terrorism"? For instance, this source (India's Role in Nepal's Maoist Insurgency Author(s): Rabindra MishraSource: Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2004), pp. 627-646) directly contraposes Nepali Communists (Marxist-Leninist) and Nepali Maoist (terrorists), and draw a connection between the Nepali and Peruvian Maoists terrorists:

"Nepal is in the midst of arguably the most successful Maoist insurgency the world has witnessed in recent decades. The so-called People's War, started by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in 1996 as a small armed movement in four remote districts (Rolpa, Rukum, Gorkha, and Sindhuli), has now spread to all of the country's 75 districts, taking the lives of over 9,000 people. The Maoists, who appear to model themselves on Peru's Shining Path guerrillas, have shaken the country's 14-yearold, multiparty democracy to its very foundation."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I daresay trying to say "Maoism" is not communism would be something for which I would like to see a reliable source. Absent a reliable source saying that, the sources say "communist." As editors we must abide by what reliable sources say. Collect (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In none of these cases are the left-wing terrorist groups connected to the official Communist parties. In the case of Peru, for example, the Shining Path is not connected to the Peruvian Communist Party. TFD (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Only "official Communist parties" are communist? Might you furnish a reliable source making that interesting claim? Collect (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we go by what sources say, in this case that they have engaged in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the reliable sources do say "communist" but somehow the group is not "communist" so that its terrorist acts are ergo not "communist terrorism" despite what the reliable sources state? Collect (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine the terminology that the experts should use. TFD (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"socialist or communist terrorism" listing Shining PAth explicitly. they will also meet the same fate as that of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia and the Shining Path Communists of Peru,” Nepal said. One of the most vicious communist terrorist groups in history, the Shining Path, is making a comeback in Peru The Shining Path used violence to try and topple Peru's government and impose what it saw as a pure form of communism on society. Note these sources do not say "fought to introduce left wingism". The sources say "communist" thank you very much. Collect (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not these groups are communist is irrelevant to classification of their actions as "left-wing terrorism". It is not up to individual editors to define the categories that reliable sources should use. TFD (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We have established that SP is, indeed, "communist" based on many reliable sources. That it engaged in "terrorism." That reliable sources use the precise term "communist terrorism" in referring to SP. Yet somehow you insist that reliable sources only count when you cite them as saying "left wing"? Sorry -- the facts are here - the SP is a communist organization. It engaged in terrorism. Its acts are called "communist terrorism." Seems plenty good enough. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can put in their article that they are communists and have been called terrorists. What has that got to do with their inclusion in the article "left-wing terrorism"? TFD (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow "They have been called terrorists" in the face of all the sources? Seems that the sources fully comply with sourcing the terrorism by communists which has been called "communist terrorism" by a number of sources, reasonably belongs in an article on "Communist terrorism." SP is "communist" at least. That much is now not contested, but whether they are "terrorists" is the problem? Collect (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Source: New York Times 14 October 2006 The founder of Shining Path, Abimael Guzman, whose messianic communist vision inspired a 12-year rebellion that cost nearly 70,000 lives, was found guilty of aggravated terrorism and sentenced to life in prison. New York Times 2 December 1990 They could surrender, but they would face virtual enslavement and forced indoctrination in the Shining Path's rigid Communist dogmas. New York Times 14 September 1992 "My turn to lose," Mr. Guzman, the head of the Maoist Shining Path group, reportedly said when the police arrested him at a house in the middle-class Surco neighborhood here. New York Times 15 May 1994 More important, that meeting set in motion a conservative pro-business movement to rescue Peru from economic chaos and Shining Path terrorism that looked to the novelist as its natural candidate for the 1990 elections. New York Times 24 July 1992 Hunched over computers confiscated from a guerrilla group here, detectives recently discovered a surprising electronic file: a list of 239 Peruvian businessmen forced to contribute "war taxes" and a directory of 2,500 additional candidates for extortion or kidnapping. Peru's more radical guerrilla group, the Shining Path, is thought to finance its activities through the collection of as much as $40 million a year in "war taxes" from Peruvian coca leaf growers and Colombian cocaine traffickers. In early July, the anti-terrorist police released a document that they said was seized during a recent raid on a Shining Path cell in Lima. According to this document, the Shining Path committee in Peru's principal coca leaf-growing area, the Upper Huallaga Valley, promised to turn over to the party half of the protection money raised from coca leaf growers and laboratory operators.

