Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Objectivity of this Discussion is doubtful (non-existent)

(1) As indicated earlier, the section on Marxist leaders’ views is misleading:

(a) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on Trotsky, creating the misleading impression that other prominent Marxists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) did not advocate and/or practiced terrorism;

(b) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on the theoretical “rejection of individual terrorism”, creating the misleading impression that this is the main (only) Marxist position on terrorism.

(2) The discussion is not being properly monitored:

(a) no discernible attempt is being made to establish and maintain an acceptable degree of objectivity;

(b) important and relevant scholarly works such as the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism are being ignored or illicitly excluded from the discussion;

(c) though the only logical way to remedy the blatant imbalance in the above section is to include quotes by/on other leaders who are known to have endorsed and practiced terrorism all attempts to do so have been systematically blocked with impunity by the apologists for Marxist terrorism who have done their best to sabotage and wreck both the article and the discussion.

(3) Among the tactics deployed by the apologist wreckers and saboteurs the following may be identified as representative examples:

(a) it is claimed that Marx and Engels did not advocate terrorism despite the fact that scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism show that they did, and Marx himself was known as “The Red Terror Doctor”;

(b) it is claimed that Marx and Engels were not involved in terrorist activities despite the fact that numerous sources from The Neue Rheinische Zeitung to Isaiah Berlin and Francis Wheen state otherwise;

(c) it is claimed that Lenin does not refer to terror in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky and other works/statements despite the fact that Robert Service, IET, and other scholarly and reliable sources state that he does;

(d) it is claimed that the Russian word ‘’strakh’’ does not mean “terror” when:

i. the Oxford Russian Dictionary says that it does;

ii. it is evident from the context that this is the case;

iii. any educated Russian speaker can confirm that strakh may mean “terror” depending on the context;

(e) it is claimed that Marxism is “scientific” when in fact:

i. Marx was not a scientist;

ii. Marx’s background was philosophy and law, not science;

iii. Marxism is not recognized as a science by the academic world;

iv. virtually every one of Marx’s predictions turned out to be wrong, as became increasingly apparent during his lifetime and incontrovertibly so after his death (R. Pipes, Communism: A Brief History, 2001, p. 15) from which it follows that Marxism does not qualify as a scientific system by any accepted standards;

v. the evidence indicates that Marxism is closer to a religious sect than to science proper;

(f) apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;

(g) it is claimed that Marxist terrorism is not rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle even though there are numerous sources showing that it is (please note that it is immaterial whether terrorism had already been justified in terms of a theory of class struggle prior to Marx, the point being that it was advocated/practiced on the basis of Marxist class-struggle theories BY MARXISTS):

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

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right” (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203);

“… perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Robert, Stalins Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18);

this fact is supported not only by reliable academic sources, but by elementary logic:

“In 1907 Mehring published in the magazine ‘’Neue Zeit (Vol. XXV 2, p. 164) extracts from a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer dated March 5, 1852. In this letter, among other things, is the following noteworthy observation: … class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat …” (Lenin, The State and Revolution);

“The fundamental feature of dictatorship is revolutionary violence”;

“The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie”;

“Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain:

- to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie

- to inspire the reactionaries with fear

- to maintain the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie

- that the proletariat may forcibly hold down its adversaries”

(Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky).

When Lenin in 1905 “saw terror as having a role in carrying out the revolution once open resistance had begun”;

when in 1918 he gave orders “to secretly and urgently prepare the terror”;

when in 1922 he said, “It is a great mistake to think that the NEP put an end to terror. We shall return to terror and to economic terror”;

was he on all these occasions acting contrary to Marxist teachings or, rather, in agreement with them?

When Marx himself said “violence is the midwife of the new society” (Capital, Vol. I, ch. 31), was he contradicting his own theory of class struggle?

Given that in Marx and Lenin’s own words, “class struggle necessarily leads to dictatorship” and “dictatorship is revolutionary violence”, how can anyone claim that revolutionary violence (which obviously includes terror/terrorism) is NOT a logical and necessary consequence of the Marxist doctrine of class struggle?

(See also my section on the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism)

It becomes evident from the above that the discussion cannot be brought to an acceptable conclusion unless measures are taken to enforce and maintain the required degree of objectivity. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point of view. However, since this page is not a forum, please provide a support for some of your strongest claims, e.g. that Marx was not a scholar. I expect you to provide a source that would demonstrate that that your opinion is shared by majority scholars.

Re Noemi Gal-Or. I already presented my arguments on that account, namely, that you simply did not understand the idea of this quote, but you fully ignored my post.

Re “The fundamental feature of dictatorship is revolutionary violence”. You should take into account that, according to Marxism, violence is a fundamental feature of all states. In particular, the fundamental feature of the capitalist state is violence against proletariat. Therefore, Marx speaks about violence mostly in the same sense as he understands the capitalist state's violence, i.e., as enforcement.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;" Since propaganda of terrorism is illegal in most countries, this claim can be treated as a legal threat. That is unacceptable in WP and may lead to your block or ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Roberts. His book is devoted to Stalin, not to Marxism. His conclusions about Stalin are generally valid, and I myself extensively used his works in other WP articles. However, since, as I already noted, Stalin's ideology was a revision of Marxism (which had been condemned later) the Stalin's case can hardly be extended on Marxism as whole.

Incidentally, I already pointed your attention at this fact, however, you seem simply unable to listen. That, along with severe violations of WP policy you already committed, is sufficient for your block or ban, and the only two things preventing me from reporting you are that I don't like to go to ANI and that you are a newbie. However, if you will not demonstrate your ability to be a useful WP contributor (at least potentially), I may consider such an opportunity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have complained about this soapboxing at ANI. TFD (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL is a more serious issue. However, I would wait for the Justus Maximus' response before taking any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

please provide a support for some of your strongest claims, e.g. that Marx was not a scholar Please provide evidence that Marxism is a science. As that claim was yours it is for you to provide the evidence!

the Stalin's case can hardly be extended on Marxism as whole Nobody is extending anything. Stalin's case is relevant to Stalin as a prominent Marxist leader, and should be included as such.

As for "violations of WP policy" they were perpetrated by yourself e.g., by removing my posts, making false statements (e.g., that Lenin doesn't refer to terror), etc.! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?

Secondly, I did not remove your post, but restored it (which probably was against the policy, because al libellous materials should be removed).

Thirdly, instead of apologising you continue to insult me resorting to straw man arguments ( "making false statements (e.g., that Lenin doesn't refer to terror)", I never made such a general statement). You are definitely intended to exhaust my patience.

And, finally, my point about Marx (not Marxism) was that he was one of the fathers of contemporary sociology. I provided the evidence for that claim and you haven't proved so far that my source was not reliable. By contrast, your statement is different: "Marx was not a scientist;" (which is probably correct, because he was a scholar) "Marx’s background was philosophy and law, not science;" correct, so what?, "Marxism is not recognized as a science by the academic world" The latter statement is yours, so I expect to provide an needed support for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats"

What “libelous statements”??? Aren’t you blatantly sabotaging the discussion and defending Marxist terrorism by styling it “scientific”???!!!

Didn’t you write “Marxism is a reputable scientific doctrine” in an attempt to justify Marxist terrorism?

Didn’t you also suggest that the expropriation of landowners was not terrorism when it is generally accepted that this was part of Stalin’s terror campaign against farmers?

Given that your statements do not appear to condemn Marxist terrorism, isn’t it the case that they are intended to defend and justify it?

"I did not remove your post, but restored it"

I’m referring to the fact that you removed my Marx quote from the Rheinische Zeitung.

You also removed the Lenin quote from The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky on the fabricated pretext that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all” (See Revision history, 16:41, 6 October 2010 and 02:40, 16 October 2010).

You also wrote:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it” (16:51, 6 October 2010).

The fact is that Lenin DOES use the word ‘’strakh’’ (“fear”) in the sense of “terror”:

(1) as is evident from the context;

(2) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(3) as is evident from the English translation;

and

(4) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In conclusion, it is YOU who have to apologize for your bizarre and offensive behavior! Justus Maximus (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are soapboxing Justus and basing your views on original research, or something I might better describe as your own misreading of the original texts. I suggest you pay some attention to the comments above or you are going to end up with a block or editing restriction of some type. --Snowded 09:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc. stating that Marx and Lenin advocated terrorism, is NOT my original research. Until you produce evidence that all these sources are my research, please refrain from asserting that they are! Justus Maximus (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly PLEASE indent your contents (I have done it here for you), it makes it easier for others to follow. Secondly you keep writing these long screeds, when I look at mass of material in this section alone much of what is see is original research and your conclusions based on primary sources. I also think that any other editor coming to the page will come to similar conclusions. Please spend some time on other pages and look at how other editors provide summary type statements, use hot links, don't write long posts. Its impossible to separate when you are using a proper source from when you are indulging in drawing conclusions Make fewer more succinct points and it will be easier for other editors to engage --Snowded 10:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its impossible to separate when you are using a proper source from when you are indulging in drawing conclusions

It wasn't impossible for others like Paul Siebert who obviously understood that the quotes provided were quotes from other sources and not my own words.

Moreover, you still haven't shown that the quotes I provided from the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc., are my original research. As for writing long posts, I was forced to do so when others started making false statements such as that Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution doesn't refer to terror when both the English translation and the context (as well as Robert Service) indicate that he does! Justus Maximus (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

READ WP:INDENT I've just had to do it for you again. You can take advise or ignore it, expecting editors to wade through these long posts is unreasonable. Summarise, make your points clearer. If you want, substitute "unreasonable" for "impossible" in your quote above --Snowded 10:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lenin DOES refer to terror in the Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky and elsewhere. This is supported by the English translation, the context and the observations of scholars like Robert Service. This fact should be beyond dispute in any serious discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT Please or I will just start to ignore you. You also need to reference third party sources for ANY use of primary material. I suggest you take a day off and read up on how to edit, check out some other pages to get a sense of how things work. You are just digging yourself into a hole here. --Snowded 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"You also need to reference third party sources for ANY use of primary material"

What third party sources? The quotes I've provided are all self-explanatory:

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

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right” (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203);

“… perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Robert, Stalins Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18).

