Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 13 November 2010

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: 7 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: 7 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 April 2008. 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.

Did Marx advocate terrorism?

The fact is that even Marxists interpreted statements by Marx as advocating terrorism as evident from the following:

This also explains why Marx appears to endorse one or the other of the two traditions at various times. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx and Engels' endorsement of terror/terrorism at various times explains why later Marxist leaders, e.g. Lenin followed in their footsteps:

"He emphasized before 1905 that the party did not renounce terror as a matter of principle and that it was necessary in certain circumstances" (ibid., p. 690). Justus Maximus (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Socialist “heretics” like Bernstein, we find staunch Marxists such as Karl Kautsky, who unmistakably interpret statements by Marx as advocating terrorism. In his well-known Marxist classic Terrorism and Communism (1919) he writes:

“Even Marx himself in 1848 still reckoned on the victorious power of revolutionary Terrorism, in spite of the fact that he had at that time already criticised the traditions of 1793.

In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung he repeatedly spoke in favour of terrorism. In one number (January 13th, 1849) he wrote as follows concerning the rising of the Hungarians, whose revolutionary importance he overestimated: “For the first time in the revolutionary movement of 1848, for the first time since 1793, a nation surrounded by counter-revolutionary powers, has dared to oppose revolutionary passion to cowardly anti-revolutionary rage, and to meet white terror with red terror. For the first time for many years we find a truly revolutionary character, a man who dares to take up the gauntlet in the shape of a desperate struggle in the name of his own people, and who for that nation is Danton and Carrot in one. That man is Ludwig Kossuth.”

Before that, in a number of the same journal, November 7th, 1848, Marx wrote in connection with the affair in Vienna: “In Paris the destructive counter-stroke of the June Revolution will be overcome. With the victory of the ‘Red Republic’ in Paris, the armies from the interior will spread up to and beyond the frontiers, and the actual power of the contesting parties will become evident. Then we shall think of June and of October (the overthrow of Vienna by Windischgratz), and we too shall shout: ‘Vae victis!’ The futile massacres since the days of June and October, the exhaustive sacrifices since February and March, the cannibalism of the counter-revolution, will convince the people that there exists only one means of shortening, simplifying and centralising the death agony of the old order of society and the bloody birth-throes of the new – only one means, and that is Revolutionary Terrorism” (ch. 5).

So, once again, it becomes apparent that Marx’s advocacy of terrorism in “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna” can by no means be construed as my “original research” as has been fraudulently claimed by the pro-Marxist camp. This is supported by the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism (IET), as indicated earlier (see section "Why the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism should not be suppressed for the purposes of the present Article").

Though Kautsky is of course of the opinion that by 1870 Marx had given up his advocacy of terrorism, he provides a link between Marx’s (earlier) endorsement of terrorism and later forms of Marxism, such as Bolshevism:

“Not long ago my attitude towards Bolshevism was described as infidelity towards Marx, whose revolutionary fire would certainly have led him to Bolshevism. As proof of this, one of Marx’s declarations on the terrorism of 1848 was quoted” (ibid.). Justus Maximus (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as follows:

1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94;
2. general A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted

(2nd edition, 1989, Vol. XVII, p. 420).

It follows that State terror as practiced in France in 1789-94 and as advocated by Engels in "On Authority", by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, etc., falls under the category of "terrorism" as per the accepted dictionary definition.

-- Justus Maximus (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, "terrorist" is defined as:

1. As a political term:

a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the 'Reign of Terror'.

b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation (ibid., p. 521).

So the term hasn't actually undergone any fundamental changes, clearly retaining its core element of fear/terror as an instrument of coercion. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation":

George Washington

Winston Churchill

Nelson Mandela

The Metropolitan Police

...

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Justimus is (unfortunately) confounding a number of different points here. on one hand, military organizations have always relied on the use of terror as a weapon to control populations - you can see examples from modern era "Shock and Awe" and "Blitzkrieg" approaches all the way bask into classical history (e.g. the Romans, who used the threat of crucifixion to suppress insurrection and the threat of decimation to control conquered territories). It was a common military understanding that the populations of controlled territories had to be cowed into obedience, so that they would continue to supply the controlling army without the need of large garrisons (which could then be reassigned to more direct combat positions), and both the German and Russian governments of the late 19th century were known for using absolutely brutal techniques for the suppression of their populations. This is the kind of thing that 19th century revolutionaries are thinking about when they talk about terror. Terrorism in the modern sense of the word - acts of violence against strictly non-military targets for strictly non-military (i.e. symbolic/political) purposes - was practically unknown prior to the middle of the 20th century. Terrorism in the modern sense relies on an immediacy which can only be accomplished through electronic mass media (radio, television, internet...), because it's only through that level of immediacy that a sufficient segment of the population can be terrorized sufficiently to affect political sentiments.

Marx himself used revolution as a cautionary tale, not as a proactive measure: he saw it as the inevitable outcome of progressive capitalist exploitation (basically, in his mind exploitation would eventually reduce the working class population to such dire straights that they would have no choice except to revolt, out of sheer self-preservation). He didn't explicitly call for revolution as an overt act, and was not entirely comfortable with the idea as espoused by others (that lies behind his famous statement that perhaps he wasn't a Marxist). Most Marxists who used revolutionary language (which was a strong trend through maybe the first two-thirds of the 20th century) were not so interested in using terror, but rather in demonstrating to the working class how various forms of terror were used to keep them in place (with the aim of instilling a common class identity and a degree of righteous anger that would mobilize). You only find overt terror (of the 19th century definition) arising with guerilla warfare, where forces hiding in the mountains of jungles needed to instill terror in villagers in order to get supplies and recruits, and ensure silence about their location and activities. This kind of terror was used by both rightist and leftist insurgents, irrespective of political ideology, because it was a requirement for effective guerilla activity. Further, this kind of terror was usually used by the governments opposing such insurgencies (either because those governments were derived from previous insurgencies or because they saw no other means of getting at the insurgents than to make the population more afraid of the government).

Terrorism in the modern sense only came into existence from revolutionaries who were too scattered or disorganized to represent an actual military force - the began trying to instill fear in populations as a means of making political statements, not to change or overthrow governments but to coerce them. These were largely driven by religious ideology rather than political ideology: IRA fighting for Catholic sovereignty in the whole land, Muslim terrorists trying to advance muslim interests in Jewish controlled palestine, US Christian rightists assassinating abortion doctors to terrify other doctors out of the business... I do not know of any communist organizations that advocated for or committed acts of terrorism of this sort. A few anarchist groups with socialist leanings plotted sabotage, but they were largely aimed at symbolic targets (to demean the government) rather than populations. terrorism in the modern sense is actually antithetical to all forms of Marxist ideology, since Marxist ideology aims to free populations from oppressive force.

take it as you will... --Ludwigs2 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump/Ludwigs, apart from your exclusive reliance on original research, you seem to conveniently forget that internationally indicted terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda also lay claim to an intention to free the world (or at lest the Muslim part thereof) from "Western oppression/occupation". Needless to say, this claim in no way renders such organizations less terrorist. The same logically applies to Marxists advocating/deploying terror/terrorism for their own purposes. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. And you have been repeatedly warned about making personal comments. Suggesting that I 'conveniently forget' something sounds perilously close to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2. Re your "Terrorism in the modern sense only came into existence from revolutionaries who were too scattered or disorganized to represent an actual military force..." That is how I understood that. However, during the discussion with Martin few weeks ago I found that some contemporary sources describe state terror (including the Red Terror or Great Purge) as a form of terrorism. Of course, that is not a majority POV, however, that fact should be reflected as an opinion of some authors in the article about left wing terrorism.

@ Justus Maximus. The analogy with al-Qaeda is flawed, because historical phenomena must not be taken out of their historical context. Of course, it is impossible to imagine that some editor of some contemporary German newspaper seriously discussed a possibility of revolutionary violence against the ruling class. However, it is equally impossible to imagine that today's most advanced Western nation was involved in large scale genocide (what, during Marx's time, Britain did in India, or the US did on their own territory), in mass violence against their own worker activists, etc. Marx's language sometimes sounds somewhat unusual for us, however, it represented noting outstanding for contemporaries' ears. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, your label "circular reasoning" doesn't change anything about the facts stated by me above. As for "personal comments", look at your own invectives such as "idiocy", "idiotic", etc.

Paul Siebert, your comment is not only beside the point. It makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to have a predilection for becoming lost in your own theories (And we haven't even solved the mystery of your statements regarding strakh etc!) I think it's about time you faced the fact that socialist/communist/Marxist movements do have a terroristic streak that has been exploited by various historical figures down the decades. Don't forget that Communism is regarded as a criminal system (similar to Fascism) in many former Communist countries. This ought to give you some food for thought, shouldn't it? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "your comment is not only beside the point". Which concrete part (addressed to Ludwigs2 or to you) do you mean?

Re "do have a terroristic streak that has been exploited by various historical figures down the decades." ...and Bible has even more "terroristic streak" that has been exploited by various historical figures during last two millennia. So what?

Re "Don't forget that Communism is regarded as a criminal system" It refers to some specific regimes, mostly to Stalinism, which was a very specific implementation of Communist ideas. That has no relation to the Marx's works.

Re strakh. I have to concede that my Russian is really good. In connection to that, before we continue, I would like to know how good is your Russian. Can you translate "Косил косой косой косой" and "косой косой косил косой"?

Re food for thought, physician, heal thyself. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Keep the comments on the edits, not the editor. And nowhere is Communism considered a "criminal system" (Do you really want to try and call out China?) nor is fascism (and I'm not talking Nazism). They may not be popular systems of government, but they're not outlawed in most countries. McCarthyism was left behind a long time ago. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Paul: No doubt, but I suspect that any source you find which does that is post 9/11 (there's been a push on the fringes of academia to recast everything in terms of the modern conception of terrorism, as an aid to book sales. That will probably go on for another ten years, unfortunately, then die a quiet death). I'd question any such source on notability. Neither the great purge nor the red terror really counts as terrorism per se: they were purges, in which the government 'cleaned house' of people they viewed as threats. They were not terrorist acts designed to coerce a government into some behavior.

@ At Justimus: I have not forgotten that (conveniently or otherwise), I just don't see its relevance. That every terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter goes without saying, but that does not mean that everyone who sees themselves as a freedom fighter is a terrorist. my point was that terrorism is distinct from the threat of violence used by military and paramilitary organizations: terrorism necessarily implies a desire to coerce a standing government by creating a threat to its populace, where no ability to challenge or overthrow it militarily exists. The distinction between a terrorist and a brutal revolutionary is crystal clear, because they have entirely different goals and intentions. I'm not saying I'd want to invite either of them over for a BBQ, mind you, but you are clearly leveraging an ambiguity in language (the multiple manifestations of the word 'terror') to blur the distinction between them. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re post 9/11. I also thought so. However, after checking some sources I found that is not the case. I agree that that is illogical and counter-intuitive, however, some sources really speak about Communist regimes as "terrorist". Again, neutrality requires us to include this reservation into the article. Had JM been more prone to listen other's arguments, he would notice that I already expressed this opinion before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

they're not outlawed in most countries

They wouldn't be, especially where a Communist party is still in charge, like in China. But former Communist regimes like those in East Germany, Hungary, Romania, etc, are regarded by large sections of the population as criminal, irrespective of the official position. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - I'd appreciate it if everyone who is overly emotionally involved would step back from this discussion and allow me to talk it out with Justimus. there's too much inflammatory language going on here. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, Ludwigs. Let me just point out that "Outlawed" and "are regarded by large sections of the population as criminal, irrespective of the official position" are two quite different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

my point was that terrorism is distinct from the threat of violence used by military and paramilitary organizations: terrorism necessarily implies a desire to coerce a standing government by creating a threat to its populace

Terrorism implies coercion of either populations or their governments.