New York Times 22 March 1992 Shining Path's brutality is deplored by human rights organizations and governments alike, and they hold no hope of bringing it into the political mainstream. Its tactics include the burning of ballot boxes and the public "executions" of moderate local leaders and others, including nuns and priests, who are seen as rivals for the allegiance of the poor. In wildly exaggerated demonstrations of Maoist precepts, children have been killed for political "crimes." Amnesty International says the guerrillas routinely torture, mutilate and murder captives. More than 23,000 people are thought to have died in a decade.' (seems enough here to state unequivocally that it engaged in terrorist acts)

I suggest the New York Times is an unquestionably reliable source for these quotations. Collect (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, Collect, you miss the point of wp:SYN. Yes, sources say they are terrorists. Yes sources say they are communists. No, sources do not say anything about 'communist terrorism'. In the same vein, a number of Catholic priests are pedophiles, but we do not create the term Catholic Pedophilia, as though there were something intrinsic to Catholicism that encouraged pedophilia. You obviously cannot find sources that intrinsically link communism to terrorism in the manner that you would like (because if you could you would be pouring those sources all over this page with extreme glee), so that leaves you in the hole. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since several use the exact phrase "communist terrorism" I fear you are quite errant in your claim. Collect (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course Black Book of Communism has a chapter entitled "Communism and terrorism". It describes Korean Air Flight 858 and famous Carlos the Jackal and Wadie Haddad who were supported by the communist states.Biophys (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect: Cool. if several use that exact phrase, then this is the place where you provide citations and page numbers so I can read them for myself. see how easy that is?

@ Hodja: let's be clear... I don't have a problem with the idea that communists perform terrorism. many different ideological groups perform terrorism, and it would surprise me if communists were an exception. however, the term 'communist terrorism' is much stronger than communism and terrorism, at least how it was originally used on this article (some editors here were trying to make the argument that communism is inherently terrorist, which is completely unfounded and unsourced). One of two things needs to pertain to use 'communist terrorism' as a rubric: (i) some indication in sources that the phrase 'communist terrorism' is or was in common enough usage in academia or journalism to make it notable as a reference to a particular, well-defined class of phenomena, or (2) some indication in sources that communism itself is noted for promoting terrorism. The second doesn't exist, so far as I can tell: early Marxists discuss terrorism, but mean something very different than the modern use of the word (closer in sense to total war than to political terrorism); later marxist (or marx-derived) theories didn't have much to say about terrorism at all. For the first, the term was used in a limited capacity to refer to Malay insurrections, but not in any significant way outside of that conflict so far as I know. Either way, sources are called for. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, martin's definition that communist "terrorism is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government" excludes KAL007 and state-sponsored terrorism by the Soviet Union. Since you and martin disagree over the definition of "communist terrorism" perhaps you could provide a source for your definition. TFD (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Below are two quotes from one reliable secondary source (Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America. Author(s): Andreas E. Feldmann and Maiju Perälä. Source: Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 101-132). Please, look at the terminology it uses.

"Following the 1959 Cuban revolution, nongovernmental terrorism became a distinctive phenomenon of Latin American politics. To counterbalance the hegemony of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, Fidel Castro and the Cuban communist leadership fostered a revolutionary doctrine to advance the idea that a small group of military combatants, elfoco, could start an uprising against bourgeois governments. This struggle, they thought, would prompt popular support for the revolutionary cause and generate a military movement that could defeat ruling regimes and replace them with widely supported "people's governments" (Ratliff 1988, 16). During the 1960s, several Latin American leftist groups, aided by Cuba, attempted to organize rural guerrilla warfare."

In other words, Communist Cuba started to support left-wing organisations to provoke overturns in Latin American countries. It is natural to suggest that these left-wing organisations were Communist terrorists, because, as someone can argue, "Communist terrorists are the terrorists supported by Communist regimes". However, such a conclusion would create serious problems, and I can explain why. The authors continue:

Throughout the Cold War period, the superpowers endorsed many Latin American organizations that resorted to terrorism. There is evidence that the Soviet Union, through Cuba, provided funds, weapons, training, political endorsements, and logistical assistance, such as passports, intelligence services, and the use of diplomatic facilities, to many groups, including the Montoneros, the Tupamaros, the FARC and ELN, Peru's MRTA, Chile's MIR and FPMR, and the FAR in Guatemala. By supporting these organizations, the communist leadership attempted to spread revolution and to challenge U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, the United States endorsed numerous rightwing groups that perpetrated terrorist acts, especially in Central America, such as the death squadrons in El Salvador and the Contras in Nicaragua. Washington provided weapons and supported these groups politically to contain the advancement of communism in the Western Hemisphere and, more broadly, in the Third World (Schlagheck 1990, 171; Luttwak 1983, 63-64; Laqueur 1987, 270-74; Asprey 1994, 1094, 1108-10)."