As for you ignoring my posts I'm not going to worry about that since that's what you've been doing all along. That's one of the reasons why the dicussion is not objective! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT and less white space (again please learn). The above comments show improvement, now put together a proposed change based on them (but with more balance you are being selective) in a simple summary and propose it here for other editors to consider. --Snowded 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is YOU who aren't paying attention. I already included such a proposal in the article earlier today and it was immediately removed without any kind of discussion whatsoever. This again demonstrates that the discussion isn't objective! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT (are you even bothering to listen). As to proposals they are lost in all the other verbiage. Summarise briefly in a new section and we can review. --Snowded 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism in early Marxist theory and practice

Marxist terrorism has its roots in Marks and Engels’ theory of class struggle and the revolutionary violence associated with it. Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, 1997, p. 138.), and both Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities in 1848-49.

In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna” (1848), Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”(Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. ; see also Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848-49, Bernard Isaacs, ed., Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972, p. 150, online version at )

Later Marxist leaders based their own views concerning revolutionary violence and terrorism on those of Marx and Engels. Thus, as observed by the historian Robert Service, Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky(1920), advocated dictatorship and terror. (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, 1997, p. 108.)

In this work Lenin wrote: “To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries … One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition” … of revolutionary violence of one class against another.”

Similarly, Stalin’s motives for the Great Terror have been identified by some scholars as being linked with the Soviet communist ideology of the 1920s and 1930s, the leitmotif of which was class struggle. (Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, 2006, pp. 17-8.) Justus Maximus (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I included the above in the article earlier today. If it was "lost in the verbiage" it wasn't my verbiage since there was nothing else by me there! Justus Maximus (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets go through the process. You should have known that this was controversial and best to post here first. I have some questions. Firstly I cannot afford to buy the Encyclopedia so please provide the text that supports the quote. The final phrase of para one is unsupported by reference. The second paragraph is a primary source and really needs third party commentary to place it in context. You also can't argue Marx said this so it is universally applied in Marx's writing and to all communist theory. If you look at Catholic Marxism for example in the 70s you will see the doctrine of Just War being brought into play. Gramsci has another perspective and there are many others. Again for Robert Service I would like the full text in use please. The Lenin paragraph is a clear primary source. The Stalin paragraph represents a particular position adopted by some commentators, it needs to be more balanced. So it needs work, over to you --Snowded 13:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Obviously, the text presented here should be considered in light of sources already quoted by me on this talk page, namely that other school exists that does not support the idea that ideology played important role in the policy of Communist leaders, that the approach to "find a quote from Lenin" is flawed, etc. In addition, the view of Marxist theoreticians who condemned individual terror as useless should also be noted. The proposed text mix "terrorism", "terror" and "violence" (the latter two words were frequently used by Marxist writers as synonyms of "intimidation" and "coercion"). As I already noted, Stalin's terror was based on Stalin's "theory" which was a deep revision of Marxism and all of that has a relation to a separate article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What "final phrase" is that? I've already provided references to Isaiah Berlin, Francis Wheen, and Engels' own statements. Even the Misplaced Pages article on Engels has something to that effect as I pointed out earlier. I also provided the quote from Robert Service a few times. It isn't my fault that you've been ignoring my posts all this time! And what do you mean by "providing the text" from the IET? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy" IS the IET text! Justus Maximus (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is "both Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities in 1848-49". If you have provided the Service quote before then provide the diff here. Text from IET, I want to see the full text which you are using to support the claim --Snowded 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Lenin's endorsement of terrorism is not "a quote from Lenin". The Proletarian Revolution is not "a quote", it's a whole book as pointed out by Service who is no fringe theorist but a solid and respected scholar. You yourself have admitted to not being a historian. So, on what basis should your opinion override that of historians like Service? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, of course I can provide the references/quotes again but your request looks like you are trying to make things more difficult for some than for others. And what do you mean by "full text"? Paragraph, page, article, or what??? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to be able to verify that the text supports your use of it. So a few paragraphs might suffice, ideally the whole article (free free to email it). Your failure to pay any attention to formatting requirements is becoming tedious, try please and stop being trying. --Snowded 13:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my earlier statement:

On Lenin, Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108, says: “Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror.” As source he gives “V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 37, pp. 244-5, 250.”

I will provide the IET text when I get a chance. You can't expect people to be glued to the PC (or books on Marxist terrorism) day and night. . Justus Maximus (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When you provide the IET text I will happily review it, and you need to address the comments I and others have made in respect of an article about communism; ie statements need to be balanced. I'd like a little more context on the Service quote as well --Snowded 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem.

Paul Siebert, when in 1918 Lenin gave orders “to secretly and urgently prepare the terror” and stated that "the more counterrevolutionaries we succeed in executing the better", this cannot be construed as intention to "intimidate", but to physically liquidate political opponents and terrorize the rest of the population into submission to Communist rule. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "a quote from Lenin". My words were merely a reference to my earlier post where I quoted the article from western peer-reviewed scholarly journal. This type sources are considered as the most reliable per WP policy and if you think they are Marxist apologist than you have to admit that majority of scholar community does not support your views. In any event, please, re-read this post. I reproduce it below:

(quote begins)It would be useful for everyone to read a really good source on that account. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce the whole article here for copyright reasons, however the quote below is sufficient to demonstrate how misleading superficial interpretations, which are based on few quotes, may be.

"The clash between these interpretations, between these Lenins, is in some cases a product of unscholarly technique—the "get a quote from Lenin" approach that served useful and various purposes in Russia and the west, but paid little attention to the context or the development of Lenin's ideas. A related problem that plagues interpretive work on Lenin is the effort-occasioned by a highly politicized scholarship-to find a Lenin, a single leninism (good or bad) and to impose consistency upon a person for whom becoming an "ism" was never a goal. And a third obstacle to understanding Lenin's approach to law is, in many cases, a reductive notion of "law" itself, in particular the assumption that law and legality are concepts with fixed and universal meaning. Lenin, however, and other intellectual participants in the politics of late imperial and revolutionary Russia were well aware of the unfixed nature of legal systems and were engaged in a long-term struggle over what law might become in their society" (Lenin and the Law in Revolutionary Russia. Author(s): Jane Burbank Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 23-44)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)(quote ends)

Re "on what basis should your opinion override that of historians like Service?" I do not override it. I just insist that the section should be added into the article only after opinions of all scholars mentioned by me will be taken into account along with the Servise's opinion. I already proposed you to think about that, however you seem to ignore my proposal.

Re "when in 1918 Lenin gave orders..." One has to separate ad hoc political decisions made in some concrete historical context from theoretical views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus could you provide the connection between the revolutionary terror in Russia in the 1st half of 20th century to the terrorist groups of the second half of the 20th century. So far, your findings (whether or not they are notable remains to be seen) belongs to Russia section in revolutionary terror rather than this article (Igny (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

The points I'm making are (1) that contrary to your (Paul Siebert's) claim Lenin's statements cannot be construed as "intention to intimidate" and (2) the section suggested by me is intended to explain the roots of Marxist terrorism which as pointed out by the IET and other sources are to be found in the Marxist theory of class struggle and the revolutionary violence associated with it. What happened after Lenin and Stalin is a separate issue. IMO the best approach is to sort out one issue at a time and issues that precede others chronologically should be addressed first. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IET is a valuable source for later Marxist terrorist movements as well and should not be ignored in this context. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly convinced that John Pimlott (the chap behind the IET) is a startlingly good source on the origins of Soviet Terror or on Marxist-Lenninism - he was a Sandhusrt military officer (who rather remarkably blew himself up with some hand grenades he was messing about with!) and a consultant to the British security services. Service of course has been much critiqued on the Left, notably for a series of well-known errors in his books on Trotsky et al, including on the issue of Trotsky's views on the use of Terror - I also find it anachronistic to compare analyses of modern terrorism to discussions of Marxist revolutionary Terror, but that's another issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "the section suggested by me is intended to explain the roots of Marxist terrorism which as pointed out by the IET and other sources" As I already wrote I fully understand your point. However, you seem to fully ignore mine one, namely that other sources do not support these views or provide quite different explanation. How do you propose to reconcile your POV with what other sources say?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IET articles are not written by Pimlott. Besides, Marx's involvement in terrorist activities can be found in other reliable sources, as indicated above. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to reconcile your POV with what other sources say?

Paul Siebert, I suggest we sort out one problem at a time. You haven't yet provided a reliable source showing (a) that Lenin in the Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky doesn't advocate terror and (b) that the word strakh doesn't mean "terror" in that context - not to mention the footnotes which according to your own statements do have the word "terror". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, please read Misplaced Pages guidance on reliable sources. In particular, please note the following: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Misplaced Pages articles are tertiary sources, Misplaced Pages contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". Please do not cite Misplaced Pages articles as a source, as you have done above in reference to Engels. I'd suggest that other sources you cite may well arguably also be tertiary AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, you are right that we are approaching the roots of the issue, although very slowly and inconsistently. Please, note that per WP:BURDEN I am not obliged to provide any evidence that Lenin didn't do something, or that some word does not mean something.

In addition, there is absolutely no need to focus on the meaning of the word "страх" in this particular article, because the words "revolutionary terror" are found very frequently in other Lenin's articles and speeches written during the Civil war. The fact that both parties resorted to widespread terror during the civil war is undoubtful, however, you have not demonstrated the linkage between that fact and the Marxist theory, as well as the linkage between these two and this particular article. The fact that in 1930s Stalin developed his own theory and, based on that unleashed the unprecedented state terror campaign is also obvious, however, the linkage with this article is also unclear.

By contrast, many scholars believe that most decisions of Soviet leaders were in actuality ad hoc decisions that were not derived from any theoretical Marxist works (and most Stalin's decisions directly contradicted to Marxism).

Re Conquest, you may be interested to read the discussion between him and Wheatcroft, who proposed quite different explanation for some of these events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, regarding Engels and 'terrorism' you cites the Neue Rheinische Zeitung Neue Rheinsiche Zeitung No 300, May 17th 1849 which is of course a primary source. However, it doesn't even provide the evidence you claim it does. According to the article, he arrived at Elberfield carrying "two cases of cartridges which had been captured by the Solingen workers at the storming of the arsenal of Gräfrath". He was then empowered by the military commission to "inspect all the barricades in the town and to complete the fortifications", which he did.