It refers to some specific regimes, mostly to Stalinism

That is not at all the case. The people from former Communist countries I have spoken to on the subject invariably refer to Communist rule ("Stalinist" or otherwise) as "Communist".

Can you translate "Косил косой косой косой" and "косой косой косил косой"?

I don't need to translate anything. An English translation of Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky already exists (published in Moscow) and has the word "terror" as has Engels' original quoted by Lenin. You are using original research (a) to claim that this is not the case, (b) to claim that Lenin doesn't talk about terror in that book, and (c) to justify the exclusion of quotes from that book or references to it by respected historians like Service. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

allow me to talk it out with Justimus

Who is "Justimus"? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "I don't need to translate anything" Well, as I expected, you appeared to unable to do that. I propose to close this part of the dispute, because it is possible only when all participants fees the nuances of the original work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re @Paul: I would not know how to translate your Russian sentences to English, but in Finnish it would be as follows: Kokoo kokoon koko kokko! Koko kokkoko? Koko kokko. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That is funny, I didn't expect that these words are so similar in Finnish :-). Let me remind you, however, that in Russian both these phrases have the same meaning: a squint-eyed person (or a hear) mowed (something) with a scythe. The word order is not important in Russian. In any event, I just wanted to know the JM's ability to feel small nuances in Russian. He refused to answer, which, probably meant he was unable to translate. Sorry for this little diversion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus (sorry for the typo), you are again confusing two very distinct usages of the word terrorism. coercion of a population to establish or maintain political hegemony is a normal (if unpleasant) part of revolutionary activity. coercion of a government by threatening the populace is modern terrorism, and has almost nothing in common with revolutionary activity. This distinction is maintained even in the current war in afghanistan: Al-queda is considered a terrorist organization because they have no explicit revolutionary goals; the Taliban is (at best) considered supporters of terrorism, because they are an effective insurgent force aiming to gain political control.

again, you are trying to leverage an ambiguity of language to make a novel argument of your own, and that is synthesis.

Plus, can we try to rationalize the indents here? it's very hard to follow the conversation. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to follow the conversation when it is constantly being disrupted with irrelevant comments. This section is about Marxist advocacy of terrorism, with particular reference to Marx.

It is evident from the statements of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other leading Marxists that (1) there is advocacy of terrorism by leading Marxists and (2) terrorism in this context refers to both (a) the means of establishing Communist rule (dictatorship of the proletariat) and (b) the means of maintaining such rule once it has been established.

See also the passage from Kautsky I added above. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to guess at what you meant by 'the passage from Kaustky', but assuming I found the right one, that only reaffirms what I'm trying to tell you here. You are making a mistake in language. 'Terror' in the sense that Kautsky and Marx are using it is Jacobin terror - the extirpation of a previously oppressive ruling elite to create a clean slate for the growth of the new society. It has literally nothing to do with terrorism in the modern sense of the word, and confounding the two uses without some very clear explanation of the difference is utterly misleading. Jacobin terror (revolutionary terror) has nothing to do with communism whatsoever (the Jacobins existed 100 years before Marx) - it's much closer to democratic revolution (the French Revolution was modeled after the American, after all), and modern instances of revolutionary terror (which are reasonably common, and usually associated with revolutionary socialism rather than communism), are entirely distinct from political terrorism of the al-queda/IRA variety.

You keep neglecting to address this point when I rasie it, and I'm not quite sure why that is. would you please address it now? --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute.

(1) The Kautsky passage I pointed out to you shows that Marx advocated terrorism, period. What kind of terrorism that was is another issue.

(2) It is evident from Kautsky and others (see chapter 8 of Terrorism, for example) what they understood under the term "terrorism". Whether this is exactly the same or not as "modern terrorism" (what's your definition of that, anyway?) is a separate issue.

(3) The terrorism advocated by Marx, Lenin, etc., is sufficiently similar (it doesn't have to be identical in all respects)

to what we understand today under the term, which is why Marx's advocacy thereof is mentioned in the IET and other scholarly works. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, where you say "what kind of terrorism that was is another issue" in the passage above, you are making a mistake in language, which amounts to a form of wp:synthesis. Of course variant meanings of the word 'terrorism' matter. the term 'WOP' stands for 'without papers': it was a perfectly normal bureaucratic term for undocumented immigrants at the turn of the century but later became a nasty racial slur against Italians; We don't get to say that it's perfectly OK to call Italians WOPs because it was an acceptable term at the turn of the century. The term 'gay' meant 'happy and carefree' in the nineteenth century, now it means 'homosexual'; Would you feel comfortable going around commenting on how gay all your friends are at parties? Words change meaning over time and come to refer to different things, and when a word has changed its meaning (as the word terrorism clearly has) we cannot pretend that it hasn't. Doing so distorts the meaning of the language and creates gross misrepresentations of the material. --Ludwigs2 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Justus, you have made no response to this, so I will take it that you are convinced by my logic and start revising the article accordingly, yes? --Ludwigs2 06:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The lack of a response here is due to wikipedia blocking software. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeow, that was one massive failure to pay attention. sorry, and thanks for pointing that out, and never mind! --Ludwigs2 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, here's my earlier reply given on my talkpage:

You wrote:

"The term 'gay' meant 'happy and carefree' in the nineteenth century, now it means 'homosexual'"

The analogy you draw between "terrorism" and "gay" is flawed. Whilst "happy and carefree" and "homosexual" are clearly two different things, "terrorism" in the 19th century is not so different from "modern terrorism". To begin with, the core element of "action inspiring fear" remains unchanged.

Furthermore,

It is not at all necessary to show that the terrorism advocated by Marx was identical in all respects to “modern” terrorism. It more than suffices to show (1) that Marx advocated terrorism and (2) that Marx’s advocacy of terrorism inspired subsequent Marxist leaders such as the Bolsheviks.

More specifically, we may note that in their “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” mentioned by Kolakowsky in the passage I quoted, Marx and Engels say:

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition … Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising … If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed” (Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 5th edition 1973, pp. 244-5).

We may further note that:

(1) Lenin himself advocated the organization of revolutionary (terrorist) squads along Marxian lines, no doubt under the influence of writings like the above.

(2) Kautsky cites at least one instance of Bolshevik use of Marx quotes on terrorism to justify their own policies.

(3) Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky quotes Engels on terror in order to support his own advocacy of dictatorship and terror – as pointed out by Robert Service.

(4) Stalin annotates with approval the Marx quote from “The Victory of Counter-Revolution” in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism - as pointed out by Radzinski..

I think it is quite clear from the above:

(1) that (as observed by Bernstein, Kautsky and the IET) Marx and Engels advocated terrorism

and

(2) that this terrorism was to be deployed as a means of achieving political ends prior to the establishment of Socialist rule (dictatorship of the proletariat).

On balance, this confirms my earlier assertion that revolutionary terrorism has two phases,

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

and

(2) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat).

It follows that, as indicated by the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, the artificial separation of anti-state terrorism and state terror/terrorism is unwarranted and illegitimate in a Marxist context as both are functions, and serve the purposes of, revolutionary violence which in turn is a manifestation of class struggle, the very essence of Marxist revolutionary ideology.

As Trotsky said: "The Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents".

If the pre-revolutionary terror is not distinguishable from the post-revolutionary one in Marxist terms, then it seems unreasonable for us to distinguish between the two forms of terrorism in an article section dealing with the views of Marxist leaders on the subject.

IMO the treatment of pre- and post-revolutionary terrorism as two aspects or phases of the same phenomenon should be the framework within which an objective discussion can be conducted. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"If the pre-revolutionary terror is not distinguishable from the post-revolutionary one in Marxist terms, then it seems unreasonable for us to distinguish between the two forms of terrorism...". I'd say this is a valid enough point to at least debate, JM. But that isn't the problem. The situation in immediately post-revolutionary Russia isn't the same as the situation in say late 20th century western Europe, and neither is the 'terror/terrorism'. What Trotsky was writing about was an entirely different thing - he explicitly argued against the sort of 'individual terrorism' that the groups later listed in the article engaged in as being counter to Marxist principles, as he saw them. From this it seems evident that what constitutes 'Marxism' is contested even by those who consider themselves Marxist, and it logically follows that you can't just pick and choose what individuals say about 'terror' to construct a definitive model of the relationship between Marxism and terrorism - you have to deal in concrete examples, and note where the differences over ideology are, as well as the similarities.

As for what constitutes the 'same phenomenon', I'd say it is easier to find WP:RS for discussions of 'terrorism' in the modern sense as a general tactic of extremist groups, than it is to find sources that dwell on ideological roots at all. Sometimes, the ideology espoused by terrorists is less than obvious in any case, and hard to confirm for obvious reasons.

In any case, this is synthesis, whether it is your analysis or mine. If we are to discuss 'the roots of terrorism in Marxism', or whatever we choose to call it, we need to find a reliable source that does the same. This is how Misplaced Pages works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation in immediately post-revolutionary Russia isn't the same as the situation in say late 20th century western Europe

No one said it was. Nor does it matter. It shouldn't prevent us from including in the section sources showing what early Marxists like Marx, Engels, Lenin thought about terror/terrorism. And of course ideological roots can be established when Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky advocate terror/terrorism with reference to Marx and Engels quotes in ideological writings like Terrorism and Communism. What is beyond dispute is that Marx advocated terrorism. That is where the discussion must start. Until now this has been impossible due to some editors disputing the historical facts. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you are getting into irrelevant conversations. You need secondary sources about terrorism that present your views and you have to show that those views are consensus in order to include them as facts in the article. You need to show that they are more than fringe even to mention them in the article. TFD (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus: please read wp:synthesis, because you seem unclear on this basic wikipedia policy.

With respect to the argument you are making (and you are making a novel argument, which is where the synthesis problem occurs), saying that "terrorism" in the 19th century is not so different from "modern terrorism" is completely insufficient grounds for implying that modern terrorism and 19th century terrorism are the same thing. again, the language you quote above is roughly identical to the language that the nascent U.S. used for justifying the 2nd amendment - an armed populace would raise fear in the hearts of potential tyrants. Are you suggesting that we can use that relation to claim that the US liberal democracy is inherently terrorist? I mean, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al were saying the same thing that Marx and Engels were saying (that the people themselves need to organize and defend their freedom). the only difference is that Marx et all happened to use the word 'terror' (which was conventional term at the time). Your entire argument hinges on the use of a word taken out of context from the use to which it was put; You basically have close your eyes and ignore what Marx et al actually said in order to focus on the words they used. it's a basic violation of logic and common sense. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to show that they are more than fringe

Since when are scholars like Kolakowski "fringe"?

Ludwigs, you have failed to produce any evidence in support of your views. Besides, why are you so obsessed with the American Revolution that is irrelevant to the current topic? This discussion is about Karl Marx and terrorism. Please note that the article already says that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848. In fact, as pointed out by Kolakowski, he did so in 1850 as well. Moreover, you appear to forget the fact that Marx was known as "The Red Terror Doctor" precisely on account of his views. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus, this is basic logic: It doesn't call for evidence, it calls for reason and common sense. My point is that you are taking an unfortunate parallel in language and trying to build it into a philosophical statement. You might as well try to argue that orthodox Jews could never be members of the US Congress because pork spending goes against kosher laws. it's a plain silly argument that you're making, and the fact that you're making it with such assertiveness and dedication is odd (to put it mildly). I'm about at the point where I organize the other editors to simply bypass you and whatever anti-marxist program you see yourself as the champion of, so that we can return this article to something reasonably balanced. I'd rather edit with you cooperatively, but if you're going to push this silliness endlessly and thoughtlessly then there's no sense continuing to try to communicate with you. so which way is it - are you going to keep trying to make a major case out of a misunderstanding in language, or are you going to get reasonable and help build a better article? --Ludwigs2 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, are you now using a theory about "orthodox Jews and kosher laws" as evidence in support of your unsubstantiated opinions? Isn't it a gross misunderstanding of language to mix orthodox Jews and kosher laws with Marxist terrorism? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing analogy with evidence. This is not about evidence, this is about logic and common sense. that was a bad-faith response on your part: strike one. (If I get to strike three, I'm simply going to conclude that you are not at all interested in discussing things fairly and reasonably, and then I'm going to rename and rewrite the article over your objections) --Ludwigs2 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not about evidence, this is about logic and common sense

(1) Logic and common sense are of little value if used independently of empirical evidence, no?