In other words, although Communist USSR and Cuba provided a support for some left-wing organisations, the authors, for some reason, persistently avoid characterise them as Communist terrorists. Why? In my opinion, that is not only because the Soviet support does not automatically make some organisation Communist (for instance, the USSR supported Spanish republicans, but they were not Communists). The answer may be in the second part of the quote: Capitalist (or Democratic) USA provided equal, if not greater support for right-wing terrorist groups. Obviously, the US support didn't make El Salvador death squadron terrorist "democratic". I don't think we can speak about "democratic terrorism" at all, even despite the numerous examples of the support of terrorist groups by some democratic countries.

Let me re-iterate, the authors carefully avoid to call Latin American leftist terrorists "Communist" despite the fact that they were supported by the USSR and Cuba, and, similarly, they avoid to call rightist terrorists "Democrats" despite the massive support these groups were obtaining from the USA.

Another example of careful usage of terminology by these authors:

"In Peru, Sendero Luminoso, a Maoist group, began a violent struggle in 1980 against the new democratic administration of Fernando Belafinde Terry. Soon a second revolutionary group, Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA), a pro-Moscow organization, also used terrorism to rebel against the Peruvian state. In Ecuador, Alfaro Vive, Carajo (ALC, Alfaro Lives, Dammit!), a left-wing organization, unleashed a series of terrorist attacks to weaken the new democratic administration of Jaime Rold6s (Laqueur 1987, 255-57; Mickolus et al. 1989a)."(ibid.)

For some reason, the authors again avoid the word "Communist" to describe Sendero Luminoso, preferring to use "Maoist" instead. They also use "left-wing" for Alfaro Vive, Carajo. I do not think that has been done by accident, and, taking into account what the author write about Communists, they hardly are Communist sympathisers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that "Maoists" are not "Communists"? Astounding! Collect (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism by both Communist states and the United States comes under the category of "state-sponsored terrorism", which along with left-wing, right-wing, anarchist, religious, single issue and nationalist terrorism, forms one of the seven major classifications of terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for the claim that there are precisely "seven major classifications of terrorism" please/ Collect (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here. TFD (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific claim. If you do not have a source for the claim, the claim is of zero value. The issue seems now to be: are the sources sufficient to say "Shining Path, the Communist Party of Peru, engaged in communist terrorism" or not. As the reliable sources say this, I would suggest that any aside that it is "not one of the seven types of terrorism" is quite valueless. Collect (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not asserting that Maoists are not Communists. My point is that, when different terminology can be used, the scholars choose the term that is more relevant to this particular case. The part of the "political phylogenetic three" of the left-wing movements we are talking about is

left-wing -> Communist -> Maoist

In other words, all Maoists are Communists; all Communists are leftists; however, the opposite is not through. The authors characterise MRTA as a "pro-Moscow revolutionary group", however, they do not characterise them as Communists. However, they explicitly write about Shining Path that they are Maoists. Probably, the reason is that SP's adherence to the Maoist version of Communism is more relevant in this particular case. Therefore, it would be more correct to write about them as about Maoists. Similarly, the same person can be characterised as a human, a Caucasian male, a EU citizen, a French citizen, a Parisian, a husband, or a father of two children. Depending on a situation, all of that is applicable to him, however, in some situations some of those terms are hardly appropriate. For instance, a sentence: "This small bistro was full of Caucasian males." sounds absolutely ambiguous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) So we all agree the Shining Path is Communist. And that it committed terrorism in the name of communism. Simple. We have an article on Communist terrorism. We do not have an article on Maoist terrorism. Thus Shining Path clearly is a fit for Communist terrorism since that is the existing article. Collect (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, we have no article about Maoist terrorism. However, taking into account that most left-wing terrorist organisations in Latin America and Asia declared adherence to the Maoist branch of Communist doctrine (and taking into account that the sources prefer to describe them as Maoist, not Communist, implying that there is some concrete connection between Maoism and terrorism), we should probably create this article. There were virtually no non-Maoist Communist terrorist groups, so the connection between Maoism and terrorism is more obvious than between Communism and terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that claim, I listed a slew of reliable sources using the term "communist" which rather means your argument fails. And since we do have this article, and Shining Path clearly falls into the category of "communist terrorism" I would think all the cavils about it "not an official Communist party", "Maoism is not Communism" etc. are all simply preventing the adding of legitimate material to this article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. "Mimi is a cat. Mimi is from Siam. Therefore Mimi is a Siamese cat." TFD (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An interesting analysis of the works of Senderologists (the scholars who study SL) can be found in the article "The New Chroniclers of Peru: US Scholars and Their 'Shining Path' of Peasant Rebellion" (Author(s): Deborah Poole and Gerardo Renique Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1991), pp. 133-191). The quotes are below:

"Third World 'extremism' and Maoist 'dogma' shape the early work of two US Senderologists. These assumptions are based in received theoretical doctrine about: (1) the processes of modernisation; (2) the essentialised cultural 'otherness' of peasants; (3) the parochial nature of peasant political movements; (4) the irrationality of Third world political processes; (5) the uniformity of Maoist thought; and (6) the assimilation of Maoist military strategy to Western historicist allegories about the struggle between barbarism and civilisation."

In other words, a direct connection between Maoism and SL has been proposed here. For those who are not familiar with the subject, let me explain, that classical Marxist-Leninist dogma is proletarian-internationalism, so it sees peasantry as an indifferent or slightly opposing force. By contrast, Maoism relies predominately on peasantry, which makes it a good ideological basis for non-urban leftist movements, and, for SL in particular.

"The all-encompassing polarities of modernisation theory encounter a similar fate in the work of another senderologist, Sandra Woy-Hazelton. Like Palmer, she sees Sendero's emergence in a 'democratic' country as a paradox which 'challenges conventional wisdom' and assumes throughout her article that 'violence' and 'democracy' are somehow mutually exclusive (Woy-Hazelton, 1990:21). She similarly reproduces the fundamental theses of isolation, Maoist encirclement and 'native agrarian communism' (ibid., 22, 29). She also argues for the exclusively urban base of Peru's electoral Left and the MRTA, and the reciprocally rural or peripheral base of Sendero (ibid., 25-26). "

In other words, Maoist SL is being directly counterposed to other Peruvian leftists. Although the authors (Deborah Poole and Gerardo Renique) do not support the ideas of other senderologists that SL was formed as a result of spontaneous organisation of peasant groups, they do not question their major thesis that SL is based on the Mao's "cadre doctrine" (which is specific for Maoism):

"This strategy of guerrilla warfare is based on Mao Zedong's theory of the cadre party as 'the conductor of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups'."

The authors describe in details the history of formation of SL:

"It was and is a political party and military organisation which is known and identified by its contested and far from hegemonic position within the Peruvian left. In 1964, the Peruvian Communist Party split into the Partido Comunista Peruano-'Unidad' (PCP-U) and the Partido Comunista del Peni 'Bandera Roja' (PCP-BR). This split reflected the division in the international communist movement between the Soviet Union and China. At that time Abimael Guzman was a militant of the Peruvian Communist Party and sided with the pro-Chinese PCP-BR. One year later, the youth branch of Bandera Roja split for internal political differences into the Partido Comunista del Peni 'Patria Roja' (PC del P-PR). Guzman remained as the leader of PCP-BR's Special Work Commission in charge of military affairs (Comision de Trabajo Especial). At the height ofthe Cultural Revolution, Guzman travelled to China to attend a cadre school. Upon his return to Ayacucho, he led a faction within the PCP-BR ('Fraccion Roja'). This faction was committed to armed insurrection. In 1969 the political positions put forward by Guzman's faction were defeated in the congress of the peasant federation controlled by PCP-BR, the Federation Departmental de Campesinos y Comunidades de Ancash (FEDCCA), as well as in the University of Huamanga student front, the Frente Estudiantil Revolucionario (FER). In these circumstances, having decided to privilege clandestine organisation and armed struggle, Guzman's Fraccion Roja consolidated in 1970 to become the PCP 'Sendero Luminoso'."