Given concerns about Engels' politics "Engels was asked by Herr Riotte, a member of the Committee of Public Safety, about his intentions. Engels stated that he had come, firstly, because he had been sent there from Cologne; secondly, because he believed that he could perhaps be usefully employed in a military respect; and, thirdly, because, having been born in the Berg Country, he considered it a matter of honour to be there when the first armed uprising of the people of the Berg Country took place. He said that he desired to concern himself exclusively with military matters and to have nothing to do with the political character of the movement, since it was obvious that up to now only a movement under the black-red-and-gold flair was possible here, and therefore any action against the imperial Constitution had to be avoided".

The 'Committee of Public Safety' chose to ask him to leave: "While fully appreciating the activity hitherto shown in this town by Citizen Friedrich Engels of Barmen, recently resident in Cologne, it is requested that he should from today leave the precincts of the local municipality since his presence could give rise to misunderstandings as to the character of the movement". Engels then left Elberfeld.

Where exactly is the 'terrorist activity'? He was involved in an armed conflict (arguably an armed insurrection), but then so was George Washington for that matter. By the logic that makes Engels a terrorist, Washington is as well. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I've just been through the above (and have collapsed it, if you are going to make these long posts please help other editors navigate the page) along with the material yo supplied earlier. I would make a general point that you are assuming that any advocation of violence establishes terrorism and failing to determine when in a civil war legitimacy transfers. We also have a lot of confusion here with violence against its own citizens by the state. The one thing which keeps coming through in all your posts is that you have not understood that you can't use synthesis and your own interpretation of primary sources to establish text here. Where you have sources (such as IET) you have not addressed the challenges to authority by other editors. Aside from WP:SYNTH and WP:OR I think you really need to read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Your proposed edits would be far more credible if they were balanced and you didn't draw from sources that support a particular perspective. This has been pointed out to you by multiple editors now. Until you get your mind around it we are going to make no progress. Your argument on Washington is particularly revealing as it seems to link an act "terrorism" to an intention--Snowded 10:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My posts appear to be "long" because they are in response to long posts by others.

Your proposed edits would be far more credible if they were balanced and you didn't draw from sources that support a particular perspective

Doesn't this apply to others here as well?

Your argument on Washington is particularly revealing as it seems to link an act "terrorism" to an intention

So, you are arguing that intention is irrelevant to the classification of a crime? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for indenting, helps a lot. In response to your question on others, yes it does. In respect of Washington I think you are getting yourself into a trap here. All terrorists think they are doing things for a good cause, Both Lenin and Washington rebelled against oppressive imperial powers, both used violence. The type of regime they intended to create the the means they planned to use it are both difficult to judge and not relevant. From the perspective of Native Americans or Slaves the US was not a particularity welcoming place--Snowded 10:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The type of regime they intended to create the the means they planned to use it are both difficult to judge and not relevant

I beg to differ. The means, intent and purpose are not difficult to judge as they are clearly stated by the perpetrators themselves (Marx, Engels, Lenin). Nor can they be construed as "not relevant". Justus Maximus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:We cannot rely on primary sources and say the meaning is self-evident, we need secondary sources that make that connection. We cannot provide our own translations where there is a dispute about the meaning of the words. We cannot conclude that "actions logically fall under the category of terrorism", we need a source that explains this. Whatever Marx's participation in the 1848 revolution we need a source that explains how this relates to terrorism as part of Marxist ideology. The theory that we should judge an act of rebellion not by actions taken during the rebellion but after it is completed is wacky and we need a source for that. Justus Maximus reply is purely original research and unhelpful. TFD (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The theory that we should judge an act of rebellion not by actions taken during the rebellion but after it is completed is wacky

That may be so. However, the theory isn't mine. Besides it is being equally applied by those claiming that intent, purpose and means are "not relevant".

We cannot provide our own translations where there is a dispute about the meaning of the words

That's exactly what Paul Siebert has been doing. See his insistence on his own translation of the Russian original of Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution.Justus Maximus (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Where you have sources (such as IET) you have not addressed the challenges to authority by other editors.

Yes I have. See my response of 10:07, 19 October 2010 to Jamesinderbyshire, etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you have not understood that you can't use synthesis and your own interpretation of primary sources to establish text here

Robert Service's statement "Lenin advocated terror in The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky" in neither my "synthesis" nor my "interpretation". It is the view of a respected historian. His view may be unpopular with certain pro-Marxist editors, but that is irrelevant.Justus Maximus (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Service has a perspective, others disagree and we need to show balance and you are cherry picking anyway. Basically you continue to insist on using primary sources and you are selective in which authorities you use, when you use them. Until you address this you are going to find it difficult to make progress. --Snowded 12:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Service has a perspective

So has every other source on the subject. Ergo, if I am "cherry picking", so are others. It is difficult to see how we can "show balance" when all sources linking Marxist leaders with terrorism are systematically excluded from the discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, Service isn’t the only historian to confirm that Lenin advocates terror. Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39, says:

“He was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

Anyway, are there different sets of rules for different editors? If yes, how can we “show balance”? If no, why are editors like Paul Siebert allowed to edit the article as they please, whereas others are not? Also, you do not appear to be making any serious attempt to address my concerns in an objective and impartial manner, but are instead displaying a tendency to side with Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump. Could you please advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Pipes' book is a fringe source and should not be used. If you want to use Pipes as a source find something that he published in an academic paper or book, not some conspiracy theorist book. TFD (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers

I point this out to the experienced editors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New section "Origins, evolution and history"

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

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

Let me summarize this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins, evolution and history

German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky traces the origins of revolutionary terror to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution. Lenin looked amicably upon the Jacobin use of terror, considering it a needed virtue and more than once gladly accepted the label Jacobin for his Bolsheviks. This, however, distinguished him from Marx.

The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism. Terrorism came to be used by Marxists, both the state and dissident groups, in both revolution and in consolidation of power. The doctrines of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and anarchism have all spurred dissidents who have taken to terrorism. Marx, himself, except for a brief period in 1848 and within the Tsarist mileu, did not advocate revolutionary terrorism, feeling it would be counterproductive. Nonetheless, Communist leaders seized on the idea that terror could serve as the force which Marx said was the "midwife of revolution", thus Lenin and Trotsky used terrorism, and after World War I communist groups continued to use it in attempts to overthrow governments. Hence, for a leader like Mao terrorism was a fully acceptable method. After World War II Marxist-Leninist groups seeking independence, like nationalists, tended to concentrate on guerilla warfare complemented by terrorism. However, by the late 1950s and early 1960s there was a change from wars of national liberation to contemporary terrorism. For decades terrorist groups tended to be closely linked to communist ideology, being the predominent category of terrorists in the 1970s and 1980s, but today they are in the minority, their decline attributed to the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union.

1. Randall D. Law. Terrorism: a history. Polity, 2009. ISBN 0745640389, 9780745640389
2. Walter Laqueur. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Oxford University Press US, 2000 ISBN 0195140648, 9780195140644 p.11
3. Karl Kautsky (1919). "Revolution and Terror". Terrorism and Communism. Kautsky said: "It is, in fact, a widely spread idea that Terrorism belongs to the very essence of revolution, and that whoever wants a revolution must somehow come to some sort of terms with terrorism. As proof of this assertion, over and over again the great French Revolution has been cited." (Translated by W.H. Kerridge) {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
4. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
5. Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact, p. 277-278, Greenwood Publishing Group 1995
6. Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact, p. 278, Greenwood Publishing Group 1995
7. Chaliand,Gérard and Arnaud Blin, The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda By , p. 105, University of California Press, 2007
8. Martin, Gus, Essentials of Terrorism: Concepts and Controversies, p. 32, Sage 2007
9. Lutz, James M. and Brenda J. Lutz Global terrorism, p. 134, Taylor & Francis 2008
10. McLellan, David, The thought of Karl Marx: an introduction, p. 229, MacMillan
11. Lutz, James M. and Brenda J. Lutz Global terrorism, p. 134, Taylor & Francis 2008
12. Valentino, Benjamin A. (8 January 2004). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-0801439650.
13. Lutz, James M. and Brenda J. Lutz Global terrorism, p. 134, Taylor & Francis 2008
14. Martin, Gus, Essentials of Terrorism: Concepts and Controversies, p. 52, Sage 2007
15. Chaliand,Gérard and Arnaud Blin, The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda By , p. 97, University of California Press, 2007
16. Chaliand,Gérard and Arnaud Blin, The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda By , p. 98, University of California Press, 2007
17. Chaliand,Gérard and Arnaud Blin, The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda By , p. 6, University of California Press, 2007
18. Wills, David C., The first war on terrorism: counter-terrorism policy during the Reagan administration, p. 219, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
19. Crozier, Brian, Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars, p. 203, Transaction Publishers, 2005

This article needs a general section (or sections) on the general subject itself, its nature and history. There have been a number of attempts to do that over the history of this article but they have been met with strenuous objection by a number of editors.

I fully agree with that. In particular, there seems to be a trend toward dissociating leading Marxists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, from the subject-matter. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "this article needs a general section (or sections) on the general subject itself, its nature and history". However, before doing that, we need to come to agreement what the subject is. In my opinion, the article should focus on individual/group political terrorism, and, accordingly, the general section should be written as I described above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"according to other sources, revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marcus Junius Brutus ... not in the Reign of Terror"

I think we can't ignore how the terrorists themselves (Marx, Engels, Lenin) viewed the matter.

the general section should be written as I described above

Where exactly? And why should your version override that of others? Justus Maximus (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I think we can't ignore how the terrorists themselves..." Well, you should probably think about inclusion of sociology into the list of terrorist doctrines, because it was created by a terrorist scholar Marx.

Re: "Where exactly?" Please, read this section (not only a subsection) in full.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

you should probably think about inclusion of sociology into the list of terrorist doctrines, because it was created by a terrorist scholar Marx.