(2) What you term "logic and common sense" constitutes "original research and synthesis" (= garbage) in the realm of Misplaced Pages. Or so I'm told. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. No, you have it entirely reversed. Evidence is of absolutely no value unless applied with reason and common sense. Any good conspiracy theorist, UFOlogist, or religious extremist can produce evidence to support their position simply by ignoring the principles of rational thought which make evidence meaningful. This is precisely what you are doing here.
2. No. Original research is when you start creating novel theories about a topic by analyzing information on your own. You'll notice that I'm not saying much of anything about Marx or the topic here - I'm merely pointing out that the reasoning you (as an editor) are using is both novel and incorrect.

That was a reasonable question, even if it did go a bit astray, so I'll put it down as a foul ball. You still have two strikes left. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

the reasoning you (as an editor) are using is both novel and incorrect

I don't think you have produced any evidence in support of your theory. Until you do so, it will remain just that, a theory. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, that was a bad faith response, and constitutes strike 2. You simply ignored everything I said in order to reassert your point. I'll give you one more chance to conduct a reasonable conversation, and if it doesn't happen I'll begin revisions. --Ludwigs2 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see that you just don't make any sense whatsoever? Begin whatever you want, I don't think anyone cares. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's strike 3. tomorrow I will begin revising this article to be reasonable, and work on the assumption that your opposition (which is well-nigh inevitable, based on what you've said so far) is simply advocacy. It's too bad we've come to this, but I do know how to work with it. --Ludwigs2 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you not start such an edit watr per discussions on this page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have 'suggested' numerous times that discussions on this talk page use a modicum of reason, and have received (instead) some baldly insistent and ideologically driven original research. when honest attempts at communication fail this badly, there's really no other recourse than to stop talking and start acting. all I can say is that if you find my edits inappropriate, then you'd best have some really very decent reasoning behind opposing them. I'm always willing to talk with people who are using their brains, but I've lost patience with the endless stream of didactic blather I see on this talk page. is that ok with you? --Ludwigs2 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The ideological roots of Marxist Terrorism

Two essential facts become evident from the sources:

(1) terrorism in the Marxist tradition has ideological roots and

(2) these roots are to be found in Marxist theories of class struggle.

For example, Trotsky in his Terrorism and Communism writes:

”Is it still necessary to confute Kautsky theoretically? Is there still theoretical necessity to justify revolutionary terrorism? Unfortunately, yes. Ideology, by its very essence, plays in the Socialist movement an enormous part … The man who repudiates terrorism in principle repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship.”

“Kautsky’s onslaught on the Soviet system in his Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918) drew a furious reply from Lenin: in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) he repeated his attack on ignoramuses who talked of democracy irrespective of its class content … To Lenin all this was nonsense. Since the proletariat was governing, it must govern by force, and dictatorship was government by force and not by law …Kautsky’s next pamphlet, Terrorism and Communism, was answered by Trotsky in a work bearing the same title … This revealing work is in some ways even more emphatic than Lenin’s utterances …

True, the pamphlet was written during the civil war and the war with Poland … but it clearly aspires to be a work of general theory; the many quotations from Trotsky’s previous speeches show that he is not merely exaggerating his thesis in the heat of the moment. He presents the general principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the same way as Lenin. Bourgeois democracy is a cheat; serious issues in the class war are decided not by votes but by force … to reject terror is to reject socialism … it was right to shoot hostages …” (Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, English edition 1978, p. 463-4).

”Bukharin, like Lenin, regarded the system of basing economic life on mass terror not as a transient necessity but as a permanent principle of socialist organization” (ibid, p. 811).

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

“The Red Terror was not simply counterterror in an emergency. Its roots lay in the class hatred of Bolshevik activists. The pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks, unlike the Socialist Revolutionaries, had rejected terrorist attacks against individual representatives of the czarist regime. But after the revolution, these same Bolsheviks had no doubts about their right to defend the new regime by any means possible. So, in 1918, the Bolshevik leaders, particularly Lenin and Commissar for War Leon Trotsky, turned to terrorism. This was a correct move in terms of Marxist theories of class conflict” (ibid, p. 72).

Incidentally, Lenin makes it very clear (as do Trotsky and others) that terrorism in the context of revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean just “expropriation” as erroneously claimed by some: “the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky). Trotsky says it even more clearly: “The terrorist measures of the Soviet Government – that is, the searches, arrests, and executions” (Terrorism and Communism).

”Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all” (Karl Kautsky, Terrorism and Communism, Ch. 8).

Clearly, the dictatorship of the proletariat itself, that results from the Marxist theory of class struggle, is about violence against the political opponents, not just their expropriation. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions,Misplaced Pages articles cannot be based on original research. You have provided no reliable single source for the above argument - it is your own synthesis. Please take note of what is written at the top of the talk page for this (and every) Misplaced Pages article: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". If it isn't possible to find WP:RS that supports your 'Two essential facts', they are of no relevance to the article, regardless of their 'factuality'. Rather than wasting your time and everyone else's in filling this talk page with your ideas, why not look for sources that back them up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply showing that there are plenty of sources linking Marxist terrorism to Marxist ideology. This ought to be relevant to the article and hence worthwhile looking into. By contrast, you have failed to show how Marxist terrorism is connected with the American Revolution. You also seem to be unaware of the fact that amalgamating the two subjects is not only your own synthesis but is irrelevant to the article. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its original research Justus, until you get your mind around this and stop using (and interpreting) primary sources we are going to get no where --Snowded 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"This ought to be relevant to the article and hence worthwhile looking into". I agree. I've just suggested you look into it. Just do it somewhere else, as required by Misplaced Pages policy. (And BTW, I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I said about the American Revolution). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please note that the statement "revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marxist-Leninist thinking" is not my original research. Nor is the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism "primary source".

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I said about the American Revolution

I'd appreciate it if you didn't mention the American Revolution here at all, it being utterly irrelevant to a discussion on Communist terrorism. Unless you are arguing that the American Revolution was a Communist one and produce reliable sources to back that up, your are wasting valuable time and space by talking about it. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, you wrote "you have failed to show how Marxist terrorism is connected with the American Revolution". You brought the subject up again. I merely objected to the way you misrepresented what I had written. If you don't think something is relevant, don't bring it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "bring it up again". I merely responded to your post as I am entitled to do. It was you who illicitly introduced it into the dicussion and "American/US Revolution/revolutionaries" occurs at least 10 times in this discussion even though it is utterly irrelevant. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As correctly observed by Mark, all editors should focus on Communist terrorism and refrain from soapboxing (15:24, 24 October 2010 UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop doing it then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop something that I never started. Just stop bringing up far-fetched analogies seeking to equate Marxist terrorism to unconnected topics. That's all I'm asking. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, here's another clue for you: "Behind most terrorist groups there is a political influence and often a figure of inspiration, whether a thinker such as Karl Marx or a man of action like Che Guevara" (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 135). Justus Maximus (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Communist/communist terrorism, not terrorim in general. If you have any sources about this subject, please present them, otherwise please stop soapboxing. TFD (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus. Do you intend to take any notice whatsoever of the requirement to keep postings on talk pages to matters relevant to the article? It has been explained to you already countless times that your synthesis is not acceptable according to Misplaced Pages standards. Are you willing to do this? Unless you are, I'm inclined to concur with Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" - see Rump Parliament. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you applied that quote to yourself we might stand a better chance of progress. And did you see my comment on OIRA? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

JM, please cut out the soapboxing and concentrate on improving the article. TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In my view showing that Marxist-Leninist ideology has been a source of terrorism would greatly improve the article that at the moment, as noted by other editors, is rather makeshift and amateurish. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of 'showing' anything. It is a question of finding a reliable source that shows a causal link. Without engaging in original research and synthesis. This is all that is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IET as example that revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marxist-Leninist thinking, that the Red Terror is rooted in Bolshevik class hatred, etc. That is not "original research", so please stop saying that! Justus Maximus (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:No original research:

'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article'.

The IET may provide a (tertiary) source for A. It may also provide the same for B. Does it provide C? Has it published 'the same argument in relation to the topic of the article'. If it has, then we are getting somewhere. If not, it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The IET has several passages (given above) linking Marxist terrorism (including the Red Terror) with "Marxist-Leninist thinking" and "Marxist theories of class conflict". There is no need to find a whole academic treatise on the subject to establish a link that, moreover, is established by logic. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is no need to find a whole academic treatise on the subject to establish a link that, moreover, is established by logic". Yes there is. Your 'logic' is original research. It is also not logical, but based on circular reasoning and selective use of evidence to 'prove' a predetermined case: effectively a conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly logical to conclude that Marxist theories of revolutionary terrorism are rooted in Marx’s theories of revolutionary terrorism. In addition, as already shown, there are sources like the IET linking Marxist terrorism with Marxist-Leninist thinking. It follows that your charge of “original research” is false. By contrast, the “conspiracy theory” you’re talking about is patently your own invention based on rhetorical speculation and Original Research. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

JM, just how many times do you have to be told that you can't use 'logic', perfect or otherwise, to include arguments not themselves provided by WP:RS? Since you refuse to acknowledge this, I can only conclude that you have no wish to contribute to the article, and are instead using this talk page as a soapbox, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, how many times do you have to be told that you are indulging in Speculation and Original Research, and hence are not in a position to criticize others? IMO I have made more, and more relevant, contributions to the article than you have. For example, you wouldn't have been able to provide a "full" Marx quote had I not first provided the section thereof that was relevant to the article. Also, your claim that Marx didn't advocate terrorism has now been refuted by TFD himself, etc., etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring warning

Guys, the protection just expired and already edit warring seems to be heating back up on this page. If it seems that protecting it for two weeks was not an adequate measure to stop the edit warring, the next step is the liberal use of blocks on anyone and everyone participating in an edit war. All parties can consider themselves warned as of now. I don't know or care what the nature of the dispute is, it does not matter. Edit warring never helps, it only makes things worse, that is why it is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, though I'd suggest that it may be the intention of some parties involved to get participants blocked, and the article protected again. It is notable that during the recent protection period, there was considerable discussion on the talk page about possible improvements to the article (somewhat distracted by discussions over the inapplicability of the synthesis of a new editor to said article), but none of the supporters of the long and contentious version of the section were willing to take part in this. They seem more concerned with maintaining the status quo than correcting the obvious flaws in the article. The refusal by certain parties to engage in consensus-building makes any constructive work impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to add balancing material - not to wholesale delete cited claims with reliable sources. Collect (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes WP:SYNTH considerations beat mere WP:BALANCE issues. (Igny (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Exactly. There is nothing to 'balance'. The whole section was no more than a series of cherry-picked statements and out-of-context quotations used to 'prove' a synthesis without actually stating it explicitly: doing so would show it for what it was. If you want to contribute something, Collect, how about either finding WP:RS for this synthesis/original research, or admitting that it doesn't exist? This whole tedious recital of supposed Misplaced Pages practice, of 'bold edits' and 'adding balance' is being used as little more than a smokescreen by those who wish to keep this tendentious POV-fork in the encyclopaedia, regardless of its obvious partisanship and utter disregard for proper sourcing. Misplaced Pages 'rules' and 'procedures' are supposed to improve the encyclopaedia, not subvert it for fringe political purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to add balancing material - not to wholesale delete cited claims with reliable sources