In other words, whereas this organisation does have a Communist origin, it appeared as a result of the splits of the Peruvian Communist party on the Leninist and Maoist parts, and subsequent consolidation of the terrorist organisation from the Maoist party. That reminds me a history of Bolsheviks (Russian Communists): their ancestor was a Socialist movement, based on which the Russian Social-Democratic Party was formed, which has been split onto Bolsheviks and Men'sheviks, and the Bolshevik party later took the name "Communist party", which radicalised during the Civil war. You must agree that, despite the Social-Democratic roots of Bolsheviks, it would be hardly correct to call, e.g. Red Terror a "Social-Democratic terror".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Left-wing terrorism needs more analysis rather than just sections about different organizations. There seem to be two types of organizations: one urban and middle class and the other rural and peasant-based. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since many terrorist organisations are explicitly called Maoist, and since the connection between Maoist and their terrorist activity is clear, we need a section "Maoist terrorist organisations".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling a Maoist party (self-identified as a communist party) not to be a communist party is an example of original research (although, yes, that was claimed by the Soviet communists after the Soviet-China split).Biophys (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument. I never called Maoists non-Communist. However, in this situation, when different terms can be used ("Communist" vs "Maoist") we should use the term which is more relevant to this particular issue, and which is used by scholars. The scholars use "Maoist", because it is more relevant and informative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking about the essence of the disagreement... There were many self-identified communist organizations involved in terrorist activities according to multiple RS. Among those are Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path), Unified Communist Party of Nepal, Socialist-Revolutionary Party and, yes, Bolshevik party. They did it themselves, not through the "proxies", as would be in the case of a "state-sponsored" terrorism. In fact, Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso used same strategies to terrorize the civilian population, in particular taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale. Biophys (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is called Left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every "left-wing" political movement is a communist movement. Hence we can have the both articles.Biophys (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"...taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale" is not something specific for Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso. What is specific for FS, as well as for other Maoist groups, is their adherence to the Maoist (not Marxist) idea of peasant Communism, and the Mao's "cadre party" doctrine. That is the features that distinguish these movements from classical Communism (and that probably form the theoretical basis for the terrorist activity).

Regarding self-identification, you should be perfectly aware of the fact that Zhirinovskii's LDPR identifies itself as liberal and democratic. Do you think they are liberals and democrats? Do you think North Korea or Kongo, that identify themselves as "democratic" are democratic states? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear is a standard terrorist activity. Are you telling that Maoism is not a variety of Communist ideology? Biophys (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "Taking and executing civilian hostages to incite fear is a standard terrorist activity." Correct. Howevewer, in light of this your (generally correct) statement your previous statement ("Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso used same strategies to terrorize the civilian population, in particular taking and execution the hostages on a grand scale) sounds no more correct then: "in fact, D. melanogaster and E. coli use the same strategy to perform a template directed protein synthesis, which implies that they should be subdivided into the same category"

Re "Are you telling that Maoism is not a variety of Communist ideology?" As I already explained, Maoism is a variant of the Communist doctrine, which in turn is a part of leftist movement. Depending on the context, each of these terms can be used. For instance, if we discuss egalitarian aspect of SL ideology, as opposed to monarchic of oligarchic ideology, the word "left-wing' seems to be more appropriate. When we discuss strategic aspects, we need to describe SL as a Communist movement (because it declared the adherence to the Marxist idea of classless society). However, if we discuss tactical aspects, we should use the term "Maoist", because the idea to rely primarily on rural population, the cadre party concept, etc., which serves as a theoretical basis for SL's terrorist activity, are Mao's inventions, and that is something that is not immanent to all Communist fighting organisations and specific for Maoist terrorist organisation only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems we can agree that Maoists, Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso are different varieties/factions of communist movement (whatever slightly different tactics they could use), and they all conducted terror/terrorism activities according to multiple RS. Hence they all belong to this article. That is what I am talking about. Biophys (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the logic: Fifi is a cat, Fifi was born in Siam, therefore Fifi is a Siamese cat. TFD (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not so. There is a lot of reliable secondary sources which make "communism-terrorism" connection, as found even by a simplest Google books search: . Hence this is not WP:SYN. Biophys (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...and even more sources which connect democracy and terrorism . The very fact of connection means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That search is pointless, for instance the 5th result The roots of terrorism is a chapter on why democratic countries are attacked by terrorists. Tentontunic (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Great observation! Thank you for articulating my point. If the search for "Democracy and terrorism" sometimes gives irrelevant results, why can the same methodology be applied for "Communism and terrorism"? For instance, one of the the sources Biophys found (Ewing's "Killer Machine") in actuality refers to "Anti-Communism and terrorism"; another source, Hart's "The shield and the cloak: the security of the commons" contraposes Communism and terrorism (Both communism and terrorism might be evil. But communism was a rational evil, and terrorism—not an ideology propounded by a state—is irrational, suicidal evil. ), etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