Sorry, but the article is about terrorism not sociology. Hence your comment is irrelevant and unhelpful. Furthermore, I don't think you have cogently explained anywhere why your version should override that of others. Simply reiterating that it should will not convince anyone here. Justus Maximus (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At least, this my comment is more relevant than the mantra about "terrorist" Marx and Engels....--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Marxist theories concerned with sociology are NOT relevant to an article on terrorism. Marxist views on terrorism ARE. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Move article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's analyse the article sectionwise:

1. Origin of Revolutionary terror discusses Reign of Terror, i.e. Leftists, not Communists. Conclusion: belongs to Leftist terrorism.
2. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine: . Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 vs
5. ETA (already discussed) Conclusion: "Left wing"
6. Communist Party of Nepal Frankly, I doubted, but even in this case ("Communist" explicitly included in the name) "lef wing" wins 24 to 4 vs .
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 vs
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" and only 4 for "Communist" .
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 vs
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: vs
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: vs ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renamed 'Origins, evolution and history' section

Given the refusal of certain editors to accept the normal Misplaced Pages standards for editing, I have renamed this section to more accurately reflect its content. Can I ask editors not to revert this change without discussing it on the edit page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i have reverted it given the obvious stupidty of the nameing, is there not a rule against such idiocy? Tentontunic (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, WP:POINT. Andy don't do that please. On the other hand, there is no need for consensus to remove synthesis from the article per WP:SYNTH and WP:BURDEN. (Igny (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

I requested semi-protection --Snowded 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you ask for protection after putting back your version? typical commie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.108.198 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 October 2010

Also, please see MoS:HEAD: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article...." I will set up an RfC.

Ok, guys, I'll admit to being over-bold, if not outright provocative, but given the edit-warring that has been going on over the section, it seemed a way to at least break the stalemate. It has already been demonstrated that the section, as it was when I renamed it, was dubiously sourced and speculative. Given that some editors have argued that without consensus over reversions, any change is valid, I'd say that a renaming of the section was justified, even if my particular name wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Section heading in article

Which section header is more appropriate:

1. Origins, evolution and history
2. Dubiously sourced speculations on the origins, evolution and history of communist terrorism

TFD (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is odd -- I would suggest that such a "section heading" is not anything more than an extension of an effort to delete most of the material from the article, and to make what remains sound like it is non-encyclopedic. The purpose is to improve articles, not to destroy them, last I looked. Collect (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No longer an issue - closing. TFD (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RFCs remain open - the idea that an edit war makes the section non-existent is not valid. Especially when I proposed compromise wording thereof. Collect (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This "compromise wording" was hardly a compromise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It sought to remove language objected to by some, and to remove some actual OR or SYNTH, with the goal of stopping the walls of text all-too-often populating this page. It substantially altered the material with the goal of being seen properly as something in-between two positions. Unless your only compromise acceptable is elimination of the entire section, or naming it something silly, then I submit that it was, indeed, a compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that really your argument? Your version was a compromise because your opponent behaved silly? What do you call edit warring by an anon sock then? (Igny (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

I AGF - and do not call all IP editors "socks." Reread WP:AGF. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the 'Origins, evolution and history' section a synthesis?

It seems to me that we are rather getting off the central point of debate, which is whether this section is a synthesis. From what I can tell from a brief inspection of the sources cited, none of them are actually about the 'origins, evolution and history' of communist terrorism, but instead are each used to confirm a particular point related to an interpretation of the question by the editors involved. If that isn't a synthesis, then I don't know what is.

I may be wrong, as I've not had a chance to look at each source cited in depth, but I'd suggest that it should be down to those who argue that this in not synthesis should make clear which single source contains an overall analysis of the question, beginning with Marx (or even the Jacobins), and continuing to a discussion of contemporary 'communist terrorists'. If none of the existing sources can provide this, I propose that an administrator should be asked to remove it as contrary to Misplaced Pages policy on original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sections are not, per se, "synthesis" as long as no claims are catenenated to reach conclusions not found in the reference cited for the specific claim. Placing claims in some sort of order is not, moreover, synthesis under WP guidelines. The only real issues are - are the sources given reliable under WP:RS, and do the words in the sources support the claims made for the sources. There is no requirement that a single source encompass every claim made in a section. Collect (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is nothing but a series of concatenated statements built around establishing an 'evolutionary' link between Marx's philosophy and modern-day terrorism. Without a reliable source that argues that such an evolution has occurred, this is synthesis, by any reasonable interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy.AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN: "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". Couldn't be much clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reread SYNTH: 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. Editors are totally free to include the reliable statements A and B as separate claims, which is totally proper. As the section uses separate sources for each claim, and each claim is supported by the source given, no SYNTH occurs. There is no requirement that a single source contain everything in an entire section. Really. Collect (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Reread WP:NPOV. While that list of statements might have passed WP:IINFO, these statements presented as facts fail WP:ATT miserably, not to mention WP:CHERRY. And as a matter of fact the whole sections is pure WP:SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

"There is no requirement that a single source contain everything in an entire section". No of course not. There is however a requirement that a single source contains a conclusion which is arrived at (or implied) in an article. The conclusion in this case is that there has been an 'evolutionary' history between Marx's philosophy and contemporary leftist terrorism. Which of the sources argues this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in that section. The section says nothing that the sources themselves do not say. No conclusion is drawn. Mamalujo (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is 'no conclusion' then where does the word 'evolution' in the section title come from? Come to that, if there is no conclusion in the section, then it is just a random collection of cherry-picked statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me which sentence uses two or more sources to make a claim not found in either source. Simple. Collect (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You correctly pointed out that the policy states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." On the page 6, "The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda" says that the terrorist groups were closely linked to Marxism ideology. However, the preceding sentence tells about "historical and cultural context" of terrorism, not about its ideological roots, implying that Marxism was a context of terrorism, not its cause. Yes, these terrorists decided to take Marxism as their ideological base. Today terrorists use Islam for the same purpose. Does it mean that Islam is a terrorist religion? In addition, the same source, on the same page tells about the lack of continuity between each generation of terrorists. Therefore, the source cannot be used in the para about "evolution" of terrorism. My conclusion is that the source has been used improperly, and after reading the WP text the reader will come to conclusions that are not explicitly present in the original book. I am sure that similar analysis of other pieces of text will reveal similar problems.

Note, we left the neutrality issues beyond the scope for a while. However, as I already pointed out, the groups we discuss in the article are left wing, not Communist according to the majority scholars. Therefore, even if the SYNTH issues of this section will be resolved, the neutrality issues (which are equally important) will remain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you find that a source engages in synthesis? That does not qualify as WP:SYNTH as most sources engage in that sort of process. The rule on WP, moreover, is that is a source is reliable, claims based on the source are valid. If you wish to dispute the reliablilty of a source, the place to do it is at WP:RS/N, not by reverting here. Collect (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you don't. I thought I wrote clearly that the source, which states that Marxism was a historical and cultural context of terrorism in 70s and 80s, and which states that there were no continuity between different generations of terrorists, has been used improperly, namely, to create an impression that we can speak about some evolution of terrorism, and that Marxism was the ideological base for this terrorism. Are you able to see a difference berween the words "historical and cultural context" and "ideological roots"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 'evolution' in the section title, for a start? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Would "changes" be a valid choice for you? Collect (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of what word I think is valid. It is a question of whether it conforms to Misplaced Pages policy. Anything that implies a logical continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism is a synthesis, unless supported per WP:RS. Either the section implies such a continuity, and is a synthesis, or it doesn't, in which case it is just a cherry-picked collection of dubious 'facts'. Do you think the section is about anything? If so, what, and how is it supported by a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is garbage and an embarrassment. It should resemble what reliable sources say about left-wing terrorism, rather than be a collection of original research. It reads like a C-grade essay in introductory politics at the John Birch Society University. Once the name of the article is changed to reflect reliable sources however in all probablity it will lose its appeal for tendentious editors, and we will be able to write it from a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the name of the article is changed to reflect reliable sources ...

That may be the case. Problem is, who decides what constitutes reliable sources, and why do these "reliable" sources invariably exhibit a curious tendency to reflect a pro-Marxist bias? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You can read up on the criteria on reliable sources as well as anyone. If you want to take a position that majority academic opinion is pro-marxist I am happy to be amused by the naivete but I don't see any reason to take account of that perspective here.--Snowded 10:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why "a curious tendency to reflect a pro-Marxist bias"? Possibly something to do with academic integrity not permitting the use of cherry-picked half-quotes and a theoretical perspective based on reading history backwards to support advancing a conspiracy theory that holds Karl Marx personally responsible for the Jacobins, the Red Army Faction, and everything else in between? If that is 'pro-Marxist', how does it differ from 'pro-objectivity'?

Justus Maximus, as Snowded says, you are fully entitled to find reliable sources, study the subject, and contribute to Misplaced Pages. I'd recommend doing it in that order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Condescension avails naught. If you dislike what a section says, then find sources which contradict the claims made by the cited reliable sources, rather than seeking deletion of the section. See WP:NPOV Collect (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Collect, but to add to a section (or even an article), it does actually have to be about something. There seem to be two arguments put forward here so far for keeping the section: (A) it is about some supposed evolutionary continuity from Marx's philosophy towards contemporary terrorism, or (B) it isn't actually about anything beyond its content. (A) could be a valid argument, if based on a reliable source, but none has been put forward. (B) is just nonsense. Either way, it is not the responsibility of others to find evidence to support for or against a fringe viewpoint, or make sense out of random cherry-picked data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You misapprehend NPOV. I suggest you post to the noticeboard and state your belief that a secion you dislike can not be made less POV by adding other sources. And that reliable sources can not be found to support your position, even though you aver the sources included are "fringe." As for your hypothets, I dispute that they are of any value in any NPOV discussion. At least you do not even claim the current sources do not meet ] and WP:V. Collect (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We can rewrite this section to represent reliable sources. This book from NATO for example explains that, "Leftist terrorism in its modern context originated after the 1848 revolutions in Europe. Anarchism and Marxism provided the philosophical basis for revolutionary violence and many who adopted these ideologies engaged in acts of terrorism". Unfortunately, the source used for this paragraph, Martin's Understanding Terrorism is unavailable. on Google Books. (It appears in the 2009 edition on p. 231.) Sorry, Collect but I do not see where in NPOV it says WP is a good place to publish original research based on our own interpretations of primary sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim was made that the sources are "fringe" but without providing other sources, we are stuck with what WP states are "reliable sources." WP:NPOV states that adding other material is a means of reducing any POV problems - but if no sources are provided, then NPOV does not require removal of reliably sourced claims. As for OR - we pretty much had removed OR in the compromise edit as much as possible. Perhaos you had not noted that? Collect (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) The implication that revolutionary terror began with the French Revolution is false. In fact revolutionary terror was used during the American Revolution as this source and others make clear. Some people of course believe that there is a secretive malevolent conspiracy that is responsible for all the evils in the world from the French Revolution to forging Obama's birth certificate, but we cannot use primary sources in order to present this view in this or any other article. TFD (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I do not recall any "implication" in the edit I proposed. Might you explain where the wording runs afoul? "Terror" goes back to ancient times - the sources given do not contradict that fact, as you seem to imply. Nor is "some people believe" meaningful as a means of discussing article content on WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky traces the origins of revolutionary terror to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution." If you believe it goes back to antiquity, then this statement is misleading. TFD (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What counts is what the reliable source says, not what anyone "believes." The book used starts with sections on the French Revolution - which rather implies that that is where the book starts. The book does not start with a section on ancient Rome, hence it would be absurd to claim that the books traces anything to ancient Rome. Is that clear? Collect (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As for what Kautsky says: In order to make the Commune comprehensible I had to refer to the Paris Commune, and afterwards to the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror. This gave me fresh means for another parallel to the Soviet Republic, hence an examination of the Commune led to an examination of Terrorism, its origin and its consequences. seems clear enough (preface to book cited). Collect (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"At least you do not even claim the current sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:V". Collect, please do not make claims about what I'm arguing on the basis of what I haven't written. For something to meet WP:RS it needs to be a reliable source for what is being argued. I've made it quite clear that I don't consider this to be true. It is not my responsibility to provide evidence either way for an attempt to use an article about contemporary terrorist groups to coat-rack a discussion about the supposed inherent evils of Marxist philosophy. This synthesis has plagued the article for a long time, with no real attempt by its proponents to provide a WP:RS for the argument. Unless this is done, there is nothing to refute except data that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. I suggest you look at the article history for some of the ridiculous topics that have been 'added' to this article over the years, and explain whether you think they all should have been left in. At least this section gives an indication of what its proponents are trying to prove, though I consider that it fails miserably to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK then - just go to the RS/N board stating why you believe a specific source does not meet WP:RS. See whether others agree with you. All I do is suggest compromise language. Absent a finding that a source does not meet WP:RS, the argument that it does not meet RS is absurd. Collect (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, will you please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have stated clearly that I believe there is no reliable source given for the central argument being provided in the section, namely that there is a meaningful continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism. As for whether the sources given within the section are WP:RS for what they purport to show, that is another matter, though I think at least some would fail to meet this standard as well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out precisely what your problem is. Are you asserting that the references given are not reliable sources per WP:RS? Are you asserting that any specific cited claim is not supported by the reference given? Are you asserting that you do not like the general tenor of the section, but that the sources and claims are properly cited? Are yo claiming that somehow a claim is being made by the very existence of the section which you are in dispute with? I have tried to deal with all of these possible choices in the edit - but do not understand, at this point, why you do not simply use the appropriate noticeboards. Collect (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect is well aware of how articles should be written but for some reason sometimes argues positions that he knows are indefensible. I suggest that we just leave the discussion as it is. Any reasonable reader can pick up the disingenuousness of the arguments presented by Collect. TFD (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, my main problem at the moment seems to be to get through to you that there is no such thing as an abstract reliable source. A source can only be reliable in regard to a specific claim. Now can you please tell me which of the sources given asserts a continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism. I see no point in involving noticeboards, appropriate or otherwise, in debates over non-existent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect is able to argue endlessly in defense of positions that are clearly against the principles of WP. Here is a link to one example. I suggest that any attempt at reasoning will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"I thought I wrote clearly that the source, which states that Marxism was a historical and cultural context of terrorism in 70s and 80s, and which states that there were no continuity between different generations of terrorists, has been used improperly, namely, to create an impression that we can speak about some evolution of terrorism, and that Marxism was the ideological base for this terrorism. Are you able to see a difference berween the words "historical and cultural context" and "ideological roots"?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is 'pro-Marxist', how does it differ from 'pro-objectivity'?

Your conclusions would be more credible (and less blinkered) if you didn’t conveniently forget some important facts, such as, that: (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed. Furthermore, if you believe that Marx was a “scholar”, why do you and your associate vehemently oppose the inclusion of his statements on terrorism in the article? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"n the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories". Complete hogwash. As usual, you fail completely to distinguish fact from opinion. Can you offer the slightest evidence to back up this supposed Marxist domination of 20th century scholarship? I very much doubt it. And if you really think 'socialist' necessarily means 'pro-Marxist' I suggest you study the subject more closely.

Until you have something positive to add to this article and/or discussion, conforming to Misplaced Pages standards of verifiability and civility (starting with an apology for the numerous insults you have peppered about this talk page), I see no reason to waste my time responding to your posts. You suggest "the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed". True enough. But I've seen no evidence of objectivity from you either, and scholars at least attempt to back up their arguments with evidence.

And by the way, I don't have any 'associates', except in your conspiratorial fantasy world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We are required to give greatest weight to the theories that are most widely held by the academic community, regardless of our opinion of them. TFD (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I explained above, this approach is obviously flawed. Also, it unreasonably makes mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and sets it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "Your conclusions would be more credible (and less blinkered) if you didn’t conveniently forget some important facts..." You definitely have to familiarise yourself with the policy. It says: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections." In other words, if in "the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories", then the only neutral way to write an article is to follow this "bias". Of course, the situation may change in future (in either side), and as a result WP articles will change accordingly. However, currently you have to either accept this "bias" or to switch to other articles, not connected to these ideological issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "Furthermore, if you believe that Marx was a “scholar”, why do you and your associate vehemently oppose the inclusion of his statements on terrorism in the article?" Because his words are taken out of context. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of objectivity from you either, and scholars at least attempt to back up their arguments with evidence.

I dare say that applies first and above all to yourself. For example, you failed to provide any evidence as to what the intended meaning of the Marx quote supplied by me was, how I distorted that meaning, and why it had been my intention to distort it. Nor have you apologized for your discourteous and offensive statements.

by the way, I don't have any 'associates', except in your conspiratorial fantasy world

I don't recall using the word "conspiracy". All I'm saying is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between your behavior and that of Paul Siebert. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While the approach may be flawed, it is part of Misplaced Pages policy. If you do not like that policy then you should either change it or go somewhere that has a policy more acceptable to you. In the meantime, I have posted your comments at the NPOV noticeboard, where I hope other editors will have greater success in explaining this to you than other editors have. TFD (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"ou failed to provide any evidence as to what the intended meaning of the Marx quote supplied by me was". On the contrary, assuming you are referring to the Marx quote from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, it was me that provided the full quote in the first place, as is shown here ], thereby making the intended meaning more clear.

As for your comments about Paul Siebert and myself, since both coordinated editing and use of multiple accounts to edit are against Misplaced Pages rules, I'll ask you to withdraw this suggestion immediately, or provide evidence as to what it is you are implying. Should you fail to do this, I may well decide to raise this with the administrators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you to withdraw this suggestion immediately

The fact is you did suggest that my quote was "distorting the intended meaning" without providing any explication or evidence whatsoever. Should you refuse to immediately retract your offensive remark I will have no other choice than to take the matter to a higher authority. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, we have an editor who by his own admission thinks his moral and ethical views have priority over academic opinion and further is living in some fantasy world of marxist domination of academic thinking in the 20thC. Its time to realise that said editor has no intention of working within Wikpedia policy and we should stop

Uh, boy

Ok, I just read through the 'Origins, evolution and history' section, and as far as I can tell it is filled with pure synthesis, violations of wp:UNDUE, and misapplications of the concept of terrorism (which had a distinctly different meaning pre-9/11 and would not have been applied to even half of what it has been applied to in this sections). I don't know whether to address it under wp:SYN, under wp:COATRACK, wp:RS, and I don't know why I should bother deciding. so, two quick straw polls, and if the results are as overwhelming as I suspect they will be I'll put in an editprotected request.--Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

straw poll 1: Shall the 'Origins, evolution and history' section be deleted out of hand, due to numerous and grossly unencyclopedic errors? bits and pieces might be retained and farmed out to other sections if desired. Please respond with a {{tick}} (Y), {{cross}} (N), or {{hmmm}} (?) as appropriate.

• Y --Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Been the object of absurd commentary here - all of which admits that the claims are backed by WP:RS sources. Collect (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A better course would be to point out what you think these numerous and grossly unencyclopedic errors are mark (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It is an embarrassment. TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Y This section screams for deletion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Y Delete section and move relevant content to new article titled Marxism and revolutionary violence. There is no need for it as it is already a copy / POVFORK of Revolutionary terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

straw poll 2: Shall this article be (re-)renamed to 'Revolutionary terrorism'? Communist terrorism is a neologism, and doesn't even apply: whoever wrote this seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between communist and socialist systems, and distinguishing each from Marxist theory. In fact, socialists have a proclivity for executing Marxists and Communists when they find them, which adds an unfortunate irony to the concept of communist terrorism. Please respond with a {{tick}} (Y), {{cross}} (N), or {{hmmm}} (?) as appropriate.

• Y --Ludwigs2 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Straw polls" moreover are deprecated by WP. Collect (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per collect + Communist terrorism is a neologism No it is not there are thousands of sources which cover communist terrorism mark (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Re-name but use the term used in the literature, "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on "No it is not there are thousands of sources which cover communist terrorism". As I persuasively demonstrated, the number of sources that use "left wing terrorism" is much greater.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And has been pointed out plenty of times left wing does not = communist. mark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you should publish a paper explaining how all the experts are wrong in calling it "left-wing terrorism", and knock some sense into them. TFD (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Mark. As soon as you started to use math terminology, let me remind you that "communist" is a subset of "left wing", so every "communist" is "left wing", but not every "left wing" is "communist". In addition, you cannot deny the fact that more sources describe the activity of the terrorist groups discussed in the article as "left wing terrorism" than "communist terrorism".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul your argument is irrelevant, we have sources which discuss communist terrorism. We have sources which discuss left wing terrorism. But they are not the same thing, there are plenty of sources about communist terrorism, more than enough to justify a wiki article mark (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I realise that due to your block you probably didn't monitor the discussion during last week (although the syntax and punctuation, or, more precisely, the absence thereof, of the anon's 72.20.28.7, who was active during your block, strangely resembles your manner of writing). However, after reading some of my recent posts on this talk page you can easily see that the term "left wing terrorism" is much more frequently applied specifically to those terrorist groups discussed in this article. Therefore, not only my argument is directly relevant, this argument cannot be superseded by any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The term is a neologism because it has only come into use in the last few years (neo-logism = 'new word'), and is still puttering about to see if it has a place in scholarly discourse. I doubt you will find many references to it before 2005, and I would be surprised if you found more than one or two prior to 2001. plus (as I noted) the term flies in the face of scholarly understandings of the word communist. it's just plain silly. --Ludwigs2 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Strange then that Sarasota Herald-Tribune - May 9, 1948 Aug 15, 1938 or look for a few yourself obviously not a neologism mark (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The main use of the word "Communist Terrorism" was by the British in the Malayan Emergency to describe the insurgents. TFD (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re neologism. Scholar results for 1900-1970: 58

The same for 1971-2010: 171

In other words, it is hardly a neologism.

However, it is much less abundant term: "Left wing terrorism" is used 823 times , whereas "Communist terrorism" only 259 times .--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you would have to show that these sources used the term in a similar way. Notice that these are all old sources and are mostly using the term "terrorism" to refer to insurgency. If we want the article to be about that, then "communist insurgencies" would be a non-POV term. TFD (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don`t have to show anything other than it is not a neologism, which i did mark (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you have to. Concretely, you have to show that the words "left wing terrorism" are used less frequently to describe the terrorist groups discussed in the article than the words "communist terrorism". You failed to do that so far, whereas I persuasively demonstrated the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And again no i do not. The sheer amount of sources pertaining to communist terrorism means it is notable enough to warrant it`s own wiki article, that`s all she wrote really. If you wish to create an article on left wing terrorism then go ahead, there are more than enough sources for that article also mark (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume I accepted your advise. However, by doing that I would have to move each section of this article to the new left wing terrorism article, because each article's subject taken separately (from FPLF to GRAPO) are more frequently described as "left wing" than "communist". In connection to that, my question is, what the present article will be devoted to? My question is not idle, because it obviously cannot be devoted to the same subject per WP:CFORK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not an issue for this article but for your left wing terrorist article (which BTW would also encompass eco terrorists) mark (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. For instance Peta, Elf, Alf, allf are described as left wing but all are eco terrorists as well. mark (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources needed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure "Patricia D. Netzley Terrorism (Greenhaven Encyclopedia of) page=117|the terrorist groups that engage in ecoterrorism are typically left-wing, single-issue groups" There you go mark (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reflist format doesn't work on talk pages. Please restate in the form of a clickable link. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Redone it so you can see it, along with a little quote from the source mark (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I really believe this should be brought to AFD. The concept of communist terrorism is not notable on its own and instead relies on the notability of left wing terrorism to stand. Notability is not inherited. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

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)

Do me a favour and tell me exactly what part of WP:NEUTRAL is not being met with this article? As stated, communist terrorism is notable enough for it`s own article, please explain why you think this is not the case I`ll also point out Red Brigades left wing terrorism on google books yields 3,900 hits with communist it yields 7,490 hits, google hits are easily massaged and are not an indicator of anything really. mark (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, WP:NEUTRAL requires us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (which implies that only reliable, not all sources must be taken into account). In particular, it refers to the WP:Article titles policy that says: "Most generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." In connection to that, let me point out that by contrast to google books, google scholar searches only within academic sources, which, as a rule, have been wetted by the scientific community, by contrast to various books, including dubious, propagandistic, self-published or fiction, which can be found in the google books data base. According to the Scholar search made by me, reliable English-language sources call the phenomenon discussed in the article (i.e. the activity of the groups the article lists) "left wing terrorism" and much less frequently call it "communist terrorism". Therefore, the article's name simply does not reflect what reliable English-language sources call the subject of this article. You reference to notability of the term "Communist terrorism" is irrelevant per se, because even if the term is notable, another term may be even more notable (see, e.g. Lorentz distribution vs Cauchy distribution); alternatively, the per se notable term "Communist terrorism" might be less relevant to this particular article than "Left wing terrorism" (That is exactly what I demonstrated). One way or the another, bare notability of this term is not an argument, we must prove that "Communist terrorism" is more notable than another terms, and that it is more relevant to the article's subject. You failed to demonstrate that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Most generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." Exactly, and what else should an article about communist terrorism be called but communist terrorism? You must have realized by now your google hits count for naught? I can do searchs which yield far different numbers to yours mark (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your belief that the article is about Communist terrorism. However, since after we analysed reliable sources we found that the sources call the article's subject "left wing terrorism", we simply must accept what the sources say.

To be perfectly honest, "Communist terrorism" is a term that, despite of its notability is hardly used by majority scholars to describe some concrete set of events. As soon as we speak about individual/group terror the term "left wing" is more dominant. When we speck about "State terror", the suffix -ism tends to disappear. When we speak about state sponsored diversions and sabotage, "Communist terrorism" is also used rarely. I cannot say that Communist terrorism as a phenomenon never existed, or that the term is not notable, however, in each particular case other terms are more notable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I can do searchs which yield far different numbers to yours" As I already wrote, I didn't choose a search phrase to get a result I wanted, I just took the keywords people used during the discussion on the talk page. I am not cheating. However, if you believe you can do a more adequate search, please, try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the history at Mass Killings and elsewhere I don't think Mark is going to change his mind on this one, regardless of what search or other material is presented. I think this needs to be a formal proposal for a merge/redirect and/or an ANI or other referral given tendentious editing on this subject over a range of articles. --Snowded 02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. I would suggest you not to draw so premature conclusions. IMO, the present dialogue between Mark and me can lead to some positive results. Let's wait what for his answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll believe it if I see it, and its not a premature judgement its based on behaviour on a couple of other articles. But if you think you can get somewhere ... --Snowded 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I still hope...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Search Terms used "Group name" + "communist" and "left wing" like this "Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" "communist" thus we get x number of hits which says this group is in a book or paper about both subjects.

• Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Communist 2,240 hits left wing 630 hits
• Shining Path communist 7,700 hits left wing 1,940 hits
• FARC communist 6,300 hits left wing 2,820 hits as you can see just from these the hits for the groups with communist far exceed those with left wing, it is the same on scholar btw, communist always beats out left wing mark (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what about the result for the same search on Google Books, substituting 'leftist' for 'left wing' though? This seems to give another 4,070 results. In any case, your results are meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a theoretical distinction (in a WP:RS) between the broader 'left wing' category and the narrower 'communist' one is being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am glad I was right, and you are prone to dialogue. However, let me remind you again that google, by contrast to google scholar gives a results for whole Internet, not for reliable sources only. Your second error is that the search made by you does not take into account the context the word "communist" is being used. For instance, your search results could equally include some hypothetical article that contained a phrase like "Communist governments condemned terrorist activity of "Shining path"".

In addition, if we use google scholar and make similar style source for, e.g. FARC, to compare "Communist" and "Democratic", the results will be:

1. For FARC and Communist: 174
2. For FARC and Democratic: 527

Since, obviously, it would be absurd to propose to move the FARC section to the Democratic terrorism article, the search results imply that something is wrong with your search method.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for you people

OK, I've got a couple of basic questions here that will (hopefully) address two major concerns I have over this article in general. While they may or may not be discussed to death previously, I have no desire to separate a few grains of wheat from hectares of chaff and circular logic. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources discuss "Communist Terrorism" as actual Communist terrorism without being an apparent misnomer or subset of the more general topic of left-wing terrorism? Is the topic of Communist terrorism notable by itself or is it reliant on the notability of left-wing terrorism? (WP:N)
• Do any of the sources discuss actual evolution of this concept without the need to synthesize possible evolutionary traits? Are we dealing with published conclusions or are we making this up as we go along? (WP:SYN)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torinir (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 October 2010

In answer to the first question, I'd say that it has yet to be demonstrated that there is any particular theoretical distinction being made - clearly a book about the Red Brigades may label them 'communist', but this isn't the same thing as stating that 'communist terrorism' is a meaningful subdivision.

As for the 'evolution' of terrorism in general, never mind in relation to communism, I'm not aware that any sources cited really discus this, so yes, in my opinion editors are making it up as they go along. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If it's not even breaking the notability criteria for inclusion, the only place I see this heading is AFD again. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The solution would be to rename the article "Left-wing terrorism" which is a term supported by the literature, and to use those sources to explain the history and ideology. Those sources say that left-wing terrorism combines marxist and anarchist ideology and developed out of the 1848 revolutions. TFD (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, left-wing terrorism already exists as a disambiguation page. The problem is that two of the three linked pages ARE notable, Anarchist terrorism (AKA Propaganda of the deed) and Eco-terrorism. Communist terrorism is not. I could see the creation of a left-wing terrorism article with brief mentions of the two notable terms, with links to their main articles, and a brief mention of Communist terrorism as a subset. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may also see this deletion debate and this old version which was deleted in 2006. For a while, both left wing and right wing terrorism was a redirect until anti-communist POV-pushers came along and started this vicious cycle yet again. (Igny (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

The disambiguation page is a recent change - it seems from its talk page to be a revert. Until a day or two ago, 'left wing terrorism' was (illogically) redirected to 'communist terrorism'. Just to add further confusion though, I'd suggest that 'Eco-terrorism' isn't necessarily left wing, and that there have been forms of 'left wing terrorism' that were neither 'anarchist' nor 'communist'. Then again, whether 'anarchism' is 'left wing' is a contentious question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See the typology in Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism:

There are seven basic types of terrorist:

1. Nationalist Terrorists
2. Religious Terrorists
3. State Sponsored Terrorists
4. Left Wing Terrorists
5. Right Wing Terrorists
6. Anarchist Terrorists
7. Special Interest Terrorists... These extremists are violent subgroups of otherwise well meaning legitimate organizations that have noble causes, such as right to life, protection of the environment and animal rights.

While there may be overlap, these categories appear to be generally used, treating anarchist and eco-terrorism separately. This source for example groups eco-terrorists under both 4. and 7. It groups the Workers World Party under 6. rather than 4.

TFD (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There are right-wing adherents of both ecology and anarchist movements, e.g., the Unabomber and National Anarchists. They appeal to their belief in blood and soil and to hatred of authority. TFD (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if by cherry picking quotes it is possible to establish "evolution" from white terror to the right-wing terrorism. Are there sources which juxtapose revolutionary terror with "reactionary terror"? (Igny (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

If you cherry pick enough quotes, you could probably say anything. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mix terror perpetrated by some state institution with terrorism of political extremist groups. Both White terror and Red terror belonged to the former category, whereas the present article discusses primarily terrorism.

Regarding your question, yes, some sources do compare these two. See, e.g. Helen Fein, Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823. The author analysed two mass killings (in Kampuchea and Indonesia) and saw both common and distinctive features.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the water gets even muddier. Really, the more I'm seeing this, the more I think this article needs to be scrap heaped, and the left-wing terrorism disambig be rewritten as its own article to discuss terrorism by the various political groups that make up the left-wing, according to left-right politics with the exception of anarchy. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A minor point TFD, but are there actually any allegations of links between the Workers World Party and terrorism? In any case, from what little I know about them, they were once at least nominally Trotskyists, and I don't see how they could be described as anarchists. On a more general point, I'd suggest that many, possibly the majority, of terrorist groups might fit into more than one category - I don't have access to the full text in the book you cite, so I don't know how such distinctions are being justified. A raw statement that 'there are N types of terrorist' isn't of much use as an analytic tool. So yes, we are looking at muddy waters here, and a well-argued reliable source is needed to find our way around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Click on the link. The reference to the WWP was about their involvement in the Battle in Seattle, and the book incorrectly calls them anarchists. The point though is that left-wing and anarchist terrorism are treated separately. (I do not know if these actions constitute terrorism, but that would be a concern in another article.) You can find the same distinction in other books they classify types of terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An aside for those who see advocacy of terrorism in Marx's works

I think much of the debate over Marx's use of language might be better conducted with a little understanding of the style of the times he wrote in. Consider this comment, written in 1890, arguing the necessity of the use of force to achieve change in Tsarist Russia, despite the reluctance of 'liberation-parties' to adopt such a strategy:

It seems to me that this is illogical - idiotic, in fact. Suppose you had this granite-hearted, bloody-jawed maniac of Russia loose in your house, chasing the helpless women and little children - your own. What would you do with him, supposing you had a shotgun? Well, he is loose in your house - Russia. And with your shotgun in your hand, you stand trying to think up ways to modify" him.

Do these liberation-parties think that they can succeed in a project which has been attempted a million times in the history of the world and has never in one single instance been successful - the "modification" of a despotism by other means than bloodshed? They seem to think they can. My privilege to write these sanguinary sentences in soft security was bought for me by rivers of blood poured upon many fields, in many lands, but I possess not one single little paltry right or privilege that come to me as a result of petition, persuasion, agitation for reform, or any kindred method of procedure. When we consider that not even the most responsible English monarch ever yielded back a stolen public right until it was wrenched from them by bloody violence, is it rational to suppose that gentler methods can win privileges in Russia?

So who was this advocate of 'bloody violence'? I could provide a link, but that would be too easy. can I suggest that fellow editors first consider who they think it might be, then resort to Google to find out. And then consider a little more before judging yesterday's words by today's standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a master of Google-fu, and will not be denied. But I'm not gonna spoil it. Yet. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also found the author. I agree that the fact that the person who wrote that was an advocate of terrorism can hardly be denied :-).

Good job, Andy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He terrifies me, that's for sure! --Ludwigs2 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Clemen's anti tsarist views do not qualify as "advocating terrorism" any more than the American revolutionaries advocated "terrorism" in the Declaration of Independence. Advocating overthrow of despotism is not "advocating terrorism" by a long shot. Advocating controlling the populace by killing off all opponents or perceived opponents is "advocating terrorism." Os that clear? Collect (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless the American revolutionaries used horrific acts of terrorism against the British and loyalists, and genocide against the indigeneous population. TFD (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? mark (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its pretty blatant now isn't it, anyone whose politics Collect (and possibly Mark) agree with who use violence are not terrorists, while as all others, supported by a mass conspiracy of marxist academics are terrorists. --Snowded 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, nope. Unless the american revolution was a communist movement then as i said, so what. Such discussion has no place on this article and is soapboxing mark (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "Unless the american revolution was a communist movement then as i said, so what" Wrong. American revolution, or American civil war and similar events were not communist revolutions, however, they set a historical context, and you cannot discuss the Marx's theory or his views out of this context. For example, Marx noted that slavery was a very progressive factor in the US, because he believed that the US was the world's most progressive country, and in 1830s-50s slavery was the key factor of their existence. However, it would be ridiculous to write in the article about slavery in the USA that the theoretical base for that was laid down by Marx.

As I already wrote, Marx and Lenin theoretical doctrine required annihilation of bourgeoisie as a class. Taking into account, that the major trait of a class, according to Marxism, is a relation to the means of production, under annihilation they meant primarily expropriation of the bourgeois private property. If you read Lenin's or Marx's work, you probably noticed that the words "annihilation" and "expropriation" are frequently used as synonyms by them. If you disagree, please, provide the proof of the opposite, namely that, according to the Marx's views, the dictatorship of proletariat implied "controlling the populace by killing off all opponents or perceived opponents". All quotes from Marx presented so far are not more inflammatory than the Mark Twain's quote presented above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, Collect brought up the U.S. revolution as part of his argument which I suppose was that not all revolutionaries are terrorists. And I mentioned that the U.S. revolutionaries did engage in terrorist activity, and that fact is supported by countless sources. Why do you not criticize Collect for bringing the U.S. revolution up in the first place? By only criticizing me you appear to be showing selectivity based on your POV. TFD (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No the "So What" was at everyone commenting in this section, not just you. Paul you require Mark Twain Terrorism article, if marx, lenin and the rest all made comments which endorsed terrorism then the quotes belong in this article, i have no interest in anything other than Communist terrorism being discussed here and i`ll ask all editors to focus on that and refrain from soapboxing mark (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Collect, I think it was me that first brought up the US revolution, in response to Justus Maximus's suggestion that taking part in an armed insurrection made Engels a terrorist. The point remains though, that it is unreasonable to use Marx's language as evidence for the support of terrorism without looking at the historical context, and nor can you necessarily consider actions as terrorist without doing the same. The 19th century was marked by political violence, and violent political rhetoric. To expect Marx, Engels and the rest to somehow stand 'outside history' and conform to the prejudices of early 21st century 'morality' is nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Types of terrorism.

The article Terrorism has a section Types of Terrorism. Although "left-wing terrorism" (along with "right wing terrorism") are listed there, Communist terrorism is not mentioned as a separate type. Although Misplaced Pages is not a source for itself, the Terrorism article is definitely a mother article for this one. Accordingly, these two articles are supposed to be mutually consistent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to open a new section every time you want to try and move this article? We now have how many sections dedicated to moving? It is getting disruptive for you to continue doing this and i would request you stop doing it. mark (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole set of articles relating "terrorism" needs a review. They are plagued be the same OR and SYNThesis we have here: the inability of editors to distinguish between terror – referred to as "terrorism" in 19th century and even pre-WW II sources – and the modern concept of terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TO DO – One should look at sources from the 1890s and 1900s to see what people would call bomb-throwing left-wing revolutionaries? I would guess the most common word would be "anarchist", whatever their political affiliations may have been. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To do

1. Restore Left-wing_terrorism deleted in 2006 per this discussion
2. Expand sections there by moving appropriate material from here
3. Fix POV issues there
4. Request an edit to list communist terrorism at AfD as WP:POVFORK of that old article
5. request the move of section on theories on connection of Marxism with terror to revolutionary terror to be sorted out later
6. Redirect communist terrorism to left-wing terrorism.

Does anyone have problems with that to do list? (Igny (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

The deleted 'Left wing terrorism' article isn't exactly my idea of a good starting point - it lacks any meaningful references, for a start. I'm inclined to suggest starting again from scratch, based on the numerous reliable sources on leftist terrorism we have located.

As for where connections between Marxism and 'terror' are discussed, I'm inclined to suggest that we cannot logically exclude a hypothetical discussion on the supposed links between Marxist philosophy and 'terrorism' (in the modern sense) in an article on 'left wing terrorism' - I personally don't recall ever arguing otherwise (though all this debating has got rather confusing...). Such a discussion would have to be based on reliable sources however, consider historical context rather than seeking to project present obsessions into the past, and also, most importantly, give appropriate balance to majority and minority views. It would also have to remain in proportion with the remaining discussion on terrorism from the 'left wing' in general.

With these provisos, I'd say that this seems a good approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - just to make this an explicit statement of the above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Noting Trotsky's "Communism and Terrorism" (1921), Kautsky "Communism and Terrorism", (78,800 Googlescholar hits on Communism Terrorism). as one of 104K googlescholar hits on Communist Terrorism. Left wing terrorism only gets 66K googlescholar hits -- making it the least-used term. Using the least used term is silly, no? Collect (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "communist terrorism" gets 259 hits, while "left-wing terrorism" gets 823 hits. Most of the hits for "communist terrorism" refer to the Malayan Emergency, since it was the term the British assigned to the insurgency. The fact that Google scholar has 78.8K hits for communism+terrorism is irrelevant unless those sources use the words together as an expression. Collect+terrorism gets 109K hits, but that does not mean we should have an article called "Collect terrorism". TFD (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorist 4,240 results left wing terrorist 2,740 results what does that tell ya? mark (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much, mark, seeing that 'leftist terrorist' gives 1,640 finds in the same search. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that also tells you that communist terrorist is the more used phrase mark (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, mark, you know full well that 'left wing' and leftist' are synonyms, and it's the concept we should be discussing, not the phraseology. Where is your source that treats 'communist' and 'left wing' terrorism differently on a theoretical basis? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, your search shows that "communist terrorism" should be redirected to Malayan Emergency. Most of the other hits are propaganda, or references to propaganda, anti-communist terrorism or mere fiction. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – What is more important, is that none of the results for "communist terrorist", except for Europe's red terrorists, are about the topic of this article. They only mention individual "terrorist" organizations that have at various times been labeled "communist terrorist". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support although there is no need for AfD when merge or move are used, and I would not restore the old version of "Left-wing terrorism". I have re-created Right-wing terrorism using good secondary sources and suggest we do the same thing for Left-wing terrorism. In fact some of the same sources could be used. We could then see whether or not the two concepts were the same. TFD (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Snowded 12:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and this is getting really annoying, every couple of days a new section is started to discuss moving the article, it is disruptive and had better stop mark (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - and I fully agree with Marknutley's observation that "every couple of days a new section is started to discuss moving the article". I also sincerely hope this won't lead to my being banned from Misplaced Pages. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: - while no perfect, this seems like a reasonable starting point to address some of the problems with this article. --Ludwigs2 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And while we're at it, can we get off the WP:GHITS kick? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I restored the "Left-wing terrorism" article using new sources, but keeping the disambiguation links. If it is a separate topic as some editors suggest, then it does not conflict with this one. If not, then the two articles can be merged. TFD (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Your edit at strikes me as being possibly an indication of coordinating edits. Collect (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate place to discuss this, Collect? I think not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Name a better place to show WP:CANVASS etc. Collect (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can show it, then show it to the Misplaced Pages admins. This section is about improving the Wikipeda articles on leftist terrorism, and is discussing the issue in the appropriate public place. Please do not divert the discussion to other topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is clear. And use of a "to do" list to avoid a proper RfC, and co-ordinating edits is clearly a proper concern of this page, thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, are you somehow implying that this article is POV crap? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Communist terrorism#Official Irish Republican Army : Blueshirts

Anarchangel (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anarchangel is perhaps unaware of the complexities of Irish Republican movements. The Blueshirts date back to the 1930s, and were never part of the then IRA: in fact they were ideological opponents, though the IRA did later have contacts with the Nazi government of Germany during WW2. In any case, the formation of the Official IRA only dates back back to the split with the Provos in 1969. He is entirely correct in noting the sometimes strong influence of right-wing politics in the earlier Republican movement, but the Official IRA has been of the left: in fact it is evident that as they moved towards Marxist politics, they abandoned the concept of 'armed struggle'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

it is evident that as they moved towards Marxist politics, they abandoned the concept of 'armed struggle'

Could you please provide reliable evidence for the above statement, or do yo expect us to rely on your original research again? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything that isn't well documented in the sources given for the relevant Misplaced Pages articles on the IRA in its various forms, the Blueshirts, the Official Irish Republican Army and the Workers' Party of Ireland, so I'd hardly call my summary original research. What is it about my statement that you wish to have confirmed? Are you in fact disputing anything I've written, or perhaps suggesting it is a synthesis, or are you just looking for an excuse to cause problems? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Irish terrorism, including the Provos, as Nationalist terrorism. Should remove from the article. TFD (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you were the one telling me I can't use Misplaced Pages articles as sources. You are now doing exactly that! Where is the evidence (apart from Misplaced Pages articles) (1) that the Official IRA "moved towards Marxist politics" (2) that this is the reason why it "abandoned the concept of armed struggle"? If you can't provide sources such as actual text, then I agree with TFD on this particular point. (The fact that I disagree with TFD on other points, serves to demonstrate my objectivity.) Also, I suggest you try to be less Grumpy and not take everything as "personal attack" against you. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@ TFD: Yes, but the Official/Provo split in the IRA was political, as well as being about methods. I think the Official IRA (not the Provos) can justifiably be included as a 'left wing terrorist group', though it is clear (to anyone who bothers to look into it using the relevant references in the Misplaced Pages articles), that as they moved left, they moved away from terrorism.

@ JM: If you really want sources, of course they can be readily found, I'll do this for you. As for 'personal attacks' this is currently under discussion elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you really want sources, of course they can be readily found, I'll do this for you

Good. That's all I want. After all, peaceful brotherly cooperation is what Misplaced Pages is about, no? And stop threatening me. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@TFD @ Andy The Provos should be removed as TFD says and the split with the officials was partly due to the Marxist stance adopted by the Officials/Stickies and similar thinking in the Workers Party. I don't really see how either can be used here to be honest - the IRA was always (during the days when it used violence) nationalist, although it had Marxists in its leadership.

@Justus, you need to just step back and think a bit before you edit. You are painting yourself into a corner --Snowded 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The definitive source for the history of the Official IRA/Workers Party seems to be "The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers' Party, Brian Hanley and Scott Millar, ISBN 1844881202". There is an excellent review of the book here.

Snowded, the Provos aren't currently listed, and I don't think anyone is suggesting they should be. As for the 'Stickies', they are arguably a borderline case, though Irish Republican politics has rarely been clearcut. I'd say that Hanley and Miller's book probably provides enough evidence to argue that they were both 'left wing' and 'terrorist' at the same time for a few years, though the contradictions inherent in their position led to the 'terrorism' becoming a liability. Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the book - I'll see if I can track down a copy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Interested to see what Hanley & Miller say, my memory (and its thirty years old) of a lot of the material was that the tensions between marxism and nationalism and between different marxist groups was probably the most significant aspect before '68 with terrorism more of a romantic harking back to the civil war and before. More a phantom limb to use an analogy so I am not sure of the notability. --Snowded 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Justus, you need to just step back and think a bit before you edit.

Shouldn't that apply to everyone? And which part of my editing do you find offensive this time? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Step back and think, oh and I'm not offended and I doubt anyone else is. --Snowded 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism is classified according to the objectives of the perpetrators, which in Northern Ireland related to national disputes. TFD (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of truth in that. So, unless AndyTheGrump comes up with reliable evidence to the contrary, this ought to be the accepted consensus. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The OIRA did not get rid of their weapons until recently, were have you people gotten the idea they gave up armed struggle? And if you look at "Comrades!: a history of world communism" on page 399 you will see they never gave up on communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose that '81.94.201.92' could provide us with links to sources describing 'armed struggle' activities engaged in by the OIRA in the last couple of decades, could he/she? This would at least help clarify whether the 'Stickies' should be listed as 'left-wing terrorists' as opposed to 'old men who sit around in bars muttering quietly to themselves about the good old days'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how that matters here, they are still a communist terrorist group acording to both the source in the article and the one I just gave you. When they stopped has no bearing in the issue whatsoever does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

'81.94.201.92', you asked "were have you people gotten the idea they gave up armed struggle?". I provided a source that suggests they have (Hanley & Miller), and asked you to provide another that suggests they haven't. And yes they may still be 'a communist group' in as much as they exist at all (as the Workers Party, or whatever it currently calls itself -I've lost track), that wasn't under dispute.

On another point, I'm sorry to have to ask this, but can you assure me that you aren't a Misplaced Pages editor currently blocked, editing using an anonymous IP? I can fully understand reasons for using IPs to edit, but it can also be open to abuse. If you wish to contribute regularly to Misplaced Pages, you may find it more useful to select a user name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If i were blocked then i would not be able to edit. Your name is just as anonymous as my IP is or had you not realized that. If you agree they are in fact a communist terrorist group then why are you saying they ought to be removed from the article? 81.94.201.92 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"hy are you saying they ought to be removed from the article"? I didn't say the OIRA should be removed. I argued that there were grounds for their inclusion. Read first, then write? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger

{{editprotect}} Would it be possible to put a merge from Left-wing terrorism into the article as it is an obvious clone of this article, in fact it contains only communist terrorist groups, Thnak you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 October 2010

Please read the discussions above about whether their are better grounds for an article on 'left-wing terrorism' than 'communist terrorism', given that there seem to be no reliable sources that give any theoretical justification for not doing so. Given that 'communist' is a subset of 'left wing', the broader article is clearly the more logical one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Especially since the "creation" of that article was per intended as a strategic matter (a POVfork), and not a a genuine article. The only way forward is to create alternate content under a different title. To avoid initial opposition it may be useful to start the new article in your user space. Ask for like-minded or neutral editors to contribute to the draft. Make the article far better and better sourced that the politicized crap. "Steal" and merge useful content from the povish article. Also include the fringe views, but present them from a neutral-point-view. At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. shows the "strategic intent" of the POVfork there. Collect (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument about POV fork is correct, however, you must keep in mind that the present article is currently fully protected. After Nov 4 the major part of the content will be moved to the Left wing terrorism, and the POV fork issue will be resolved. In any events, since the search results demonstrate that the most appropriate name for the groups discussed in this article is "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism", moving of the article's content there is quite natural. Let me also point out that, whereas the term "Communist terrorism" is rather abundant, I demonstrated that only few reliable sources exist which discuss the terrorist groups in a context of "Communist terrorism", not "Left wing terrorism". Therefore, it is natural to propose that this term probably refers to something else. Instead of arguing endlessly you could devote some time to the attempt to establish what this term refers to in actuality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This request is based on a false premise. In actuality, communist terrorism is a POV clone of a deleted version of left-wing terrorism. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

• Strong Oppose. To make my view explicit. As Igny says, this article is a POV fork. Nobody has yet come up with a rational argument for the subdivision of the topic beyond 'this lot called themselves communists'. AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose The standard typology of terrorism as explained above is nationalist, religious, state sponsored, left Wing, right Wing, anarchist and special interest. If "Communist terrorism" is "left-wing terrorism", then it should be merged into that article. Since the proposer and Collect believe that the two concepts are the same, this article should be merged into "Left-wing terrorism", which is the term used in the literature. TFD (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done:. Request disabled due to lack of consensus. If there is support for redirecting this article to Left-wing terrorism please replace the request and it can be done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)