Exactly. That has always been my position and it's the only way to achieve balance. Constantly deleting things can only result in the article being turned into a stub, which seems totally self-defeating. Incidentally, Paul Siebert has also been a proponent of "balance" however he defined it. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also fully agree with Beeblebrox. Resolution of disagreements by amicable discussion is obviously the only way forward. Spiteful kindergarten behavior must be neither encouraged nor tolerated. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like something from a conspiracy theorist website. Snippets of information gleaned to promote a novel view of history not supported by mainstream writers. No way to balance garbage like that with reliable sources. That would be to give parity to intelligent comment and paranoid musings. TFD (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Paranoid musings"??? I think you may well be afoul of WP:NPA with that sort of commentary. Collect (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. How about those who accuse editors of believing in "Marxist conspiracies" or being "anti-Marxist"? Isn't that paranoia too? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

wow, you guys are a trip. I'm debating whether to consider this strike three and start revisions, because this is such a bad faith conversation that I do not even know where to begin with it. Are you seriously accusing TFD of being paranoid for pointing out that this article is ridden with wp:OR? I don't have a lot of use for FOX News logic, so you might want to reconsider this. --Ludwigs2 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, why don't you read people's comments first before you offer your own irrelevant theories? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"How about those who accuse editors of believing in "Marxist conspiracies" or being "anti-Marxist"? Isn't that paranoia too"? Not if they start sections on their talk page that ask "Is Misplaced Pages a crypto-Marxist outfit?". I've not seen anyone accuse you of being anti-Marxist, but I'd say it was a fair enough observation, and in any case is hardly an insult by most standards. Can I suggest we try to get back to fixing the article. Ludwigs is entitled to his opinion of the section. If you don't like it, how about showing why it is more than 'Snippets of information gleaned to promote a novel view of history'. Where is this 'view of history' sourced? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"I've not seen anyone accuse you of being anti-Marxist"

Then you clearly haven't read any of the relevant posts (which wouldn't be the first time):

"... whatever anti-marxist program you see yourself as the champion of ..." - posted by Ludwigs, section "Did Marx advocate terrorism?", above, 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"...you clearly haven't read any of the relevant posts..." Ludwigs' attempts to get you to understand how Misplaced Pages works, commendable as they are, are of no relevance to the article. So yes, I've only skimmed them. From now on I may well chose not to read them at all. If you want to be considered relevant, then work in a relevant way - on improving the article using the methods by which the encyclopaedia is intended to be constructed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Ludwigs’ comments were relevant to the subject of accusations of anti-Marxism that you disputed. But I’m glad to hear you have chosen to ignore his comments. I myself had already done so. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is McLellan “mainstream” but West is not?

The central problem of this discussion seems to revolve on the issue of whether sources are “reliable”, “mainstream”, etc. However, nowhere has it been properly explained (1) what exactly constitutes “mainstream” in practice, (2) what criteria are used to establish this, (3) who has the power of decision in this regard, etc. WP:MAINSTREAM does not appear to clarify this in any way that could be regarded as even remotely satisfactory.

For example, whereas there has been no suggestion that David McLellan in not mainstream, it has been suggested or implied that Thomas West is definitely not mainstream. Even worse, it has been suggested or implied that he belongs to sources cited in “right-wing” circles, etc. Needless to say, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced in support of these views.

Moreover, if it is argued that West is “right wing” (assuming this is what is implied by "extremist"), it is equally arguable that McLellan is “left wing”, and so on.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the discussion can progress without first resolving these fundamental issues. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not speak about individuals as "mainstream", rather the ideas expressed by them. See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

You need to establish that West's theory about Marx and terror has been recognized by other scholars, i.e., that it is mainstream. It seems that West presented a paper in 1981, never published it in the academic press, and his views on this topic have been totally ignored by the academic world, although the paper is available on a website.

TFD (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I mean their ideas and NOT the individuals themselves. I'm asking you again: (1) Are you saying McLellan (= his ideas) is mainstream, and (2) where is the evidence apart from your quote from West's article that you are rejecting as "not mainstream"??? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if McLellan's views are considered mainstream today, although obviously you provided a source that they were mainstream in 1981. By the way, I was not saying that I rejected West's article as "not mainstream", just the opinions he expressed. It may be a good source for facts, i.e., for reporting what theories are commonly accepted. You need to understand the distinction between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you "do not know if McLellan's views are considered mainstream today", on what basis do you make a comparison? And, does this not imply that it all depends on your personal knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject, which is totally unacceptable? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic writing does three things: it presents the facts, it describes how the academic world interprets those facts and it presents the opinions of its writer(s). The first two tasks are expected to be presented in a neutral way and provide reliable sources for articles. As for the opinions presented, we cannot determine their acceptance until later papers are written that explain the degree of acceptance they have received. You presented a source that McLellan's views were considered mainstream in 1981. That is actually good enough for us to include them. It may be that they are no longer mainstream, but you would have to show that by presenting more recent scholarly writing. The best approach however is to remove all the OR that McLellan's writing was used to dispel.

Thanks to google, it is now possible to find sources supporting anything one wants. They are a goldmine for people presenting fringe views and conspiracy theories, but in the end cannot be used for articles because we need reliable sources that show that these views have been accepted.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statements are ridden with inconsistencies and contradictions:

(1) You first opposed the inclusion of anything showing that Marx advocated terrorism and now you’re saying McLellan’s statement to that effect is “good enough for us to include”.

(2) You have failed to show that West’s article is “not neutral” or that his sources (Solzhenitsyn and Marx himself) are “unreliable”.

(3) If West can be used, in your own words, as a “good source for facts”, he can also be used as a good source for the fact that Marx advocated terrorism in 1850. Otherwise you are cherry-picking your facts, which is one good indicator that your own position is far from neutral. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Reply:

1. Only opposing inclusion of fringe views.
2. Most secondary sources are "not neutral". We report the opinions in them to the extent that they have gained acceptance in the academic community.
3. West did not in fact claim that Marx advocated "terrorism", but rather "revolutionary terror". Since major scholars, as noted by West himself, dispute that, then we can only view it as an opinion. Most secondary sources contain facts and opinions and you must learn to tell the difference.

TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) So, you are saying the view that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848 is no longer fringe.

(2) So, you are saying the view that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848 has gained acceptance in the academic community.

(3) The fact is that the distinction between "(revolutionary) terrorism" and "revolutionary terror" in the context of the 1850 Address to the Communist League is unwarranted in light of the fact that the words used are "terroristic action" Justus Maximus (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are having difficulty in distinguishing between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Were your above statements fact or opinion? Or are you having difficulty in admitting your own statements? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are also having difficulty in distinguishing between terror and terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are having difficulty in understanding that terrorism = terrorism (and in certain contexts terror = terrorism). You are also having difficulty in distinguishing between questions addressed to you and questions addressed to TFD. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A notification.

Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that. This notification is a last call for counter-arguments against this move. These arguments may be: (i) explanations of why the above mentioned search results are not objective; (ii) alternative search results (iii) some other arguments of that type.
If no reasonable arguments against this move will be presented by tomorrow, the content will be moved to the Left-wing terrorism article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You are using your own OR on this, and I find this intended decimation of this article to be contrary to WP policy. Google Scholar is not an accepted reasoning for deletion of material from any article. Collect (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said anything about removal of the material. Paul said he would move the material to a more appropriate place. I do not see anything "contrary to WP policy" here. Care to cite the policy more specifically, may be I am missing something? (Igny (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Since there are no sources that any of these groups are "communist terrorists" and they are not even described as such in the article, they should be moved to the appropriate artcles. TFD (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Paul --Snowded 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If for some reason this article lacks sourced content, then there is something here (Communist terrorism (disambiguation)) that can be used in such an emergency. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How can there be an article on Communist terrorism without the Communist terrorists beginning with Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky? This is a very obvious (and entirely predictable) attempt to dismantle the article and get rid of it. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Most sources for these people call them communists, not communist terrorists. If you think it is the same thing, you may wish to change the name of the article Communism to communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can provide reliable evidence that Marx was a terrorist, you should put the information in the Karl Marx article. I'd bring it up on the relevant talk page first though, unless you have actually found something more meaningful than your usual 'logic' and 'proof' that relies on words always meaning exactly what you want them to, and any evidence to the contrary being Marxist falsification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What "evidence to the contrary"? Evidence that Marx advocated revolutionary terrorism has already been provided unless you've been asleep all this time. TFD and Snowded have clearly stated that they accept McLellan on Marx's advocacy of revolutionary terrorism in 1848. I never said Communists and Communist terrorists are the same thing, only that Communist terrorists should be included in an article on Communist terrorism. And there are of course sources referring to Lenin and the Bolsheviks as "terrorists". See R. D. Law's Terrorism: A History (2009). It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of what the sources say. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to propose this 'evidence' should be added to the Marx article, or not? I doubt very much that your assertions about what TFD or Snowded have said will be considered WP:RS there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already proposed that. Incidentally, I doubt very much that it is for you to decide what is or is not considered WP:RS. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt very much that it is for you to decide what is or is not considered WP:RS". Well I doubt very much that anyone (other than someone more concerned with scoring points than talking sense) reading what I wrote above would think I was suggesting that I could decide what was considered WP:RS.

I look forward to seeing how your 'evidence' goes down at the Marx article talk page. Should be good for a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary Edit Proposal

All this talk about "moving the article" etc. is of course nonsense.

1. On the basis of TFD’s above statements it may be regarded as established that Marx advocated terrorism.

2. Marx and Engels’ 1850 Address says:

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.”

So, what West is referring to in his article is terrorism for revolutionary purposes. That is what Kolakowski (citing Bernstein) also says:

“The Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League made in March 1850 was Blanquist in spirit: it appeared to assume that the will to revolution and the organization of terrorism were sufficient to provide the driving force of a socialist upheaval. In general, Marx had tried to find a compromise between two socialist traditions. The first was constructive and evolutionary … The second was destructive, conspiratorial and terrorist … Marx’s thought oscillated between them, presenting different features at different times” (Main Currents of Marxism, 1979, p. 437).

It must be beyond dispute that both the primary and the secondary sources are talking about Marx’s advocacy of revolutionary terrorism in 1850. It follows that, as suggested by West, McLellan’s claim that Marx “never advocated terrorism except in 1848” cannot be characterized as anything but a falsehood.

In conclusion, my proposal is that the article should include a section on Origin/History saying something like:

“The most important source for ideologies of the left appeared with the writings of Marx and Engels, followed by the writings of later communists such as Lenin and Mao Tse-tung (Lutz & Lutz, Global Terrorism, p. 131).

Karl Marx’s thought oscillated between two socialist traditions, of which one was constructive and evolutionary, and the other destructive, conspiratorial and terrorist. Thus in 1850 he felt that organized terrorism would constitute a driving force for socialist revolution.” (Kolakowski, p. 437; Calvert (IET, p. 138). Then briefly mention the views of later Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky to illustrate their own advocacy of terrorism.

McLellan’s statement to the effect that Marx never advocated revolutionary terror except in 1848, may in theory be used as an alternative but only if rephrased to emphasize the fact that he did advocate terrorism, e.g., “Karl Marx first advocated (revolutionary) terrorism in 1848 and subsequently in Tsarist Russia.” McLellan (and Kautsky) can be given as reference. However, this alternative would entail ignoring important sources, both primary like Marx himself and secondary like Bernstein, Kolakowski, West.