lol - ooooOOoooo... burned. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Google book search is not pointless because it produces a number of secondary RS that make the "communism-terrorism" connection. Here they are: (1) a whole chapter about this in Black book of communism, (2) Chapter 12 in book "An Encyclopaedic Survey Of Global Terrorism In 21th Century", (3) book "Terrorism and communism: a reply to Karl Kautsky" by Lev Trotsky (and of course there was a similar book by Karl Kautsky). And so on. This is all quite obvious.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys is correct. You search, then look at the sources to ascertain their reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose renaming this article "Communism and terrorism"? TFD (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise solution. I do not mind.Biophys (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The same idea was proposed long time ago, and I also supported it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work for me as well. we'd have to keep a close eye on synthesis, however, *and* type articles are prone to wandering. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly "Terrorism by Communist groups"? Preventing the "logical 'AND' issue" Collect (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, you wish to create an article 818 ghits on books over the more used term 3350 for communist terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are two slightly different subjects, "Communism and terrorism" and "Terrorism by Communist groups" (or better just "Communist terrorism"). I would go along with any reasonable consensus.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. I see no problem with the "AND", because interrelation between Communism and terrorism is much more complex that just "terrorism committed by Communist groups";

@ Biophys. I again agree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that where SYNTH might putatively be found in one, clearly the "committed by is rather incapable of being SYNTH. I had thought you raised SYNTH in the past, and would prefer the delimited title. Collect (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism" in NYT - should be enough to stop the denial that the term exists

The police today arrested more than 250 known extremists and Communists in a campaign aimed at wiping out pro-Communist terrorism in Peru.

Interior Minister Gonzalo Barrios announced today the arrest of three foreigners accused of having carried $330,000 from Italy to finance Communist terrorism in Venezuela.

Communist terrorism, arson and murder, stepped up in preparation for tomorrow's election, hit South Korea this week-end, as expected.

Byron Price, Acting Secretary General of the United Nations, has protested to Secretary of State Dean Acheson the recent action of a Senate subcommittee in publishing testimony alleging Communist terrorism in the Secretariat, it was announced today.

A Senate report said today that ten years of Communist terrorism had failed to stamp out the burning desire of millions of Poles for independence.

Communist terrorism was stepped up today with the appearance of dozens of bombs throughout Hong Kong

Twenty-four police agents have been murdered in an upsurge of Communist terrorism in sensitive northeastern Thailand, it was announced today.

The bombs exploded two weeks after the suburban police had warned of a return of Communist terrorism in Brazil to discredit the anti-Comnmnist revolutionary

I trust this is well enough to show the use of "Communist terrorism" in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you need a reliable source that explains how the term is used. TFD (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Collect (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:V, " the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". Whereas the source quoted by me devotes a special attention to the analysis of social roots of SR, its theoretical doctrine and strategy, the NYT articles quoted by you just mention them in a context of Communism. Therefore, even a single source provided by me outweighs all your quotes. In addition, I can provide another sources.

You also haven't addressed another argument: I never denied the term "Communist terrorism" to exist, my point was that another term, "left wing", or "leftist" terrorism is being used by scholars to describe the same groups, and this term is more common.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If something do exist (as you say) and described in RS we can have an article about this.Biophys (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If two or more terms exists that describe similar events, the most common term should be used. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to a search for "communism and terrorism". I agree that that is a legitimate topic and would support a name change for this article. TFD (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well how about this search. 1,370 on google news. One of the dates is of interest, Aug 15, 1938. The term was used before the Malayan emergency it seems. 3,360 google books. I am entirely unsure as to why you think the term is not a legitimate topic for wikipedia. It has been used to describe actions worldwide by communist terrorist groups. Tentontunic (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In your search, most of the hits refer to Communist insurgencies during the Cold War. Do you want to say, "CT was a term used by Western countries during the Cold War to describe Communist insurgencies"? We could actually find a source for that. TFD (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You actually managed to look at most of the 4730 sources between 15:45 and 16:20 hours? And come to the definite conclusion that the majority refers to insurgencies? That is quite remarkable. On the first page of the search Dealing with Nepal. This is not an insurgency, it is terrorism. Another from the first page A book I have cited above, this does not speak of insurgency, Would you care to revise what you have said? Tentontunic (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second page of results show much the same in fact. Italy, Germany, France and Belgium, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s Please explain when the insurgencies happened in Italy, Germany, France and Belgium. Tentontunic (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that google search retrieves all results found in the web, not only reliable sources. I recommend google.scholar.com, which better reflects what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the first ten hits which you presented (the page to which you linked). It includes articles about Communist insurgencies in Greece and Turkey (Mar. 12, 1947), Thailand (Jan. 17,1967), South-East Asia (Jun. 22, 1967), South Vietnam (Aug. 27, 1966), Korea (Jan. 21, 1951), Venezuela (Dec. 14, 1966), Guatemala (Jun. 15, 1954), and South Korea (May 9, 1948). 8 articles. Here is a link to Google News archive for use of the term in the press. Note the dates when the term was in style. TFD (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And what of the Books? You look at ten sources out of thousands and declare they all deal with insurgency. Please respond to the three book sources directly above. Tentontunic (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

