Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 17 November 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marxism is not the only 'communism'

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

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

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

Reply to Collect:

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

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

Reply to TFD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The topic is whether all Marxists are communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can not be a POV fork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See

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

Lenin and terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the Bolsheviks DID practice individual terrorism after all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

• +"communist terrorism" = 4,270

  ---

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

  ---

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

  ---

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

  ---

and a Google scholar search:

---

• +"communist terrorism" = 259

  ---

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

  ---

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

  ---

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

  ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that the disambiguation page has proven its usefulness already! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If anything, it should be the other way around

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gscholar results

1. Origin of Revolutionary terror discusses Reign of Terror, i.e. Leftists, not Communists. Conclusion: belongs to Leftist terrorism.
2. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine: . Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 vs
5. ETA (already discussed) Conclusion: "Left wing"
6. Communist Party of Nepal Frankly, I doubted, but even in this case ("Communist" explicitly included in the name) "lef wing" wins 24 to 4 vs .
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 vs
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" and only 4 for "Communist" .
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 vs
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: vs
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: vs .
12. Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201 to 2.
13. ERP ERP "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs ERP "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 33 to 2.
14. Irish Republican Army "Irish Republican Army" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Irish Republican Army" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 179 to 6
15. Red Brigades: "Red Brigades" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Brigades" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 271 to 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, since you say that you "don't care" what others think I don't quite see how we can have a reasonable discussion. You need to adjust that attitude first. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

They have been provided many times over before as you are well aware. And there was a discussion on a proposed Requested Move which resulted in a "Don't move". Then you and Petri decided to ignore that discussion, just like you're ignoring the sources that have been provided and pretending they don't exist. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "They are in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and consensus." Are you talking about the content move made by me? If yes, then I am waiting for explanations from you on concrete violations of neutrality policy made by me. In addition, as an experienced editor, you should be aware that no consensus is needed to fix neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I am referring to Petri turning the article into a dab page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has been able to provide one book, one article or one chapter in a book about "Communist/communist terrorism" or any definition. Even fringe literature does not use the term. TFD (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces: Marek is yanking your chain, bigtime. it is currently up to him to demonstrate that there is some encyclopedic reason to make this page something other than a DAB page. When he comes up with a good reason we can discuss it; right now he's just gassing about policy, and there's no sense arguing the point with him. Chillax, let him vent. I suspect it will be a couple of days before the three of us settle down to reasonable discussion. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

• Here, on October 5th, 13:13, TFD suggest renaming the article to "left wing terrorism".
• Here, on October 5th, 14:53, TFD asks editors to indicate whether they support or oppose this suggestion.
• Here is the resultant RM discussion, which opened on October 5th, 15:05
• On October 25th, Petri leaves instructions for TFD, outlining the strategy for circumventing the unfavorable outcome of the RM . Despite dressing it up in the "NPOV" rhetoric, it's pretty much a primer on "How to create POV forks and delete articles (one doesn't like).
• On October 28th, at 2:29, the discussion is closed by Jafeluv as "Not Moved"
• Then discussion continues on this article's talk page over various issues.
• On November 9th, Petri creates the first disambiguation page under "Communist terrorism (disambiguation)".
• That version is PRODed shortly after by, AFAICT an uninvolved editor with the reason "What is the purpose of this disambiguation page? It appears as more of a list of related articles, and not a true disambiguation."
• On November 12th, Petri turns the present article into a disambiguation page , effectively moving "Communist terrorism" to "Leftist terrorism" in contradiction of the results of the RM discussion that was closed on October 25th (i.e. about 2 weeks after).

There's some steps and various maneuverings that I've left out but that's the essence of the story: -TFD proposed to move the article

-When it started looking like there was no consensus to move, Petri came up with a way to get around that

-Article was moved despite the fact that the RM discussion was closed as "NO MOVE". Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

and this is significant because... ??? --Ludwigs2 05:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed discussion to merge which demonstrated the consensus to merge. You missed my move of a pov synth section from here to revolutionary terror. You also did not notice the version of this article right before Petri changed it to questionable dab. Really, the article had no significant content after the synth on Marxism and terror was moved away and the list of left-wing terrorist organizations was moved to left-wing terrorism. Current version of this article does need improvement but not restoration to previous POV synthesis it was before. (Igny (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

You also missed a number of prolonged edit-wars involving a number of anon single purpose sockpuppets resulting in several page protections. What I like about the current status is that it lost its appeal to many POV-minded individuals and should provide a stable basis for years to come. (Igny (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

suggested structure

The current disambig is not a very good solution, not to mention it is biased to the other extreme out of all possible ways to present an article. Not to mention there is little ambiguity to disambig here. So here is a suggestion. If the article is not turned into a redirect to left-wing terrorism, the following structure should be the basis for further development.

• Lede should mention the controversial aspects of the topic, in particular that there is no a clear cut definition of the terrorism to begin with, and outline differences between revolutionary terror, modern left-wing terrorism, state terrorism by totalitarian communist regimes as appropriate.
• section on list of terrorist organizations

( main article: left-wing terrorism) should say that nonetheless there is a number of left wing terrorist organizations which claim adherence to some form of communist ideology. The list should follow. (Igny (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

Can you suggest text that would go towards that end? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be in the terrorism article. TFD (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

Sorry, I can not contribute much to this discussion because of my topic ban, but would like to make a few very general comments.

1. You are dealing here with self-identified Communist organizations ("Communist Party of Nepal" and many others). Using Google searches to "disprove" them to be communist organizations is a bad example of WP:OR. Of course, there were always disputes among communism followers if Maoists belong to real "communists" or "revisionists". But they always identified themselves as real communists.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2. The involvement of communist states in terrorism activities is well established fact and described in every book on the subject. The most notable examples are quite obviously Korean Air Flight 858 and support of famous Carlos the Jackal and Wadie Haddad and their organizations. If this is not described here, then where it belongs?Biophys (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3. I agree that words "terrorism" and "terror" have a slightly different meaning in the modern literature, although they were used interchangeably by the "classics" like Trotsky and Kautsky.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Using Google searches to "disprove" them to be communist organizations is a bad example of WP:OR". It would be, if that was what was being suggested: it isn't. The discussion is whether such groups are (in the context of terrorism) more often described as 'communist' or as 'left wing/leftist', and in more general terms whether 'communist terrorism' is a category used in academic literature more or less often than 'left wing/leftist terrorism'. Personally, I don't think that 'Google counts' are particularly useful in this context anyway. What matters is how the topic is discussed in academic literature.

Your comment about the words 'terrorism' and 'terror' illustrates exactly the point that others have been trying to get across, that the word 'terrorism' has changed its meaning over the years (though of course it is a mistake to think that such nuanced words can necessarily be directly translated from one language to another, even during the same period).

Regarding Korean Air Flight 858, I'd note that the DPRK no longer describes itself as 'communist', though Juche is claimed by its advocates to have roots in Marxism/Leninism. Personally, I'd possibly be inclined to suggest that the hereditary gangsters running the DPRK aren't even remotely 'left wing', and if they were accepted to be, we'd have to include the Romanian Iron Guard too - I think this is getting well off-topic for now, so I'll leave it there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. North Korean leaders claim the the country is a People's Democratic Republic. Are they being identified as democratic by anybody else?

Re 2. Various states are known to support various terrorists (from a support of Osama bin Laden by the USA to a support of Arafat by the USSR). However, all of that belongs to another article (State sponsored terrorism).

Re 3. Misplaced Pages should reflect contemporary majority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Korean Air Flight 858. North Korean regime does not identify itself with Communism any more, and many authors agree that their own Juche concept has little in common with Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the (vastly under-appreciated) problem here (and pardon me for stepping outside the OR box a bit) is that revolutionaries picked up marxoid nomenclature all the way through the 20th century, pretty much without regard to the actual system of governance they aimed for. Even the Nazis and fascists were socialists by name, despite the fact that their actual political/economic paradigm was closer to state-oriented capitalism. Marxoid language is ideal for people with revolutionary inclinations: it identifies a clear but ambiguously-defined oppressor (that boils down to 'everyone richer than you'), stimulates an intense pro-group solidarity, gives people a glorious ideal future goal that can be used to justify all sorts of present abuses, plays on the frustrations of poverty and disenfranchisement... Most of these people are no more Communist than David Koresh or Jim Jones were Christian. Nasty people latch onto high-minded ideals because they know that decent people respect high-minded ideals. What you really have is revolutionaries using Marx as a form of propaganda to develop popular support, but who (when they actually achieve power) have no interest in implementing Marxist principles. --Ludwigs2 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably true, but also difficult to verify directly. Probably why most academic treatments of 'terrorism' (and many other subjects) tend to avoid trying to find a single ideological 'root' in diverse contexts. With an article on 'communist terrorism' one can only really have two possible criteria for inclusion (if the 'terrorist' part is proven!): either you include every group that 'claims to be communist', or you include every group you can verifiably 'prove' to be communist. Given that the latter is likely to result in endless argument, one can only practically apply the former, which then leaves you with the difficulty that the phenomenon you are attempting to describe has arbitrary limits imposed by the terminology used by the groups you are attempting to study. Not a recipe for clarity and understanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then let me explain it in a different way. There is a book written by a group of well known historians (a reliable secondary WP:RS). It includes a chapter entitled "Communism and terrorism". As every academic book, it includes a lot of references to other publications on the subject, such as other books, articles in peer reviewed journals, and so on. Does that justify the existence of such article in WP? Biophys (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the Black Book of Communism's chapter about Soviet state sponsored terrorism. It would be a legitimate topic, but a POV title. We have btw an article United States and state terrorism (although it is actually about U. S. state-sponsored terrorism. Note that the U. S. article has multiple issues and these derive from POV-pushing by anti-U. S. government editors using marginal sources to show the U. S. in a bad light. It is like a mirror image of what this article useed to be. TFD (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many books of that kind. See here, for example. But I have to stop because you started talking about the Soviet Union. If my topic ban is lifted I may (or may not) come here again to continue this discussion. Biophys (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

More proof that there was no consensus to move/delete

. Obviously there are editors who are opposed to the gutting of this article and the turning of it into a (POVd) disambiguation page. This was born out in the move discussion - which is where the decision was made NOT to move. The fact that a couple others wish to cram their desired result down everyone else's throats - in contravention Misplaced Pages's guidelines and its dispute resolution process - of is not a justification (I consider Igny's and Paul's suggestions constructive - though they need to be acted upon). At least Ludwigs above explicitly states that he doesn't give a fig for consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit war isn't necessarily proof of lack of consensus, as I see it. The consensus in question is that of the participants involved in the discussion, and need not include those who choose not to take part in the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I suggest that WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with that novel interpretation. Open an RfC here if you wish to delete an article in this sideways manner. Collect (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly novel: it is explicitly stated:

"Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic" (from WP:CONSENSUS).

There has been a marked reluctance to 'persuade' or 'reason' over this issue, by those who wished to retain the status quo. Instead they have resorted to reversion without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Start an RfC then. I assert that several editors disagree on the "consensus" asserted, and that there is no reason to believe that a "consensus" exists at all for this sideways deletion of an article. Absent an RfC, I shall continue in that assertion. Collect (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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