So, perhaps the best solution would be a third alternative that combines the first two. Constructive suggestions are welcome. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Until you pay attention to multiple previous advise to avoid original research and synthesis I doubt anything constructive will happen. Tendentiousness is not acceptable behaviour in Misplaced Pages, no matter how passionate you are about your beliefs. --Snowded 11:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) TFD has already admitted that McLellan is good enough to include in the article. Are you disputing this? (2) Including a relevant passage from Kolakowski is NOT original research unless you can show that it is! Justus Maximus (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that “The most important source for ideologies of the left appeared with the writings of Marx and Engels, followed by the writings of later communists such as Lenin and Mao Tse-tung" is from Global Terrorism. It is not my "original research" or anything of the kind. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem Justus is that you make very long postings with a fair amount of OR and SYNTH, then when you are challenged you cherry pick an odd sentence to defend yourself. You also tend to use authorities out of context. I'm sorry but a lot of editors have put a lot of time in to try and teach you how to edit here and you seem intent on ignoring them --Snowded 11:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? However, the fact is that I am not the only editor here to resist the attempt to dismantle and get rid of the article. What "cherry picking" are you talking about? I'm asking you a simple question, are you disputing the fact that TFD has accepted McLellan as good enough to include in the article??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And why are you concentrating on the "fair amount of OR and SYNTH" and ignore what is neither OR nor SYNTH??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with McLellan as a source, although that does not mean your use is necessary valid, especially as you take language out of its context on a regular basis. For example your continued confusion of "revolutionary terror" with "terrorism". Otherwise, and I'm sorry to have to say this but your period of grace as a newby is well over, you are in danger of being seen as a Troll on a soapbox. --Snowded 11:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

you are in danger of being seen as a Troll on a soapbox

And what do you think YOU are being seen as? If you have "no problem with McLellan", why don't you include him in the article as I proposed? And no, I'm not "confusing revolutionary terrorism with terrorism". Revolutionary terrorism IS a form of terrorism as evident from both logic and sources like IET. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Per previous comments Justus, you will either learn or you won't; you will either read what people say or you won't. In the meantime until you make an argument for a specific change to the article backed up by sources in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy then I'll leave you alone. DFTT --Snowded 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have run out of arguments to come up with statements like that. Of course I'm reading "what people say". TFD said McLellan is good enough to be included in the article and no one has provided any evidence that he isn't. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is not the only 'communism'

A minor point, perhaps, but any article about 'communist terrorism' should make clear that not all people who describe themselves as 'communist' also describe themselves as 'Marxist'. I'm sure it won't be necessary to provide sources for this rather obvious statement, though if anyone wants them, they can be found for example at the Christian communism and Anarchist communism articles. Given the state of flux this article is currently in, there seems little point in making an immediate revision to reflect this, but it needs to be remembered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Marxism is a defined subset of "communism" and any article on communism can incorporate the subsets thereof. If you find Christian communist terrorists, add them to this article, for sure. Collect (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, that is incorrect. European socialists remained Marxist even after separate Communist parties were formed. The Social Democratic Party of Germany for example remained a Marxist party until 1959. But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists! TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Collect:

Off the top of my head, I think I'd be more likely to find evidence for Anarcho-Communist terrorists. Any section of the article purporting to show the 'origins' of 'communist terrorism' in Marxism would therefore also have to demonstrate the non-Marxist roots of this particular form.

I'm glad to see you support the idea that an article can include defined subsets of its topic. Clearly further grounds for including 'Marxist communist terrorism' in an article on 'left wing terrorism'. Or perhaps there should only be one article on 'terrorism', which discusses all 'subsets'? Just a thought...

Reply to TFD:

I think your point illustrates further the confusion caused by the naming of this article. Good point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists

Of course they wouldn't. As stated in your WP article, "The Western Allies remained the ultimate political authorities in West Berlin" whilst the country was run by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). As the WP article clearly says, "The CDU was the dominant party in West Germany for the first two decades following its establishment in 1949." The Socialists only became dominant after 1969 by which time as per your own admission they no longer were Marxists. With "historians" like you, no wonder this discussion isn't getting anywhere. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, If you actually want this discussion to get anywhere, can you please stop posting your nit-picking off-topic ramblings and let people who wish to work according to Misplaced Pages principles get on with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "off-topic ramblings" were TFD's, not mine. I was merely pointing out they were crap. You should in fact agree with me instead of defending other editors' off-topic ramblings in addition to posting your own! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(rude remark withdrawn) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic is whether all Marxists are communists. Clearly they are not. TFD (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, read your own posts. You agreed with TFD's off-topic and historically false ramblings. I think everyone can see who the real idiot is. BTW, please retract your unprovoked and grossly offensive remark! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove all the grossly offensive remarks you've made about others (including the ones that you were blocked for making and were supposed to have removed before being unblocked), I'll think about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic is whether all Marxists are communists

If that is the case please refrain from indulging in off-topic and historically false ramblings. Justus Maximus (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, as you know the charges that led to the block were false which is why I was unblocked unconditionally. Besides, I removed all remarks that could have been construed as "offensive", whereas you never removed yours. So I'm asking you again to stop encouraging off-topic and historically false ramblings and retract your unwarranted and grossly offensive remarks! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Andy, as you know the charges that led to the block were false". Stop (unnecessary rudeness removed) You accused me (and another editor) of being 'pro-terrorist'. Are you now saying you stand by that obnoxious (rudeness removed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, arguments are going to get nowhere here. Justus simple does not want to listen to any voice other than his own on this issue. the only way things are going to move ahead here is to ignore him and begin revising the article. It will cause a commotion, yes, but then we can take specific issues to RfC and/or ANI and deal with it on behavioral grounds. You cannot reason with someone who is playing King of the Hill with rhetoric; you just have to write something more encyclopedic, and then use the leverage of the project to dislodge him from the article. --Ludwigs2 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Andy, you are just feeding a troll, best to leave it and move on --Snowded 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Andy can "move on". He is obviously committed to TFD and his off-topic and historically false ramblings like this one:

"The Social Democratic Party of Germany for example remained a Marxist party until 1959. But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists!" TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy if you don't retract your offensive remarks I'm going to have to start deleting them as I'm entitled to. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Provided you retracted your own first, as you were instructed to do as a condition of your unblocking, you'd probably be entitled to do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. The fact is the block was lifted unconditionally. If you want to be taken seriously you must distinguish between opinion and fact. BTW you were blocked yourself recently, so you're hardly in a position to criticize anyone. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact according to Diannaa, that is. What makes you think she knows more about it than the unblocking admin? Here is your block log. You were unblocked "per final chance." That means watch your step. There's even a request to other admins to reblock if you resume your disruptive editing—see it? (It means watch your step some more.) I haven't been watching your editing since the unblock; I hope you have been watching your step? Because as soon as you don't, you'll be re-blocked. For instance, don't even think about deleting other people's posts. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

P.S., if you're worried about comments you find offensive (like "idiot" above), you may let me know which ones, specifically, and I'll redact them if necessary. Mind you, the whole removing posts business is silly IMO. Rude comments make the poster look bad, not the target. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

So, you're expecting me to guess which of your admins "knows more than the unblocking admin"? If you're accusing me of "disruptive editing", why don't you produce evidence for that? And aren't other editors' irrelevant and rude comments disruptive editing??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear JM. I try not to be unreasonable, but, yes, I rather do expect you to realise that the unblocking admin knows more than, well, most people, about the comment he himself made about you in your block log. Did you notice that I gave you a link to your block log, where you can read his comment? Here is the link again: . And that I also told you in words what that comment said? So sorry it still wasn't clear. Since, as I believe I mentioned, I haven't been watching your editing, I'm not indeed accusing you of "disruptive editing"! When I use the words "disruptive editing" I'm not speaking from myself, but quoting the unblocking admin's comment in the block log; that's why I use the sentence "There's even a request to other admins to reblock if you resume your disruptive editing." "There" (the first word) means "in the block log" — I was assuming you had clicked on my link to the block log — and the question "see it?" assumes, again, that you have clicked on, or "surfed to" the log and can actually "see" what it says. Sorry again it wasn't clear. Now then, would you like to learn a little-known trick for knowing who is and who isn't an admin? Everybody who speaks to you isn't an admin. Go here and consult the alphabetical list. You will find that Diannaa isn't on it. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Excuse me, but I am indeed on that list. Another way you can tell if someone is an administrator is to check here ], which shows the user rights. Bishonen, I don't think Justus Maximus had any conditions attached to his unblock. He is only under the same restrictions as every other editor to obey the rules of the wiki and not be disruptive. If he is disruptive, he could face a block, as could any other user. Please use the talk pages of articles for discussing improving the articles, and not to discuss the status of other people's accounts. If you have a dispute with the user, there are dispute resolution venues for that as well. Thanks. --Diannaa 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa — gosh, missing you on the list was really careless of me, I'm very sorry. If I have a dispute with the user..? No. I read about him on ANI and am trying to give him some good advice, that's all. If that gets up your nose it's just too bad. I don't agree with you that "any other editor" is editing under the condition that it's their one "final chance". Unfortunately it looks like Justus Maximus is squandering that chance with the belligerence and unreasonableness I see from him on this page. As many people point out above, he doesn't seem to listen to what anybody says. It's particularly sad IMO to see Snowded, a patient man, starting out by trying to get through to JM, and then gradually having to give up. You're not doing him any favour by implying that his editing is all right as it is. Bishonen | talk 02:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

I actually did not make any comment either way on Justus Maximus' behavior. --Diannaa 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I just butt in here. I've just edited out the supposedly 'unprovoked and grossly offensive' remark about JM I made above that he seems to have got so upset about. As for whether this will do anything to prevent any discussion he participates in from turning into a long-winded soapboxing session, or an attempt to prove that Misplaced Pages is run by KGB moles, I'm not in the best position to judge. I'm beginning to wonder whether he is in fact not a politically-committed newbie, as he presents himself, but instead a sophisticated troll well versed in Misplaced Pages processes, gaming the lot of us. Since this idea of mine is clearly an unverifiable conspiracy theory, probably induced by sympathetic magic from JM's postings, it should of course be disregarded. Why don't we just get back to trying to make sense of Misplaced Pages articles, and to telling noobs like me not to be rude to other editors (or if we must be, at least try to be more subtle about it)? I can't promise to ignore JM, as much as I'd like to, but I can at least try. Why doesn't everyone else just do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that Snowded identifies himself as a "Socialist" which obviously raises doubts about his neutrality in respect of the present article and discussion. Finally, you have conspicuously failed to adduce any evidence that there is anything wrong with the sources I want to include in the article. See "Lenin and terrorism" below. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. No, that wasn't the reason Andy got blocked. Sorry, but I did read the relevant ANI thread, and you are saying the thing which is not. OK, I'm out of here. This is a waste of time, and I fear JM's soap-boxing, POV-pushing, inveterate assumption of bad faith and wikilawyering will soon have him community banned without any help from me. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Whether you personally are a woman or not is irrelevant. You did seem to expect me to assume Dianaa knows less than others. That IS disrespectful by all standards. You also insisted that she wasn't an admin. At the very least, this indicates that your own assessment of the situation isn't quite reliable. Above all, your comments clearly demonstrate that you haven't followed the discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Afd suggestion

Please see Talk:Left-wing_terrorism#AfD_suggestion Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

can not be a POV fork

Material from this article originally, with the original required edit attributions, is not placing material in a "POV fork". This is the original article for that material. See WP:POVFORK which states In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Thus it is the articles which are newly created which specifically are "POVforks" by WP definition. Collect (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is NO "talk page agreement" to delete 80% of this article and place it in POVforks. Collect (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your opinion about POV forks with your view that communist terrorism and left-wing terrorism are not synonyms? TFD (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Collect. Firstly, the content has been moved (not deleted) based on neutrally formulated google scholar results, which demonstrated that this content is more relevant to the different article. Secondly, as Communism is a Leftist movement, the Left-wing terrorism is a mother article for the present article, and by no means can be a POV fork. Thirdly, the move was done to comply with neutrality criteria, so no references to any "talk page agreement" is relevant is this case. In future, please refrain from reverting (with misleading edit summaries) of such well grounded moves, because such behaviour is disrupting and may lead to sanctions against you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from one article and placement in a newly created article is precisely what is meant by "POV fork." As for "neutrality" I would submit that the POVfork is far less "neutral" than this one is. Collect (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

POV forks are "created to be developed according to a particular point of view". What POV do you think the Left-wing terrorism has? It is not for example written using editors' own terminology, original interpretation of primary sources and synthesis of different concepts, representing a fringe point of view (as this article is). "o not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." TFD (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. A mother article cannot be a POV fork.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The "parent" in this case is this article - not the newly created one. Per WP:POVFORK and noting the colloquy about how to get an article deleted per TFD and Petri noted earlier. Collect (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The parent article is always an article covering more general subject, independently of the time of creation. Or you imply that Left-wing terrorism is a subset of Communist terrorism? Incidentally, I agree with the last Ludwigs' post..--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The parent article is the first one -- recall the attempt to rename this article which did not get a consensus - which is the reason why the POVfork was created? Collect (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, collect. this is an encyclopedia, not a diary. the parent article is the more general topic, without regard to the order in which the articles were written. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, there has only been one nomination to move, made by an editor, who has since been indefinitely blocked, and voted against his own request! He proposed moving it to "Leftist terrorism", a term that like "communist terrorism" has no definition and would have kept the article open to more POV-pushing, OR and SYN. Anyway, since you believe that "communist terrorism" and "left-wing terrorism" mean different things, by your logic, neither could be a POV fork of the other. TFD (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your claim about what you think I think is errant. The fact is that coordinated edits with the eventual future plan to AfD the first article is precisely what POVFORK refers to. Collect (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop repeating your misunderstanding of the creation of the article Left-wing terrorism. Could you please also clarify whether or not you believe that "communist terrorism" and "left-wing terrorism" are the same thing. (BTW mixing highly colloquial terms such as "huh" with pedantic terms such as "errant" is distracting.) TFD (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ collect: we have exhausted talk page options - there is no possibility of consensus through discussion with editors who refuse to discuss the matter reasonably. further, this article is the pov-fork, and moving material out of it into more effective locations is good editing practice. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is certainly NOT a POV fork. I created the article. When I did so I did not even know that an article "Left wing terrorism" existed. In a sense, it did not exist - it was merely a redirect at the time. Mamalujo (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well do you believe that they are the same thing and if they are which title is more appropriate? TFD (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo: what it was when you created it and what it is now are not necessarily the same thing. 'Communist terrorism' in its proper sense may or may not be notable enough for an article of its own - there is certainly discussion of it in the literature, but it is usually confused with revolutionary terror more broadly put (for instance, some people will refer to acts of terror from revolutionary groups that identify as socialist as communist terror, when in fact 'socialist' revolutionary groups run the gamut from proletarian-centered agitation to proponents of forms of statist capitalism). 'communist terrorism' (restricted to early-20th century theoretical claims about the need to destroy the bourgeois class, and some of the revolutionary and state activities that derived directly from that) is probably a decent article. trying to extend that either to claim that Marxism is inherently terrorist, or to associate marxism with modern terrorism (which has an entirely different set of rationales and goals) is just pure POV synthesis. --Ludwigs2 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See

Communist terrorism (disambiguation) Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin and terrorism

I hereby provide further reliable sources linking Lenin with terrorism. Ronald D. Law (a respected historian and Professor of History) writes:

“Frustrated by the conservatism of Russian peasants and impressed by the emergence of a new urban working class, some Populists turned to Karl Marx’s doctrines (typically known to its practitioners as social democracy) in the 1870s and 1880s. Out of the Russian Marxists, came Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They embraced terrorism in a circumscribed fashion while in the underground, but became terrorists “from above” after seizing the Russian state in 1917 … In the wake of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin recognized that terrorism was appropriate in two circumstances: as a means of generating popular support among workers and peasants for the Bolshevik cause, and as a means of raising money necessary for the party’s operations” (Terrorism: A History, 2009, pp. 77, 91).

As indicated earlier, the above is supported by many other sources like Robert Service (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108), Richard Pipes (Communism, p. 39), and Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 141). However, should there be any doubt, here's another source:

“Lenin had stated that the party should not flinch from the use of terror in order to safeguard the Revolution and implement socialism. Thus he was able to justify his use of terror. The Cheka’s powers were expanded during the Civil War so that counter-revolutionaries could be eliminated. Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the view of Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, that it was better to overkill than run the risk of being overthrown. Terror was to be used against class enemies although it was also directed against elements within the party, such as ‘adventurers, drunkards and hooligans’. At the end of his life, Lenin seems to have developed an obsession over the use of terror. Letters he wrote in 1922 called for intensified repression against the Mensheviks, including the harmless historian Rozhkov. This seems to indicate that Lenin was developing his own, personal agenda for the use of terror” – Steve Phillips, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 2000, pp. 135-6. The book is published by educational publisher Heinemann for History students and is therefore as mainstream as can be. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The section in the book, "Marxism and terrorism", is clear that they opposed terrorism, yet used it when it was useful. Unfortunately, Law does not provide a category for their terrorist actions. TFD (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If one uses terrorism, it is rather difficult to say one opposes terrorism. Collect (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. If a laissez-faire "conservative" like George W. Bush bails out the banks, does that mean we redefine laissez-faire or re-classify Bush? Better leave it to the scholars, and just report what they say rather than trying to make the call ourselves. TFD (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Equally if one authorizes torture, such as say, water boarding, should one be labeled a torturer. --Snowded 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As you all can see, Law says "embraced terrorism", "became terrorist(s)", "recognized that terrorism was appropriate". It shouldn't be too difficult to phrase one or two sentences comprising all of the above or even include the entire quote as it stands. IMO the latter option would seem more appropriate. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems though the best place for this would be the terrorism article history section, although it would have to be considerably expanded to include, among other things, the other Russian groups using terrorism in the 19th century and the use of terrorism but revolutionaries in other countries such as the future United States. Notice also, that you would need to present Law's other comments about Marxism and terrorism as well. TFD (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking in parables again? What "other comments"? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(I do not think that you are using the term parable correctly.) You forget the first sentence, "Russian Marxists condemned assassinations, bombings, and revenge-killing, but their concern was not morality. History was made through the class struggle, they maintained, not the actions of isolated cells of terrorists." You seem to be confused about the subject. Left-wing terrorists use terrorism as propaganda - they believe that blowing things up will cause people to rise up under their leadership. Communists on the other hand thought that the working class would rise up on their own, and then accept Communist leadership. You seem to think that these groups carry out their actions merely for the pleasure it provides them. TFD (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"You seem to think that these groups carry out their actions merely for the pleasure it provides them"

Not at all. That is what you think that I think, which is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with fact. My view is that they did it for ideological reasons. But that is beside the point. On balance, your comments are indicative of your confusion about the facts. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As should be clear from reading the source you provided, the Bolsheviks did not commit terrorist acts for "ideological reasons". In the case of bank robberies, for example, their motivation was to get the money in the bank. TFD (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Whilst you correctly quote the 1st and 2nd sentences of the subsection “Marxism and Terrorism”, p. 91, you seem to be conveniently omitting sentences 3, 4, 5 and 7:

“In 1911, Lev Trotsky got to the heart of the matter: “if we rise against terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us” (Trotsky, “Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism”). The chilling implication was that state terror as practised by the Jacobins could be effective and wholly satisfying. In fact, Marxists retreated from even this denunciation of individual terror when circumstances warranted … The result was that local Bolsheviks carried out assassinations of police, police spies, and petty officials throughout the Empire.”

So, the Bolsheviks DID practice individual terrorism after all.

2. As Law notes, Trotsky implies that Marxists only rejected individual terrorism because state (i.e., mass) terrorism was more satisfying to them. And satisfaction, of course, implies pleasure.

3. As Law also notes, the loot from “revolutionary expropriations” (= armed robberies) in which the Bolsheviks according to Law were “second to none” was used for the upkeep of the party in exile, hence it ultimately served ideological/political purposes. Even if that were not the case, it would merely add financial reasons to those of ideology and pleasure.

4. As indicated by the sources provided, Lenin seems to have developed a pathological “obsession over the use of terror”. So we can add psychopathology to the above three reasons. Since I never said ideology was the sole motivation for Marxist terrorism, that’s alright by me. I think we can now start editing the article accordingly. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think not (start editing the article accordingly), when I see statements such as "satisfaction, of course, implies pleasure" and "psychopathology" I see an editor who will simply not learn about the dangers of OR and SYNTH --Snowded 10:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What "OR" and what "SYNTH"? And how are TFD's comments less "OR" and less "SYNTH". You seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between my response to TFD's comments and the statements of scholars like Law. It is the latter that must be included in the article, NOT the former. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, you scatter a long set of comments with the odd reference. It isn't fooling anyone. --Snowded 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself, my comments aren't any longer than those of TFD, yourself and others, especially if taken together. You seem to be using spurious accusations like "long comments" to prevent the inclusion of relevant sources in the article. It isn't fooling anyone. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No Justus, I've just lost patience with your editing and I'm surprised that TFD is still prepared to take you seriously. The above is a good example. I make the point that you have long posts with a lot of OR and Synth with the odd reference thrown in and you don't respond to the point, you cherry pick the odd word (which by the way is the way you treat sources). When you are challenged you either pick on the reference alone, and/or (as in this case) pick up on one aspect of an argument not the whole argument. You haven't learnt anything despite a lot of good will and tolerance from other editors. It gets to the point where such behaviour is disruptive and its taking place across many articles where you seem to be on a campaign. I'm happy from time to time to attempt to explain this too you, but in general I am not willing to waste time in feeding editorial behaviour which is clearly disruptive. Here you threatened to edit the article based on your particular blend of OR and SYNTH so I intervened to say that you do not have agreement to do so. Thats about the limit of my willingness to waste time on an editor who is now well past the point of being protected by a respect for WP:BITE --Snowded 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the disproportionate length of your post and off-topic remarks. This section is about Lenin and terrorism. I'd suggest either you say something relevant or keep your opinions (and offensive comments) to yourself. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The section you set up is off topic. You have to provide sources that Lenin was a Communist terrorist or engaged in Communist terrorism, otherwise it is just a typical posting on a blog. TFD (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Lenin was a Communist who advocated and practiced terrorism. That is good enough reason to include him. Otherwise, I will include the above sources in the Terrorism and Lenin articles, which amounts to the same thing. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is synthesis. Can you provide a source that Lenin's practise of terrorism (before the founding of the CPSU) was "Communist terrorism"? Incidentally your source shows that Lenin did not advocate terrorism and in fact condemned it. TFD (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't "synthesis". Since Lenin was a Marxist he was at the very least a Marxist terrorist. This why Law includes him under Marxism and Terrorism. And the sources do say he "embraced terrorism", "became a terrorist", "recognized that terrorism was appropriate", etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at this was way, you may be social and you may be a democrat, but that does not make you a social democrat. "Communist terrorism" is not just the set of all communists who practice terror, but represents a unique concept that can be defined in reliable sources (or so it is claimed). TFD (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Lenin is mentioned under Marxism and Terrorism precisely because he was a Marxist AND a terrorist. Since he was also a Communist and a revolutionary, his advocacy and practice of terrorism belong to articles on Communist terrorism, Marxist terrorism, Left-wing terrorism, Revolutionary terrorism, Terrorism, Lenin, and all other articles where that information is relevant but has been suppressed all this time! Justus Maximus (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You need a source that draws the connection, i.e., calls him a communist terrorist, otherwise it is just synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion?

A search in scholarly sources and books returns the Malayan Emergency as the most likely meaning of "Communist terrorism". Other uses are for national liberation movements and insurrections. There also a discussion starting on whether to turn Communist terrorism into a disambiguation page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article should be turned into a redirect page for the Malayan Races Liberation Army who were called "Communist Terrorists", or "CTs" for short during the Malayan Emergency. TFD (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are referring to this article – i.e. this disambiguation page. What you may be saying is that Communist terrorism should be a redirect to Malayan Races Liberation Army. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I also found references to something in Thailand, but I now see it is only the same old CT under a new name: Communist Insurgency War. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S. – Redirecting Communist terrorism to Malayan Emergency would not make this page unnecessary, It would only mean that a {{redirect}} template be placed on Malayan Emergency. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, instead of discussing this you should just remove the {{Prod}} tag. I am not going to say this on your talk page as it could be considered canvassing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am referring this "this" article. I can't recall where a disambiguation page is used as a springboard for similar "concepts". Reviewing the definition: Disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title. I confess I am no SME on communism or terrorism, but I fail to see how this meets the definition of a disambiguation page. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 04:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. There is near consensus at Talk:Communist terrorism that Communist terrorism should be a redirect to Malayan Races Liberation Army – as that is the most common meaning. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's certainly quite odd to say the least. Even a simple Google book search turns up:

---

• +"communist terrorism" = 4,270

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malay = 668 = mention Malay, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malay = 3,610 = no mention of Malay

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malaya = 1,560 = mention Malaya, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malaya = 2,790 = no mention of Malaya

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malayan = 1,040 = mention Malayan, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malayan = 3,260 = no mention of Malayan

  ---

and a Google scholar search:

---

• +"communist terrorism" = 259

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malay = 82 = mention Malay, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malay = 277 = no mention of Malay

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malaya = 110 = mention Malaya, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malaya = 149 = no mention of Malaya

  ---

• +"communist terrorism" +Malayan = 82 = mention Malayan, not necessarily exclusively
• +"communist terrorism" -Malayan = 176 = no mention of Malayan

  ---

As always, numbers are a bit off since who knows which cache you connect to. Regardless, it would appear that "communist terrorism" most commonly meaning the communist-wrought terrorism in Malaya is a misdirection, not an appropriate redirection. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I did finally take a look at the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism and only found this reference. I regret this would appear to be a consensus of one: 1 being the value of 100% being the numerical representation of unanimity. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good search, Peters. However, this search does not answer the question about the article's subject. Using the same approach, please, identify the events, facts and concepts that should be covered by this article. The previous subject (leftist terrorist groups) were more closely associated with "left wing" not "communist" terrorism, according to gscholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your research shows that at least a third of the sources show that CT was a term used in the 1950s and early 1960s to refer to the Malayan insurgency. Most of the other sources will show it as a term used by the British to refer to similar insurgencies and by the Americans to refer to the Vietnamese Communists, during the same period. TFD (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The research shows nothing of the kind. It shows that the weird assertions above made by Petri "A search in scholarly sources and books returns the Malayan Emergency as the most likely meaning of "Communist terrorism" to be false. Note that Petri does not bother to actually link to any kind of search to support his contention. Peter Siebert acknowledges this - though he does raise a legitimate point about the article's scope. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cannot fully agree with you. In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue), what Petri means is that Malayan Emergency was the only case when the term "Communist terrorism" was used more widely than other terms to describe these events. For instance, although it would be absolutely incorrect to say that "Communist terrorism" is not used by scholars to describe, e.g. Red Brigades, the term "Left-wing terrorism" is being used much wider (hence the move of this section). In other words, to save this article from deletion (or conversion into a redirect page) we need to outline the article's subject. Under the "article subject" I mean the events that are described by scholars as "Communist terrorism" and not as "Leftist", "Left-Wing" or other terrorisms. The bear notion that gscholar finds N results for this term term is not sufficient. All search results must be comparative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A search in books for "Communist+terrorism" gives about 4,140 results. Just by looking at the covers it is possible to see, that a large part of these are about the Malayan Emergency. A search for "Communist terrorism" -"anti-communist terrorism" -malay -malaya -malayan -vietnam only gives some 1,730 results. None of the books is primarily about the purported topic of this article. Indicative of this is that the first book result is a Misplaced Pages rip-off named "Communist Terrorism" by Alphascript Publishing.

Google scholar gives similar results: 259 for "Communist+terrorism" but only 71 for "Communist terrorism" -"anti-communist terrorism" -malay -malaya -malayan -vietnam. Out of these 71 only one seems to be specifically about the topic at hand. Extreme Left Terrorism in Contemporary Europe: from “Communist Combatant Parties” to Militant Campaigns? The title alone should be enough to end this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Paul, I provided the searches to indicate that whatever communist terrorism is, Malaya is not at its scholarly epicenter. As for what else it might be and who might have wrought it, there are thousands of sources to visit but which I only feel it is appropriate for me to discuss in the New Year. Nor has my investigation turned up left(various) terrorism as a more general or wide use for communist terrorism. As with "Communist genocide," the origin of this article, no one appears particularly interested in the proper approach, which is simply representing what sources said regarding the meaning of the term and its discussion. No, everyone wants to argue about whose lede is more WP:OR and then hacking content into unintelligible incoherent pieces—merely my view from the sidelines. I look forward to being able to offer more constructive feedback in 61 days 15 hours 24 minutes 47 seconds. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer to discuss the topic later, let's do that in the New Year (although, frankly speaking, I see no formal reason why you cannot do that now). Regarding hacking, I also can resort to this type arguments. For example, when someone prefers to combine all facts and sources about leftist terrorism (a more general category) or, e.g. Maoist terrorism (a more narrow category) under the title "Communist terrorism", and is persistently doing that irrespective to what the sources tell, the most plausible conclusion is that someone dislikes the word "Communist" and wants it to be associated with as many nasty words, terms and events as possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. It is still unclear for me what events are at scholarly epicenter of Communist terrorism studies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the consensus to move this article to a new title "Leftist terrorism" and turn this into a disambiguation page . I haven't been following this article for awhile, but from what I understand there have been proposals to either move or delete this article in the past and they have all failed. It seems like a couple of editors then decided to "gut the article from within", enforce a move to their desired title without a proper RM discussion, and make this article into a DAB page. Am I missing something? Is there a discussion somewhere someone could point me to where there's consensus established to support this kind of ... extreme, action? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can read the talk page as easily as the rest of us. This article had become a POV-fork involving some fairly heavy synthesis to produce a novel theory about Marxism, and was mired down in an extensive and unproductive stonewalling debate. Farming the contents out to other pages lost nothing, sidestepped a whole lot of tendentious rhetoric, and obviated the synthesis. Do you have an issue with that?

I'm sorry, but the only way to deal with editors who are willing to put that much effort into stonewalling is to pull the rug out from under them. Now that they no longer have the thing they were blindly defending, they can (if they are so inclined) come back and start making reasonable proactive arguments for changes or restorations. --Ludwigs2 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can in fact read the talk page like the rest of you and one thing I don't see on it is consensus to turn it into a dab. And yes I have an issue with that. The article did not become a POV-fork, at least in my view - a seperate POV-fork was created and then a switcheroo was pulled by certain editors who began referring to this article as a POV-fork. But there was no consensus on this view. Farming the contents out to other pages resulted in loss of all the relevant material that had nothing to do with "novel theory about Marxism".

I'm sorry, but the only way to deal with editors who are willing to put that much effort into stonewalling is to pull the rug out from under them.. NO. Let me emphasize that: NO. That is not how Misplaced Pages works and it is certainly not how you deal with editors that disagree with you. YOU don't get to decide who's stonewalling and who's just disagreeing - in my view, it's you and a couple of others that are trying to cram their version down everyone else's throat and are inventing novel ways of circumventing standard Misplaced Pages's procedures to do that. YOU don't get to decide who gets "the rug pulled out from under them" (sheesh, battleground much?). And you don't get to set the status quo.

In regard to the last point - it's pretty clear why this sneaky tactic has been employed. In cases of lack of consensus articles remain under their old names or they NOT deleted. Some people have tried to do both in the past and there has been no consensus. They then invented this new way of achieving the same goal that doesn't have to (they think) defer to the status quo or the Misplaced Pages consensus.

There are still alternatives in the DR here. Try them first before forcing your preferred solution on everyone else. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing sneaky about it, we've been going at this for weeks now, and I think the move was perfectly appropriate, You are entitled to disagree, of course, but let's talk it out here rather than fight it out on the article page. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it should be the other way around

This is the version of the article with most of the content preserved. It's true that a lot of this has been moved to Left-wing terrorism. But why exactly? In essence this is a renaming of the article without actually going through a proper RM procedure. There's no consensus for it.

If anything it's Left-wing terrorism that should be the disambiguation page as it encompasses several sub topics. Communist terrorism is a specific type of Left-wing terrorism. If I was an Anarchist I'd be pretty upset about being lumped in with the Marxists. There's also the left-wing eco-terrorists who aren't exactly communists. In fact the Left-wing terrorism POV fork has a big See also: Anarchist terrorism and Eco-terrorism right up top, which does suggest that that is the broader term. Hence THAT ONE should be made into a disambiguation page. This one should not.

This is not even considering that the dab page created by Petri itself is POV (with the "In Propaganda" being an obvious example). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism is a specific type of Left-wing terrorism". Had anyone actually come up with WP:RS that demonstrated any theoretical basis for that statement, there might be a case for it having a separate article. Nobody ever has, to any meaningful extent. This has been requested time and time again. Since nobody has found it, one must assume it doesn't exist. This is old ground, and I see no point arguing over it again. Until WP:RS is found that argues that 'communist terrorism' should be treated differently from other forms of leftist terrorism, there is nothing to argue about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be requiring a source, for the statement that Communism is a particular type of a leftist movement. Which is equivalent to suggesting that somehow the idea that Communism is left wing is controversial. It isn't. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I require a source that says that 'communist terrorism' is a particular type of terrorism. I've not seen one. Actually, the article didn't even list 'communist terrorist groups', but terrorist groups that claimed to be communist/Marxist. In case you hadn't noticed, not even self-proclaimed 'communists' could agree amongst themselves who was and who wasn't a communist, so how the heck any real theoretical basis for treating 'communist terrorism' as a meaningful analytic category could be found, I really don't know. And then there is the issue that not all communists are Marxists, and not all Marxists are communists. An unholy mess, right from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

the article didn't even list 'communist terrorist groups', but terrorist groups that claimed to be communist/Marxist. - which from the perspective of Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability, NPOV and RS is sufficient. If a terrorist group claims they are communist/Marxist, then they fall under the heading of "communist terrorism". You don't get to decide that they don't - that's pure Original Research on your part.

so how the heck any real theoretical basis for treating 'communist terrorism' as a meaningful analytic category could be found, I really don't know - we are not here to establish any kind of theoretical basis, but only represent what sources - and that includes the groups themselves - say. You are trying to do something that an encyclopedia is not meant for. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Radek, I am surprised that you do not understand the reason of the move. Let me explain you that. If we assume that Communist terrorism is a separate type of terrorism, then we need a reason for placement of Red Brigares and Co to this particular article. The best and the most neutral way to do that is a gscholar search. The search made by me demonstrated that much more reliable sources discussed these groups in a context of "Left wing terrorism" ANDNOT in a context of "Communist terrorism" than vise versa. Therefore, we simply have no ground for placement of these groups in this article. Neutrality requires us to follow what majority sources say. However, if you believe there are some terrorist groups that are described predominantly in a context of Communist terrorism (Petri believes that at least on group is), they can and should be added to this article. I believe other groups exists that can be added here. Instead of arguing, try to indentify them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
PS> The discussion about connection between Marx, Lenin and Co with terrorism also belongs to this article, not to Leftist terrorism. If the sources that discuss this connection are notable enough (in other words, if it does not deserve to be deleted), this discussion should remain here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would actually tend to agree that not all of the groups that were previously included belong under the heading "Communist terrorism". Red Brigades, and things like the BM Gang may be some of those. Others, like say the Shining Path, cleary do. What it sounds like you're saying is that we should have two connected, but seperate articles. Ok that's a reasonable position. But then this shouldn't be just a dab page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you joined the discussion only recently, you probably haven't read the post that eventually resulted in the content move. I reproduce it below for your convenience. Please, read and comment.

Gscholar results

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)

PS. It is not an attempt to insult anyone, however, let me explain what I did. I looked for the sources that contained the words, e.g. "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Left wing terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Communist terrorism" (the first number). Then I did the same search for the sources that contained the words "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Communist terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Left wing terrorism". In the case of Red Brigades the ration was 271 to 6 (you may do the search by yourself to make sure I am not cheating). That means that for all terrorist groups discussed in the article the definition "left wing terrorism" is much more common that "Communist terrorism", and, therefore, the article simply must be renamed per WP:NEUTRAL.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at google books and I'm finding different results, for example . Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, by contrast to gbooks, gscholar looks mostly within scholarly (the most reliable) sources. Secondly, I didn't say there were no results for "Shining path" AND "Communist terrorism". Yes, they are . However, there are much more results for the opposite search (hence the move of "Shining path").--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through these, you might actually convince me. My main concern is that even with the subtracting off of the other term, the "superset" broader term, like Left-wing terrorism, will always get more hits than the "subset" narrower term, like Communist terrorism. Sort of like if I did a search for ""orange" "citrus" -"fruit"" (30k) vs. ""orange" "fruit" -"citrus"" (219k) and used that to argue that since "orange and fruit WITHOUT citrus" is used more than "orange and citrus WITHOUT fruit", the article on citrus should be moved to the article on fruit. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You logic is quite correct, provided that "taxonomy" of terrorist movements is as strict and well developed as that of plantae. In actuality, it is not. For instance, many scholars use the term "communist" as a synonym for "revolutionary", so this term is frequently applied to the movements that have only tangential relation to Communism. One way or the another, we can carefully analyse each terrorist movement, and, if its close ties with Communism will be demonstrated, we can probably re-add some of these groups to this article. For instance, since many small Maoist groups are known to be terrorists, and because Maoism has a Communist origin, a separate section "Maoist terrorist groups" can be added to this article. Another option (taking into account that Maoism, along with Stalinism, are very specific versions of Communism) is to combine these Maoist groups in a separate article Maoist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the taxonomy is not as well developed - this sort of applies to social science more generally than it does in the hard sciences. Still, I think the point is a valid one. We can use google searches to decide between whether a particular article should be under, say, Jan Bazynski or Johannes von Baysen since neither of these is a subset of each other. But with things like citrus/fruit, communist/leftist because one is a subset of the other google searches are much less instructive. But like I said, I'm willing to be convinced.

However, again, what it seems like you're saying is that both articles here have a place. Some of these groups might fall under "Communist terrorism" (or its sub-topics), while others properly belong to an article on "Leftist terrorism" (my point about Anarchists belong here too). But this is an argument about the proper content of each article. But turning "Communist terrorism" into a disambiguation page, against consensus, against results of an RM, is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There already was a Proposed Move discussion - why is it being ignored?

In fact, here's the Proposed Move discussion from a month ago which was closed as NO MOVE . Yet, some editors decided to move it anyway. This is highly disruptive and violates Misplaced Pages guidelines on seeking consensus, discussing changes and following proper dispute resolution procedures. The "I didn't like the results of the discussion" is not a valid reason here. Undo this nonsense. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If there had been the slightest evidence that consensus was being sought by a significant number of editors from the 'keep it exactly as it is' faction, you'd have a point. Instead, the entire process was being stalled through edit-warring, tendentious editing, and worse. Or that's my take on it anyway.

As for 'Undo this nonsense', the changes had been discussed before they were carried out. If objections to the processes being used had been made at the time, they could have been discussed in the proper manner. Coming along afterwards and saying 'I don't like it' isn't good grounds to have it reverted back to the mess it was before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the slightest evidence on the other side either. What I see is a couple editors discussing "how can we get around this RM result that we don't like". The changes may have been discussed but they certainly weren't agreed to. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marek, let's get one thing clear: You are not going to undo this change on mere procedural grounds. there has been far too much stonewalling here already, and I for one will not put up with it any longer. you may be able to undo it by presenting a reasoned argument why the previous form was better. you have not yet done that (i.e., you have not really responded to any of the comments or arguments made in previous sections), so that's where you should be focussing your attention.

'no consensus' is not a valid objection to this change. There was no possibility of consensus here given the refusal of several editors to participate in the discussion properly. your task (should you choose to accept it) is to build a new consensus, not gum up the works further by throwing around procedural red herrings. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't use that kind of tone. I could reply with a "Ludwigs2, let's get one thing clear: You are not going to ram your POV version of this article down other people's throats. You are not going to delete this article when various AfDs failed. You are not going to move this article when relevant discussion has disagreed with the proposed move. There has been far too much stonewalling and sneaky circumvention of Misplaced Pages's policies already, and I for one will not put up with it any longer. Etc.".

If you don't like the implications of Misplaced Pages's policies on consensus, and requesting article moves, when these don't suit your ends, you don't have the right to ignore them. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marek, I am a very big fan of consensus discussions, and I know more about them than you likely realize. The thing about consensus as a practice is that it is only robust where all participants approach it with a serious and dedicated intent to work towards consensus. Consensus requires a high level of reasoned discourse, and even one participant choosing to operate on a low level destroys the nature of consensus discussions the same way that a six year old can disrupt adult conversation, by loudly forcing the conversation down to their level. What we have had on this talk page to date are completely non-functional consensus discussions that were worse then useless: the conversations were closer to trench warfare than to productive debates. Now, I am all for starting a new discussion and establishing a new consensus, if that's what you have in mind - as I said, I'm a fan of consensus discussion. But as I see it, this move broke through the defensive lines, tore down the fortifications, and dropped us at a new discussion table where people might have reason to be a bit more collaborative. You seem to be suggesting that a procedural error should cause us to turn back the clock and man the same old trenches once again, so that we can lob the same old arguments at each other a few dozen more times. that's silly. If you haven't got a better reason than 'procedure' to want to go back to the old version then yes, I will IAR your procedure; any procedure that makes the encyclopedia worse can and should be ignored. So are you going to keep harping on procedure, or are we going to get down to practical content discussions? --Ludwigs2 00:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Procedural error"?!?!? Ignoring a RM discussion that's only a few weeks old and explicitly conniving to circumvent its results, as TFD and Petri have done, is NOT just a "procedural error". It is a deliberate and purposeful attempt at ignoring Misplaced Pages policies simply because they did not result in an action which agrees with particular editors' POV. It is an example of WP:TE tendentious editing and WP:GAME gaming. I can invoke IAR just like you can. I think YOUR actions are making Misplaced Pages a worse encyclopedia. And then we can quote IAR to each other all day. Bottomline is that there was NO CONSENSUS for the move/deletion that has taken place outside of Misplaced Pages's standard procedures. If you want to have a discussion, then undo this first. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2's comments. Volunteer Marek 's comments seem angry and do not present any reasonable discussion. TFD (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please refrain from making useless comments which do nothing but ascribe your inferences to other editors statements. Do you really think that calling my comments "angry" contributes anything productive to the discussion? If not, then why are you saying things like that? My comments are not "angry" and I shouldn't even have to explain that. If you have something productive to say, then say it. If not, then don't make what are essentially personal attacks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting in "?!?!?", "NOT", "WP:TE", "WP:GAME gaming", "YOUR" and "NO CONSENSUS" in several sentences appears to be an expression of hostility. So is your latest posting. While you may have a reason to be angry, please do not insult our intelligence by saying that you are not. TFD (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, any editor have a right to question such drastic changes which have recently been applied to an article on a controversial topic and the motives behind them. Your comments above are indeed out of line in this context. (Igny (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

<-- I am neither angry nor are my comments angry. Quit discussing editors and impugning motives to my comments that do not exist. If you continue to do this, I WILL interpret them as a personal attack. This is the second time I've asked you to desist. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And the reason why I said "WP:TE", "WP:GAME" is simply because that's what you and Petri have been doing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Marek, I personally am not 100% happy with Petri turning the article into such a biased dab. That was extreme in my opinion and has to be improved. But the version you recently tried to revert to was even worse, as it violated WP:POV and WP:SYNTH on so many levels. Now you could say that it is debatable, and I am expressing merely my opinion here, but you would have to realize that the current presentation of the same material at left-wing terrorism is much more neutral. For one thing, it does not try to mix Marxism, revolutionary terror, and terrorism in one bowl. Frankly, I am not a big fan of Communism and I realize there has been quite a few excesses in its history. But blaming modern terrorism on Marxist ideology simply because Marx discussed revolutionary violence in his works and advocated terror as one of the tools to overthrow despotic regimes is not something I may ever consider WP:NPOV. (Igny (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

Part of the reason why I haven't commented on this before is because I saw that a discussion was under way, it looked like, despite some heated arguments, people were talking to each other and matters were being decided. Then Petri and TFD pull this little trick which pretty much is designed to shut down any further discussion. I agree that the previous version is far from perfect (as I've mentioned to Paul above) but that's a dispute about article content. Sneakily moving the article to a different title - especially against EXPLICIT results of an RM - is an extreme move (and yes, sometimes procedures do matter) and an attempt to force their way in contravention of Misplaced Pages policies. The previous version, despite its shortcomings is a natural point for further discussion. A nonsense, POV "disambiguation page" is not. If there is some intermediate version of the article you think should be restored instead then please suggest it (though even that is sort of rewarding people who take extremist positions - not you, others - just in order to push the compromise result in their direction. Probably a bad precedent to set up). Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Marek:I see no reason to restore the material, and you have presented no reasons to do so outside of procedural issues. I saw good reason for the material to be moved under policy (outlined in the extensive discussion above), and you have given no reasons why I should change my mind about that. You have done nothing here except complain that someone is not playing by the rules, and you are failing utterly to grasp the fact that I don't care. This isn't about the rules, this is about the encyclopedia and its content. When you are ready to discuss content, let me know. --Ludwigs2 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The good reason to restore it is that 1) there was a proposed RM which resulted in "no move", 2) then some editors decided they don't like that result so they came up with a sneaky way to circumvent it, then 3) they did it. That's not "procedural issues", that's a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. We can discuss content (and I have been discussing content with folks who are not part of this little trick) once you undo this blatant disregard of Misplaced Pages's policies. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE: You have done nothing here except complain that someone is not playing by the rules, and you are failing utterly to grasp the fact that I don't care - how in the world am I supposed to discuss anything with somebody who takes this kind of attitude? And you were complaining about OTHERS "stonewalling"? If you "don't care" about other people's opinions, just yours and of those who happen to agree with you, then find a different forum to participate in. Misplaced Pages's about collaborative editing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes are in line with WP's policy of neutrality. Many people believe that WP is the place to right great wrongs, but it is supposed to be neutral. That means that it cannot represent our own personal points of view. TFD (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes are in line with WP's policy of neutrality. NO they are not. They are in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and consensus. Many people believe that they can win ideological battles that they've lost in the real world, but Misplaced Pages's supposed to be neutral. That means that it cannot represent our own personal points of view, even if we don't like that fact. Now move it back. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

lol - ok, be that way. I'll be here whenever you feel like having a reasonable discussion. until then! --Ludwigs2 04:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. If you believe that "Communist/communist terrorism" is a generally understood concept, then please provide sources. The "real world" btw is not the debate among political extremists but in the academic world. TFD (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2010 (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