well, we can't assume that they deal with anything else; have you looked through all 4300 links? TFD's summary seems good to me - in what way does it dissatisfy you? --Ludwigs2 17:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact he choose to ignore the results from the book search, and the cherry picking of dates. You can find the term used in news results up to the 1990`s. I should like a response to "Dealing with Nepal. This is not an insurgency, it is terrorism. Another from the first page A book I have cited above, this does not speak of insurgency, Would you care to revise what you have said? The second page of results show much the same in fact. Italy, Germany, France and Belgium, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s Please explain when the insurgencies happened in Italy, Germany, France and Belgium" This Tentontunic (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No single definition of terrorism currently exist. Whereas some authors combine state terror and non-governmental terrorism in a single category, others do not; whereas some authors consider guerilla warfare as terrorism, others prefer to separate these two. Therefore, your assertion that "this is not an insurgency, it is terrorism" hardly reflects the mainstream opinion simply because no single mainstream opinion exists on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The terrorism in the article on Nepal is attributed to a "Maoist insurgency". The terrorism is also referred to as "Maoist terrorism". The fact that the term "communist terrorism" receives only one hit in a book called Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa is instructive. The book also uses the terms "left-wing" and "leftist" terrorism. Note that the book does not explain the typology used. TFD (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the book Terrorism versus democracy, the term "communist terrorism" is used only once. In the typology, the author distinguishes between "Ideological terrorists", who can be either "extreme left" or "extreme right", and "nationalist terrorists" (pp. 19-20). I suggest we use the typology suggested by Wilkinson. TFD (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

again, this is the problem with using goggle searches - they are devoid of context. While there is clearly a class of acts called 'terrorism', we have to be careful about ascriptions, because whether something is ascribed as an act of insurgency or an act of terrorism is largely a question of who's framing the issue. no doubt droves of newspapers in libya, iran, and saudi arabia have been referring to aspects of the current Egyptian revolt as terrorism, many non-US sources have referred to military interventions by the US as terrorist acts, and I'm sure that Pravda (the USSR's equivalent of the NYT during the cold war) had hundreds of references to 'capitalist terrorism' or some equivalent derogatory phrase. What this google search tells me (without a long painful process of digging through the sources) is that 'Communist terrorism' might have been used in a polemic, journalistic sense. that's useful, but it would be far better to find sources that use it in academia, since academia is far less subject to the ups and downs of polemics. note that the "terrorism vs Democracy" book you linked is a popular press book (Frank Cass publications) rather than an academic press, and as such is probably fairly right-wing. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And now you are saying Maoism is not communism. You people are beyond reasoning with. Tentontunic (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

who's saying that? the issue here is to find the correct level of discussion. Maoism is a subset of communism, and communism is a subset of left-wing ideology. the question is whether sources are best used to point to the smallest subset (Maoist), the middle subset (communist) or the broadest subset (left-wing). --Ludwigs2 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces has said it above, Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa page 131 He says this book is on Maoist terrorism, not communist. Even though the source clearly states communist terrorism, and goes into detail on how the PWG and MCC engaged in an aggressive terrorist campaign against the civilian population. Tentontunic (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that the book is about Maoist terrorism. It is in fact about terrorism, instability and democracy in Asia and Africa. TFD (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you of course said it refers to Maoist terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "The terrorism is also referred to as "Maoist terrorism" ". However, the author is not using either term as part of the typology of terrorism, but uses the term "ideological terrorism". TFD (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We are getting off topic. Can you provide a reliable source explaining how the term "communist terrorism" has been used? TFD (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? You repeat yourself when the query has been answered a number of times now. The facts are the term has been used and it is not up to us to "interpret" when the reliable source used the term. In fact, it is against WP policy to do so. Asking us to violate WP policy does not help this article one whit. Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is original research for us to search through seventy years of newspaper archives to determine how a word has been used at different times. If you want to explain the evolution of the use of the term, then you need a source that explains this. TFD (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You grossly misapply WP:OR. You asked for proof that a term was used. Providing proof is exactly what you asked for - so you are appear to argue "since it is OR to provide the proof, then that does not count, and if you did not provide proof, I am still right" which is blatant nonsense as an argument. I provided exactly what you repeatedly asked for. Collect (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see any logic here. How can someone admit that there is a definition of the term , but then deny the legitimacy of the subject? Biophys (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not "admit that there is a definition of the term", but said as your link xhows, "There are various definitions...." Either we use one of those definitions for the article or turn it into a disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you now agree we may use Drakes definition? This is excellent, it has only taken Eight Days to get here, wonderful news. Tentontunic (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)the "dab fiasco" should be over by now. The fact is that the term has been shown to exist, that at least one source gives a definition for it, and that there are incidents which would properly fall under that definition. That is sufficient by WP policy and guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems: (1) the definition Drake uses excludes the vast majority of the uses introduced in Collect's Google searches and (2) the definition is for a concept usually called "left-wing terrorism" which already has its own article. If we adopt Drake's definition, it would turn this article into a WP:FORK. TFD (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IPOF, the "fork" was, and remains, the LWT article which was created by removing most of the material from this article. Restoring what had been in this article in the first place is not a "fork" but simply responsible editing. As for denigrating Google, I would note your extensive use of it. So much for personal asides. :) Collect (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how Drakes work excludes anything please, as I actually fail to see how that is the case. Tentontunic (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It excludes acts of terrorism carried out by Communists that are not attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system, or where their hope is not that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution. TFD (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So exactly none then. So we are all agreed yes? Tentontunic (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you do not think that the ETA, LTTE, EOKA or IRA carried out terrorist attacks? You do not believe that Communist governments carried out terrorist actions against their citizens. You do not believe that Communists have ever carried out terrorist attacks in order to intimidate people, rather than rise them to action? TFD (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you ought to look a little more closely at what drake actually has written. I suspect you are in fact wrong, very very wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

again, Collect, the left wing terrorism article cannot logically be a fork of this article, except in some mindlessly procedural way that I will IAR as ludicrous. Either CT stands on its own as a separate article, or CT is merged into LWT: there is no other option. --Ludwigs2 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you yet looked at the sources regarding Vietnam? Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted your definition at the OR noticeboard in order to seek input on whether other editors have the same understanding of what you wrote. TFD (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion for the lede.

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

Comments on proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Protect.

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

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

1. ^ C. J. M. Drake page 19
2. ^ David C. Wills page 219
3. ^ Brian Crozier page 203
4. Jerrold M. Post page 102

Bibleograpy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Is the lede statement supported by the source?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)) 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 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. Silverseren 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)

]? 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 --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 . 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)

• Yes It is time people worked on article improvement rather that constantly arguing to remove content. Tentontunic (talk) 08:58, 26 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)

• Lede is proper Topic is proper Wikilawyering repeatedly to remove the article is improper. Simple fact. Collect (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Science Research Network This working paper I stumbled across today may be of interest. 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 to rise up and overthrow the existing 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)

History section proposal.

I propose we remove the incredibly badly named section Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology as the most of it is now duplicated in the lede and replace it with the following.

In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens. In the 1940`s and 1950`s in various Southeast Asian countries such as Malaya, The Philippines and Vietnam, communist groups began to conduct terrorist operations. In the 1960`s the Sino–Soviet split also lead to a marked increase in terrorist activity in the region.

In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. The founders of the FCO argued that it would take violence to achieve their idealistic goals and that legitimate protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 Marxist/Leninist groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments.

Notes

1. Conway p17
2. Gadberry p7
3. Weinberg p14
4. Alexander p16
5. Harmon p13
6. Drake p102
7. Alexander pp51-52
8. Paoletti p202

Bibliography

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

Comments on proposal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist terrorist groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment