Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 7 October 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: 3 months

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: 3 months

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.

See also

I have removed the following section twice

See also

• Active measures
• Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services
• List of designated terrorist organizations
• State atheism
• Communist genocide

Could you provide a valid rationale to include these seemingly unrelated topics? (Igny (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

Without providing any justification, the section has been restored again, this time containing Mass killings under Communist regimes, Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services, List of designated terrorist organizations and Communist genocide. Unless a valid rationale can be provided to include each of them, I see no reason not to remove them yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious rational would be that they all part of communism and terrorism? What is your objection to a see also? mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism → Communist terrorist organizations — For terminological reasons. The article discusses terrorist organizations with adherence to some form of Communist ideology. (Igny (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

• Stronly Oppose - The article is not just about communist terrorist organizations, a narrower scope, but about communist terrorism in general. Mamalujo (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt that will improve anything. This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles: state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups. The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV. To Mamlujo: terrorists belong to organizations, otherwise they are just crazy people. TFD (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed with Four Deuces. Fix the article first. One exception, rename the article Communism and Terrorism, which is nice and broad. Ocaasi (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment who started this bin liner of an article. mamalujo. what a surprise. Sayerslle (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD time?

from the above discussion: "This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles: state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups. The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV." I totally agree. I think this article should be deleted as a POV synthesis, and any relevant content moved to legitimate articles such as those on the above topics (state terror, alleged connections between communist governments and terrorist orgs, etc.) Thoughts? csloat (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

I think the article should be deleted, but if it isn't going to be deleted I support the efforts to remove the illegitimate synthesis of original research. The article should be unprotected so the synthesis material can be removed, at least until the article is finally deleted. csloat (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The concept does not exist in academic literature and therefore there should be no article. There was a conspiracy theory in the 1980s that all terrorism in the world was directed from Moscow, which was popularized by the book, The Terror Network. It was also the name the British gave to insurgents in the Malayan Emergency. So it could be merged into those articles. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the article seems to be little more than a collecting-ground for 'anything the Reds did/do we can call terror'. If this is a legitimate topic, would 'capitalist terrorism' be? There is an article on 'Christian terrorism', so presumably it would be reasonable to adopt the same approach there, and lump pipe-bombing of abortion clinics together with the KKK, the Spanish inquisition, and the Crusades? No, obviously not... It reads like a synthesis to me, and one with an obvious POV. I think it could be reduced to an article on 'Terrorist organizations claiming adherence to Communist ideology', and left at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, but Christian terrorism and islamic terrorism are actually topics of study, while Communist/communist terrorism is not. One of the sources used for the article groups terrorist groups by country, not by ideology. TFD (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The ideas that it is synthesis or not an area of academic study are just plain wrong. If you search google scholar for the verbatim phrase ("communist terrorism" - without any permutations) it returns 240 results. If you search for communist terroism on google scholar without quotation marks, it returns over 100,0000 results - Marxist terrorism returns over 50,000. That it is synthesis or not a subject of academic study is patently false. Mamalujo (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous argument. As I mentioned the term was used by the British to refer to insurgents during the Malayan emergency and the first two hits are for that. But if you believe that the concept exists in academic literature then please provide me with the name of an book about the subject. TFD (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just a disingenuous argument, as The Four Deuces says, it is a ridiculous one if you take any notice of the figures for results without quotes. I got these results using Google Scholar:

Capitalist terrorism 61,000, "Capitalist terrorism" 13, Fish terrorism 38,900, 'Fish terrorism' 1, Pacifist terrorism 16,600, 'Pacifist terrorism' 1, communist breakfast 31,000, "communist breakfast" 0! A search result without quotes is merely an article that includes both words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be plenty of sources for Communist terrorism : Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please recommend as single one of these sources that is about this subject. TFD (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You mix two quite different things: notability of the Communist terrorism concept and synthesis issues. Without any doubts, a number of leftist groups existed that used terrorism as a tool to achieve their political goals. Some of them (not all of them, and historically not first of them) were the Communist terrorist groups. That is a well known and indisputable fact. Had the article limit itself with the story of these groups ( such as the Baader-Meinhof Group (Germany), PFLP (Palestine), Red Brigades (Italy), Revolutionary Struggle (Greece) or Shining Path (Peru), and some others), there would be absolutely no problems with the article's neutrality of verifiability. It is worth noting that this article should be made a daughter article, or a subsection, of the Leftist terrorism article, which, along with communist terrorist groups should include, many others non-Marxist and non-Communist terrorist groups like "Narodnaya Volya", etc. BTW, this article currently redirects to the Communist terrorism article which is incorrect.
However, what is a synthesis, and, therefore, what is quite unacceptable, is the attempt to combine Marxism as a doctrine, Stalinist or Maoist repressions and all other unrelated things into a single article. This is unacceptable, because "terror" ≠ "terrorism" (for the same reason why "exhibition" ≠ "exhibitionism"). --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

: I agree that what Stalinist or Maoist regimes did to their own populations is not terrorism and does not belong. Hardyplants (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up "left-wing terrorism" in Google books and apparently it is considered to be a type of terrorism. The other types are right-wing, separatist and religious. Here is an example. But I do not see "communist terrorism" as a subtype. I would suggest changing the name to "Left-wing terrorism" and using reliable sources to write the article. TFD (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would oppose any AfD. Paul's contention that "terror" ≠ "terrorism" is incorrect, "terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms. In fact the term "terrorism" originated from the french term "terrorisme" in 1798, which is itself from the Latin "terror", and was originated with the specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France". There are many parallels between communist terrorism of the Russian revolution and the republican terrorism of the French revolution. Communist terrorism was also a form of "government intimidation". There are plenty of sources that discuss communist terrorism . --Martin (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, that is incorrect. Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens. Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors. TFD (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't I just explain to you the etymology of the term "terrorism" above and how it was originally derived from the concept of "government intimidation" during the French Revolution? In fact the original sense of "terrorism" meant the "systematic use of terror as a policy". Ergo, "communist terrorism" is the systematic use of communist terror as a policy. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The old meaning of the word "terrorism" differs from its contemporary meaning. Currently the word "terrorism" refers to the killing of civilians by some private group, non-governmental political organisation, etc, to create a media spectacle. Even so called contemporary "terrorist states" are the states that support one or another non-governmental terrorist group, as a rule, outside of its own border. Therefore, "terrorism" should be discriminated from:

1. Sponsorship of terrorism by some state : such a state is not a perpetrator of the terrorist acts, it is a sponsor of it (examples Iran, Libya);
2. State terror: the state does not try to intimidate its own population, it is powerful enough to eliminate all opponents (examples: Stalinism, Khmer Rouge, Indonesia, Pakistan, Latin American Juntas, etc);
3. Acts of sabotage against potential opponents: such a campaign is supposed to play a subordinated role during a military conflict. Incidentally, a notorious Chechen insurgent Shamil Basaev refused to recognise himself as a terrorist. He stated he was a saboteur, because his actions were aimed against the citizens of the state which he considered a foreign state (Russia).

All of that are quite different things, all of that is not "terrorism" sensu stricto, all of that is not something specific to Communism, and, importantly, all of them have their own articles. I agree that, taking into account the vagueness of the definition of the word "terrorism", all these phenomena fit some loose definitions of terrorism, however, that would be a minority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I noticed that this article develops according to the same scenario as the Mass killings under Communist regimes did. Both these articles are quite legitimate when they are limited with quite concrete and indisputable topics, however, numerous attempts to broaden their scope lead (and will lead) to NPOV and SYNTH issues, which will inevitably lead to AfDs (which will fail because initial article's subject is quite notable), to endless disputes, page protections, and so on. Do we really need to waste our time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, you would need a source that supports your conclusion. But in fact many cognate words have differing meanings, e.g., socialist and socialite. TFD (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a dictionary for a source: "a terroristic method of governing"? I agree with Paul that an AfD would be a waste of time and energy that would be better spent dealing with any NPOV and SYNTH issue. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To save time I propose to limit the article with Communist terrorism sensu stricto (terrorism committed by Communist NGOs) and to provide links to more or less directly related articles. That would allow us to avoid any neutrality and synthesis issues as well as POV-forks. In addition, the Leftist terrorism article should be converted into the mother article of the present article, because leftist terrorism is the phenomenon which preceded Communist terrorism, is more general category and cannot be reduced to Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We really need to establish that the academic literature considers these two things to be the same. Even if we were to call government terror terrorism it would still be a different concept. TFD (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A Definitions of terrorism is a very complicated issue, so I am not sure any academic consensus exists on that account. Regarding ""terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms", let me point out that even very inimately related terms frequently denote two different things. The fact that they are related does not mean they mean the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between "terror" and "terrorism", according to the Oxford English Dictionary is:

Terror = The state of being terrified or greatly frightened

Terrorism = A system of terror

The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary or a legal textbook and the definitions used should be guided by academic literature. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you provide a cite to academic literature that verifies your assertion that "Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens. Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors". --Martin (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism is "the indiscriminate use of violence... to shake their confidence in the governments". Since this article is about terrorism not terror there is no need to define terror. However, I do not believe that many governments would commit violent acts in order to shake confidence in themselves. TFD (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this:

" the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

However these 21st Century definitions of "terrorism" are being retrospectively applied to early 20th Century scenarios; terrorism by NGOs only became the dominant phenomenon post-1950, and communist NGO terrorism was the dominant form up until the 1980s, but state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D. --Martin (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ASK says under "State terrorism", "Many definitions of terrorism restrict it to acts by non-state actors. But it can also be argued that states can, and have, been terrorists." We could mention that in the article, but it does not open a coatrack to list the actions of Communist governments within their jurisdictions along with non-state actors. TFD (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D." I'm not sure I'd take a brief article on About.com as definitive, but what Zalman says is interesting. Note that she doesn't single out the Soviet Union under Stalin, but also applies the term to Nazi Germany, and goes on to write:

"However, many would argue that democracies are also capable of terrorism. The two most prominently argued cases, in this regard, are the United States and Israel. Both are elected democracies with substantial safeguards against violations of their citizens' civil rights. However, Israel has for many years been characterized by critics as perpetrating a form of terrorism against the population of the territories it has occupied since 1967. The United States is also routinely accused of terrorism for backing not only the Israeli occupation, but for its support of repressive regimes willing to terrorize their own citizens to maintain power."http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/a/StateTerrorism.htm

Are we really going to accept a definition of terrorism this broad? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Martintg's view is that a Communist government is merely a collection of individual terrorists, except that they are in stronger position to terrorize. TFD (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attribute to me things I've never said. The fact is, terrorism is a term that originally referred to government action against its own people, and was then broadened to include actions by non-government entities and individuals. That original meaning still remains. Britannica defines terrorism as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." That certain communist governments have practised terrorism against their own populations is an undeniable fact that should be mentioned in this article. Applying a definition that really only gained currency post-1950s on events that occured before that doesn't make sense --Martin (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you think we should exclude the actions of non-government actors, like the Red Brigade, from the article? TFD (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We should include both government and non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism, or is this going to be another original project? TFD (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure can: A book titled The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda, which includes a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism". Here is a nice quote in the last paragraph of that chapter on page 207 which could be added to the article: "Of all the totalitarian regimes, that of the Soviet Union was, between 1929 and 1953, the most perfect embodiment of state terrorism. No other country had ever been so systematically subjected to terror imposed by the apparatus of a police state". What do you think? --Martin (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another book that discusses both government and non-government communist terrorism: "Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism", published by the University of Queensland Press. --Martin (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My word, here is yet another tome: Terrorism: a history, which has a chapter titled "The Era of State Terror" about Uncle Joe's blood soaked worker's paradise and another titled "The Era of Leftist and International Terrorism" which discusses the Red Brigades, etc. --Martin (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are sources that cover communist state terrorism and as such they should have a place, and in lieu of this source I rescind my above comment. Hardyplants (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism? There may be books that combine terror and terrorism - I never said there were not - but you need a book that combines Communist state terror with Communist terrorism. My guess is that none exist and what you are suggesting is a novel interpretation of sources. TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just presented three books above that does just what you are asking. Please explain how a book about the history of terrorism that explicitly has a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism" not combine Communist state terror with Communist terrorism? All three books discuss the history of terrorism and includes both state terrorism and non-state terrorism perpetrated by communists. The mind boggles at your novel interpretation of these sources. --Martin (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They may combine state terror and terrorism but they treat Communist state terror and Communist terrorism as separate topics. If you want to show that they are treated as the same thing, then you must find a book that does this. I.e., find a book called Communist terrorism. Otherwise this is just more synthesis. In fact, even fringe theorists do not do this. TFD (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are moving the goal posts. You originally asked for a book that combines the two, I present three, now you ask for a book that combines the two in the same chapter! But that is irrelevant, because these books treat Communist state and non-state terrorism in the same single topic of the history of terrorism. --Martin (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here is your logic:

State terror and terrorism may treated as a single topic.

Communist states commited state terror.

Communists committed terrorism.

Therefore Communist state terror and Communist terrorism may be treated as a single topic.

My request to you is to find a source that actually does this, e.g., a book called Communist terrorism. Please avoid original syntheses of concepts that do not exist in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have presented three books that describes the history of terrorism, presenting that history chronologically in each chapter. Seems to me you are providing as novel synthesis the notion that since each period is presented in a separate chapter, there is no relationship between them. As I asked previously, please provide a source that states there is no relationship between communist state and non-state terrorism. --Martin (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying there is no connection between them, I am asking you to explain the connection between. For example this book it refers to "left-wing terrorism" as part of its typology. Where is your source that refers to "Communist terror and terrorism"? It appears you have made a novel synthesis, and refusing to provide sources explaining your concept is unhelpful. I am sure that I could create an article called "Eastern European terrorism" by combining the actions of Nazi collaborators, the contemporary far right and Stalinist governments, but that would be synthesis. In any case point to a page in any of your sources that explain the topic you think this article should be about. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be basing your argument on your source's omission of mentioning communist state terror in discussing "left-wing terrorism" (which happily mentions Nazi state terror in discussing "right-wing terrorism"), rather than any explicit claim there is no connection. Your source in discussing "left-wing terrorism" references a college level text book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues By Gus Martin, which seems to have an excellent treatment of the connection between Marxist ideology and terrorism, this will be a good source for expanding the section "History and ideology of Communist terrorism". Thanks for that. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At this juncture, can I point out that WikiPedia already has an article on State Terrorism, why should such terrorism need to have its own separate treatment if perpetrated by states run by (self-described) communists, given that state terrorism has been carried out by states that are clearly not communist by any definition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am basing "my argument" on the fact that you have provided no sources whatsoever to support your viewpoint. That does not mean you are wrong. If can support your views with any type of source whatsoever then an article is possible, but otherwise it is not. Your book actually treats state terror (both left and right) as belonging to one category and terrorism (both left and right) as belonging to another. Remember too that the Left is not entirely Marxist, and there is no category for Communist terrorism. If we combine terror and terrorism for the Left, then we need to include acts of state terror committed by social democratic governments in Europe and the UK. TFD (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The books I cited are sufficient, it seems to be your viewpoint is that these chronologically based chapters represent some sort of "classification" and support your argument via omission of communist state terrorism in a book that uses a college level text book as a reference. It is well known that the so called "left-wing" communist non-state terrorism generally refers to the period from the 1950's to the 1980/90's, when it morphed after the period of communist state terrorism of the 1920s to 1950s. However the underlaying motivation/ideology remains the unifying factor as Gus Martin lucidly explains in his book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. I propose that this article has four main sections: "Ideology", "Pre-1917 revolutionary terrorism", "Pre-1950s state terrorism" and "Post-1950s international terrorism". I think that would nicely reflect how communist terrorism evolved over time. --Martin (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You might point out where he says this. BTW left-wing terrorism pre-dates Communism since it existed in the 19th century. The Polish American anarchist Leon Czolgosz for example killed the U.S. president 16 years before the Russian Revolution. TFD (talk)

Here is a book that connects terrorism, mass killing and communism: Hardyplants (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the chart Rummel claims that official Communist parties in China, Spain and Vietnam committed mass killings partly partly motivated by Communism, but he does not write about what we would normally call terrorists. However maybe we should merge Mass killings under Communist regimes into this article. TFD (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the book Hardyplants cites, Communists did indeed use mass killing as a form of terrorism, but Mass killings under Communist regimes already exceeds 100k, this article will no doubt be just as large after it is expanded, so merging just won't work. --Martin (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We need wider input into this and I will set up an RfC. TFD (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing implications that all western communist groups used terror tactics

As it stood after the last edit by Marting, the 2nd paragraph seemed to imply that all western communist groups used terrorist tactics. I'll assume this wasn't intended. I've also edited the 'Views of Marxis theoreticians... section to indicate that the supposed Marx quote is lacking a direct reference, and corrected some spelling mistakes. I'm not happy with the article, as I still consider it has POV and synthesis problems, but at least for now it isn't potentially libellous! AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The lead begins, "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory". (Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. p. 218. Since the source says no such thing I will delete this sentence. TFD (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does, the paragraph on page 218 states:

"Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Moao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory".

Note that the source explicitly names those leaders whose movements had engaged in terrorism in both the revolutionary phase and after consolidation of power, I had omitted naming any specific person in the lede. --Martin (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not use the term "Communist/communist" and certainly does not mention, let alone define, "Communist/communist terrorism". Find a source to support the unique concept that you have chosen for this article. TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You were bold and removed that paragraph in the lede, I reverted you and now we are supposed to discuss it here, per WP:BRD, but instead you reverted it. I think this is disruptive. Gus Martin certainly uses term "communist" several times in the preceding paragraphs on page 218 when he discusses Marxist ideology, the context is quite clear to who he is referring to as the adherents of "marxist socialism" and who resorted to terrorism. Your removal of the text is unjustified. --Martin (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research. TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you read the sources presented and discuss them, rather than continue this mantra "Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means". Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Please explain why you don't believe Gus Martin was referring to communists in the context of his discussion on page 218 when he states "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". Which revolutions was he referring to? --Martin (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to ask for a source that uses the term "communist terrorism" and explains what it means. If I havde to read through a book to understand what you are talking about, then it is OR. It is unreasonable to interpret sources in order to develop one's own concept. In any case, you may discuss this further at the OR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is unreasonable claim I am mis-interpreting a source but then not provide your take of what you believe the source is actually saying. Again, I ask, what is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Preparations for terrorism and sabotage operations against Western countries

This section relies on primary sources and should be based on reliable secondary sources that have been able to evaluate the claims. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: What is Communist terrorism?

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

What is Communist/communist terrorism? Is it:

1. state terror under Communist regimes?
2. terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
3. state terror under Communist regimes and terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
4. a term that has no recognized meaning?
5. none of the above?

TFD (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any evidence that the term Communist/communist terrorism is used. The insurgents in the Malayan Emergency were of course called "Communist Terrorists" or CTs by the British, which is where the largest number of hits for the term goes. But they have their own separate article. State terror is usually distinguished from terrorism, and communist terrorist groups are normally grouped under Left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"What is Communist/communist terrorism?"? I think set theory from mathematics gives the only sensible answer here. Ii is the intersection of the 'set of all those claiming to be communists' and the 'set of all those who practise terror'. Unless there is anything special about this intersection, it is of no significance, and is just an arbitrary category. People of almost all political ideologies have carried out acts which fit within a broad definition of 'terrorism', but do they each deserve their own article? I'd say I recognise the meaning of the term, I just don't see its validity as an article for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding me, right? We have an infobox with a whole section on terrorism by ideology: Anarchist terrorism, Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Narcoterrorism, Nationalist terrorism and Religious terrorism. In any case, the area is amply covered in the literature. Note that Anarchism is also considered "left wing", but it has its own article, and for good reason, "left wing" is too broad a category to include all the permutations. --Martin (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you need to understand what is communist terrorism is, Gus Martin's book gives a most excellent explanation that links both state and dissident terrorism together with Marxist dogma. --Martin (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to ask this, Martin, but given your somewhat gushing description of Gus Martin's book, and also given that you are User:Marting, are you in any way related to the author? I'm fully prepared to accept that this may be coincidence, and merely paranoia and/or bad manners on my part to ask, but I'm sure others may wonder the same thing if it isn't clarified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question, Andy. I can assure you that I am not Gus Martin. Martin is my first name, not my surname. --Martin (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Martin. Maybe I am paranoid! I'll see if I can get hold of Gus Martin's book somewhere - I may have seen it in a library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is not Gus Martin. Martin's book is mainstream while Martintg's views are fringe (in fact do not even exist in fringe literature). Martintg, where in this book do you think there is a basis for your analysis? TFD (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement of Gus Martin as mainstream, why are you not accepting his view that both state and dissident terrorism was perpetrated by communists who adhered to Marxist ideology? --Martin (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research. TFD (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This mantra of yours is unhelpful. Please explain in what way Gus Martin's view is not being adequately conveyed in the text. What is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replied above. TFD (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't answered my question. You evidently think I have misinterpreted what Gus Martin is saying, so please, give me your take on what Gus is actually saying. --Martin (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gus Martin never mentions "Communist/communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What does he mention? --Martin (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources to support your views then please present them. If we have to use our intuition and intellectual ability to understand arcane knowledge then we need a reliable secondary source that explains it. 911 was an inside job, Hitler got a bad rap and aspartame can kill you - just read the secret signals that the New World Order is hiding. Really, if you want to show that a point of view exists, please provide a source that presents it. TFD (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How come you keep evading the question? What in your opinion is Gus Martin saying? --Martin (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article not for general discussion of the topic. Whether I agree or disagree with Martin is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the name of terrorism Terrorism: a philosophical analysis some sources talking about communist terrorisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us the relevent page references for a discussion on 'communist terorism' in these references, or is this just the result of running a search for the two words, and posting the result? The first seems to be about the Johnson administration's attempt to label the Viet Cong as 'terrorists' while diverting attention from the US military's own acts of political violence against the Vietnamese civilian population.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 2 called The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists would be the place to start on the first link. The second book link is right there whe nyou follow the link, chapter 5, all about Trosky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From 'In the name of terrorism', page 19: "For the Johnson administration, the terrorism label functioned more to delineate the agents who conducted violent acts than it did to parse the specific nature of their activities. The resulting double standard allowed American soldiers to commit essentially the same acts that qualified as Viet Cong terrorism in official US accounts". The chapter isn't about 'communist terrorism' at all, it is about how the US government used the label to justify their own acts of political violence. Is that too difficult to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As for chapter 5 of the 2nd book you linked to being 'all about Trotsky', it isn't, as you'd know if you'd actually read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment With regards to the RFC i would go with number 3 on the list, Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist. That would be about right i reckon mark nutley (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state...'? The USSR no longer exists, and the PIRA has disarmed, and in any case was neither state-sponsored (which state?) nor communist - or have you got any evidence to the contrary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you get state sponsored terrorism, the PIRA (you actually think they have disbanded lmao) were sponsored by the USSR, this is well documented, a lot of terrorist groups were given arms and training from moscow. mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when has 'lmao' been a civil response to anything? As far as I'm aware, PIRA received support from many sources, and the biggest single source outside Ireland may have been from supporters in the United States. If you have evidence about PIRA funding and other support from the USSR please provide it, and while you are at it, how about some evidence to back up your claim that they are 'communist'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You think the IRA have disbanded, so sorry for the lmao but i`m irish and know better. some light reading to bring you up to speed on IRA USSR connections mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote 'disarmed' not 'disbanded', though I'd not be that surprised if they have a rusty rifle or two buried in a field somewhere. In any case whatever the PIRA did or are doing, it is only relevant to an article on communist terrorism if they were/are communist. can you provide a source that states this, if it isn't given in the latest links you provide - I've not looked at these yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They fall under state sponsored terrorism which was what you asked about. Both links will give you a short overview of the IRA`s funding from the USSR, the were also a little communist with the provo`s denouncing them for it. Sources are not hard to find on this really, they were always getting infiltrated by grass`s. (More than a rusty rifle or two hidden away as well btw :) ) mark nutley (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the links is to an anonymous blog, and the other is about events in 1925. You also seem to be confused as to whether it is PIRA or the 'official' IRA that are/were communist, if I understand you correctly. The fact that they received assistance from the USSR is no proof of their politics, particularly when they received more from the USA and Libya (unless you want to try to label Libya as communist: a highly dubious proposition), and have historically received support from many sources, including Nazi Germany during WW2 - see e.g. IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous Blog? I think not and hosted by stanford. Look you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR which is State sponsored terrorism, this is what i gave you. Events in 1925 does not matter, the USSR funded terrorism, job done mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you've just provided is to another website entirely. You specified the PIRA, which didn't exist in 1925. Given your complete disregard for actually verifying what you are arguing, I can see no point in discussing this further. You've provided no evidence whatever that the PIRA are/were communist, or that the assistance they received from the USSR was of any more ideological significance than that they got elsewhere, so they are of no relevance to this article. Job done AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No i said IRA, you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR see? The website is the same, look at the url. They got assistance from the USSR, proven. So state sponsored terrorism, Proven. If you want further links just ask. mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What you said Mark, was this 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist'. PIRA not IRA. You've provided no evidence that either PIRA or IRA have ever called themselves communist. And like I said, they've taken assistance from all sorts of sources, state and otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• My response is a bit simpler. Options 1 and 2 are fairly distinct, without a necessary continuity between their methods, practictioners, and justifications. As far as wikipedia is concerned, Communist terrorism should be a disambiguation page referring to two separate pages as described in 1 and 2. Also, there should be no terror-ism in the state terror... page. And thirdly, if it's a disambiguation page consider also linking to Terrorism and Communism, the book by Trotsky.--Carwil (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is essentially what has been argued already - that the article is a synthesis of two different issues, without any real analytical connection or continuity. You're right about Trotsky's book needing to be referred to in addition, though ideally, it could have an article of its own, given its continuing relevance to the debate about what 'terrorism' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Right andy, please note The IRA A Communist Group, tole you my head was all over the place yesterday but i think i got there in the end mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. This book seems to have been written for secondary-school pupils. And can you please provide page numbers with your links, it is entirely unreasonable to expect people to look through an entire book for confirmation of your arguments. Unless you do, I see no reason to take your claims seriously AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your impressions of the book are irrelevant it is wp:rs, The link leads right to the page mate, but it is page 24. I had not realized you were unable to figure out that the link was to the page as it works for me. mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism

I find it strange that this article does not discuss evolution of the terminology. Clearly the terror in the past(e.g., revolutionary terror) and terrorism nowadays are two different things. And yet nothing of the sort is discussed here. There is no even a reference to a classic History of terrorism, even though far more dubious Mitrokhin archive is used. But I understand the desire of certain POV-pushers to create tendentious articles, full of OR and SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

The article does not discuss the evolution of the terminology because no terminology exists that describes "Communist terrorism" as opposed to revolutionary terrorism, leftist terrorism or state terror in totalitarian states. "Communist" does not point at any features specific to Communism and is just an adjective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Revolutionary", "leftist" and "state" are adjectives too. I have presented a number of sources that explicitly discuss the characteristics of communist terrorism (which is a subset of leftist terrorism along with anarchist and eco-terrorism), but I get the impression that some people appear to be playing a terminology game as if Misplaced Pages is a dictionary and we need to find sources that explicitly uses the exact magic phrase, while all the while avoiding discussion of what these sources, like Gus Martin, are actually saying. I think the article terrorism goes into the history of the term, so I don't see why it should be repeated here. --Martin (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism does not include state terror. No reliable sources describe communist terrorism as a subset of Marxist terrorism. Even categorizing individual left-wing terrorist groups as Marxist would be problematic. Often some terrorists in a group will claim to Marxist, others will adhere to some other ideology, some will combine Marxism with something else, and many will have very little understanding of ideology at all. TFD (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits

has removed the POV tags with the notation "you can`t have pov tags without a section on the talk page showing what is pov that is policy and will change ref page to 44" and changed the page reference with the notation "change page neumber to right one". However there is an RfC about the meaning of the subject and no reference to "communist terrorism" on the page presented by the IP as a source on p. 44. TFD (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the rules, but if this is clear-cut, can't it just be reverted? As for doubtful references, see my comments about the supposed links the IP gave in the 'RfC: What is Communist terrorism?' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP's comment, "read the book again, it mentions communist terrorsim 77 times" is misleading. In fact a search of the book says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism"". He should also be aware that there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. Incidentally Martintg has been blocked for a week and is topic-banned from this article anyway. I will put back the tags and remove the unsourced text. TFD (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book. You broke the rules be reverting more than three times. Page 44 certainly does mention Communist terrorism of course your link just shows the cover so i reckon you have not actually seen it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.221.25 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before accusing people of breaking rules, it is a good idea to check what they actually are: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts... on a single page within a 24-hour period." TFD has not done this. ]. Can you cite the relevant passage from p. 44, so we can all see what the debate is about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reinserted the POV tag removed by 88.108.221.25, as there is clearly a content dispute going on, and the IP gave no response to TFD's argument that it should remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IP, the comment, "Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book" is misleading. Yes, my link shows the book cover. But it is a search for the term "communist terrorism" and it says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism". Obviously if the term is used nowhere in the bbok it will not appear on page 44, but here is a link to that page anyway. TFD (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong there, page 158 Ideological Communist Terrorism, 286 soviets did help inflame terrorist incidents, in fact the book has communism all over it, what`s the issue with this? mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to p. 158. No mention of ideological communist terrorism. It may appear obvious to you that there is a concept called "communist terrorism" but unless you find a source that explains it, it is you own personal synthesis. TFD (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was 159, my bad :) Funny thing is the ip guy posted a couple of links above which discuss communist terrorism, it is clearly not my own personal concept :) mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And what does it say on page 44? This is the supposed source that was used by 72.20.28.30 to justify his edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 159 refers to "ideological communal terrorism". Communal terrorism is defined as "Group against group terrorism, in which rival demographic groups engage in political violence against each other". (p. 5). TFD (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It discuss communism though right? sorry for the misread mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that the concept is original research. TFD (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The source presented does just that, it is about communist terrorism after all, what`s your issue with it? It`s book on terrorism with a chapter about communist terrorism after all How can it be OR when google books has 4,190 for "communist terrorism"? Obviously the concept exists mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The book does not have a chapter about communist terrorism, as is clear from perusing the table of contents, and never uses the term communist terrorism let alone define it. TFD (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ideological communal terrorism is about communism is it not? What part of the list there is not about communist terrorism? All the groups named within it are communist mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not know the difference between 'communal' and 'communist', mark nutley? And which list are you referring to, on what page? We have had far too many vague references to Gus Martin's book already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ideological communal terrorism is about communism this entire section of the book is about communist terrorism, why is this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'ideological communal terrorism' section is two pages. It briefly discusses events in Greece, Angola, and Indonesia. The first two were civil wars, where all factions used political violence, and Gus Martin says nothing specific regarding the 'communists'. As for Indonesia: "During a wave of anticommunist communal violence, much of it done by gangs supported by the government, roughly 500,000 communists, suspected communists, and political opponents of the government were killed" (P. 160) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So does it or does it not mention communist groups within that section? mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It also mentions other groups using political violence. So how is it 'about communist terrorism'? And is the section about the murder of half a million political opponents of the Indonesian government about communist terrorism? You made a specific claim that this section was 'about communist terrorism'. It isn't. It is about exactly what it says it is. Some of the perpetrators of violence have been communists, but so have some of the victims. Gus Martin seems to make no significant distinction between the different ideologies in his analysis, which is why it has been argued his book isn't a valid reference for 'communist terrorism' as a theoretical/analytic construct. By the way, you haven't yet told us where the 'list' you referred to can be found in the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry been all over the place today and got my refs messed up, see here for the ever elusive list :) mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "Extreme Left Terrorism" "whose ideologies were based on various interpretations of marxism and/or anarchism". I already agreed that there is a category called "left-wing terrorism" which btw excludes state terror. TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, from the abstract The aim of this paper is to analyze the strategy and tactics of the of extreme left terrorism in Europe. Traditional red terrorist organizations (combatant communist parties like the RAF, the RB etc.) It clearly is about communist terrorist groups as well. mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Origin of Communist terrorism' section

I fail to see how 'communist terrorism' can have it's origins in the French Revolution, since the participants weren't communists by any reasonable definition, even if Kautsky thought so (I find this unlikely). Is there any reason not to delete the section as little more than guilt by association? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, tell me does this sound familiar to you Its ultimate aim was the reshaping of both society and human nature. That was to be achieved by destroying the old regime, suppressing all enemies of the revolutionary government, and inculcating and enforcing civic virtue? mark nutley (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution ≠ terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes revolution, much like the communist one i`d wager. There is a source from stanford which draws the parallels between the two you know, after all they were very similar. It describes the revolution in russia as a throwback to the french one mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To speak about Comminist terrorism and French terrorisme based on parallelism between Russian and French revolutions is pure synth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not if a reliable source makes the connection, which it has. I`m wondering if there are others, i`ll go look around mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders' section

This currently contains quotes attributed to Marx and Trotsky, but gives no citations for the original sources, preventing any verification or contextual analysis. I'd be interested to learn what others think on the use of such quotations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the current references wp:rs? mark nutley (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The supposed Marx quote is from a book by Edvard Radzinsky. The supposed Trotsky quote is from The Black book of Communism. I think given the significance of the quotes in this article, and the partiality of both sources, their validity is at least worth questioning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That Trotsky quote can also be found on page 94 of Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century by Benjamin A. Valentino so i see no reason to doubt the BB of being inaccurate. The second is published by Anchor Books and is a reliable source i believe. Is there any reason for supposing it is not? mark nutley (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They are primary sources not explained by secondary sources. Ironically Trotsky is quoted as saying that Communists oppose individual terrorism, e.g., actions by groups like "Marxist terrorist groups" described in the article. TFD (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A book quoting someone is not a primary source at all, it is a secondary source. Trotsky wrote a book did he not called Terrorism and Communism? In which he wrote We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish (well gee who would want to perish) The quote is obviously accurate. With regards to communists being opposed to individual terrorism, that is incorrect, what he was describing in his book was not terrorism, just going on strike he said was terrorism, pointing a gun at someone (a communist boss) was terrorism, what he was saying was anything which held up the revolution was an act of terrorism, at least that is how his book reads to me. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for the opinions of Leon Trotsky, unless you wish to write the article from a Trotskyist perspective. TFD (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No the primary source is Terrorism and Communism the secondary source is Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century by Benjamin A. Valentino simples mark nutley (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at this source. Valentino discusses terrorist mass killings on the page 84 and on. Interestingly, only those events are considered as terrorist mass killings by him that occurred during a struggle for power (civil wars, etc.) The mass killings perpetrated by regimes which already came to power are not considered as terrorism by him. In addition, he does not separate the act of terrorism committed by Communist partisans from similar acts committed by other leftist, rightist or nationalist revolutionary movements. In other words, based on the Valentino's book I conclude that this article is a pure synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So based on one source you decide an entire article is synth? Interesting mark nutley (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The article is synth based on this source also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So were`s the synth then? Are you saying there is no such thing as communist terrorism? mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is: Red Brigades, and other leftist groups in the second part of XX century can be considered Communist terrorist groups. Everything else is a synth or minority POV, because not all revolutionaries are terrorists, state terror is not terrorism, acts of sabotage are not terrorism, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

State sponsored terrorism exists, State terror has been described as terrorism, Trotsky said acts of sabotage were terrorism, as have many others, blowing up infrastructure is a terrorist act after all. mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

State sponsored terrorism is not Communist terrorism (the latter is just a subtopic of the former, and not the major one), state terror has been described as terrorism not by majority scholars, Trotsky is a primary source, blowing up infrastructure is not a terrorist act if the primary purpose is to destroy infrastructure, not to affect public opinion. And, importantly, all of that is not specific to Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The USSR sponsored terrorist groups, so yes state sponsored terrorism. It does not matter how many scholars describe state terror as terrorism (were is your source for that btw) it has been described as such. Destruction of infrastructure is a valid terrorist tactic and has been done by groups throughout history for instance, the IRA used this tactic quote often in the UK, a phone call saying a bomb is on such and such a bridge causes massive disruption. mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "The USSR sponsored terrorist groups, so yes state sponsored terrorism" so it belongs to the State sponsored terrorism article (along with similar actions of Iran, US, Libya etc).

Re "It does not matter how many scholars describe state terror as terrorism" Of course it does. If only few scholars describe it as such, whereas others do not, it is a fringe/minority POV.

Re "the IRA used this tactic quote often in the UK" to achieve some political goals, not military objectives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

to achieve some political goals, not military objectives yes, this is what terrorism is, the use of force to gain political ends. Good we agree. We will of course require a source for your assertion that state terrorism is a minority view. Now you have said above State sponsored terrorism is not Communist terrorism and of course this is not accurate as i have pointed out so you move the goalposts and say it belongs in another article, i disagree. As this article is about communist terrorism then it does of course warrant inclusion within this article, cheers mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not agree. "The use of force to gain political ends" ≠ "terrorism". State terrorism is a phenomenon, so it can be neither a minority nor majority view. By contrast, the idea that state terror = state terrorism is quite fringe.

Re "As this article is about communist terrorism" We haven't come to a consensus on what "communist terrorism" means, so such an argument is quite incorrect and illogical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So now you are saying groups taking arms against a government to gain their political ends by force are not terrorists? Still needing that source which says state sponsored terrorism is fringe as i have 18,000 results sources saying it ain`t and 36,900 results sources saying state terrorism is fairly common usage mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that taking arms against a government is not necessarily terrorism. For instance, this is a constitutional right of the American citizens. If we assume that "taking arms against a government" = "terrorism" then the word "revolution" becomes redundant, and not only Lenin or Danton, but also George Washington or Simon Bolivar could be considered terrorists. Re state sponsored terrorism, please, avoid straw man arguments, because I never said it to be fringe. My point was that state sponsored terrorism is not something specific to Communism and that this subject already has its own article--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not need to be specific to communism, but in an article about communist terrorists then communist state terrorism belongs right in here. You did say By contrast, the idea that state terror = state terrorism is quite fringe but it is obviously not given the amount of hits on google books. So exactly what is your argument here? mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Before doing that we have to make sure that majority reliable sources combine all there topics together in a context of Communism. Please, provide appropriate literature search results (based not on bare numbers of hits, but on an analysis, with quotes, of what the sources say in actuality).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i have no need to provide anything. You however do. You are saying terror = state terrorism is quite fringe were is your source for this assertion please mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest renaming article "Left-wing terrorism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Communist terrorism be renamed and moved to Leftist terrorism. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Communist terrorism → Leftist terrorism — Reasons for move given in thread above. mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Left wing organisations are not the same as communist ones mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment. Since the initiator of this move request himself does not support the idea to move the article, and therefore his proposal is not genuine, I propose to close this move request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Comment. Am I getting confused here? TFD proposed the move. TFD supports it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD proposed the move yes, i just set up the template mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support The sources for the article refer to left-wing terrorism, whose ideologies are based on their interpretation of marxism and/or anarchism. No sources use the sub-category communist. TFD (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, a quick look at the first fifteen sources in the article all refer to communist not leftist groups mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support For the same reason as TFD gives. Additionally, as it stands, this article has become a dumping-ground for extraneous and questionable references to non-terrorist actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Is the proposal to create a Left-wing terrorism page that refers to terrorist actions by non-state left-wing actors, or to continue with the ambiguity that led to the RfC above?--Carwil (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources presented, left-wing terrorism refers only to non-state actors, so the article would have to exclude state terror. But it would be an issue to be resolved under the re-named article. TFD (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So you wish to move this article and then exclude state sponsored terrorism and state terrorism? Why? mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ideological basis and practice are different (as I said above). This means that there is no clear continuity between the two. Consider as opposing cases, the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein transition (from "left-wing terrorism" if you will, to parliamentary party) and the Bolshevik/Soviet Union transition (from left insurrectionism, with few hints of terror, to Leninist and Stalinist state terror). The concepts aren't coherent (and neither are terrorism and state terror, except for rhetorically, and as part of the the overarching concept, violence against civilians).--Carwil (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinn Féin have always been a political party, there was no transition from terrorism to politics for them :) However i do not see how a transition from terrorist to political makes a difference with regards to the article, after all it is about terrorist groups which were communist at the time of their actions. The same goes for former communist governments which committed terrorist acts on their own populace or sponsored terrorist groups worldwide. Have i perhaps misunderstood your point here? mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Current title is a WP:SYN amalgam of Marxist Red Terror and left-wing terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The new name would be overbroad. There are leftist terrorist that are quite distinct, indeed very different, from communists. That article would clearly be synthesis. Mamalujo (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'Views of Marxist theoreticians' quote from Marx

I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning. The source is referenced in the article, but can also be found here ]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The part replaced by ellipsis was arguably irrelevant in view of the fact that the quote was given for the purpose of documenting Marx's support of terrorism and showing how later Marxist leaders (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.) based their own position on that of Marx. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The full quote from the Marx/Engels archive Translation is as follows: "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."]. I'd not noticed the numerous differences from the earlier translation given. Please note that amongst other things it says 'terror', not 'terrorism', and there has been a long-running debate on this talk page about the different meanings of the terms. In any case, unless a source for the English translation containing the word 'terrorism' can be given, the translation is arguably original research, and cannot be included in Misplaced Pages. As for Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin basing their own positions on this single statement in a (somewhat sensationalist) newspaper report by Marx, the only evidence that any of them had even seen it is for Stalin. It is also worth noting that Marx was at this time still formulating his theories, though the question as to when Marx became a 'Marxist' is probably one for philosophers rather than for Misplaced Pages editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source as it is self published, i shall have to revert you i`, afraid. The current sources for the quote are wp:rs so i see no need to use a wp:sps to add to it mark nutley (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You can go and find the rs yourself. You are welcome. (Igny (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

The source i used was wp:rs thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring out a wp:rs to use a WP:SPS is a clear violation of policy, it had better stop now mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have requested page protection on this article for a few days due to two editors edit warring a WP:RS out in favour of a WP:SPS a clear violation of policy mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy allows us to quote reliable primary sources. That is exactly what we do here. Providing an extended quote instead of truncated one is quite correct. There is no need for the page protection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your use of a self published source over a reliable one is a breach of policy, please reconsider your course of action mark nutley (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a use of a self published source, this is a use of a translation of a reliable primary source taken from a self-published web-site. If you have a doubt in the correctness of this transaction, you may compare the original Marx's text with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a use of a self published site, your continued use of it violates policy, Stop now. mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can use any translation to quote Marx's words, provided that the translation is correct. Do you see any problems with translation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the sources already provided? And no you can`t use self published sources here. And i see you pal just reverted me even though WP:BRD had been called, the tag teaming on this article is quite depressing mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "What was wrong with the sources already provided?" The problem is in selective quotation. Compare this:

“The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”

and that:

"… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.” "

It is quite clear from the full quote that the Marx's words are (i) a response on a concrete situation (therefore they hardly can be generalised), (ii) a call for a terror as a response to the opponents' terror. However, the second part of the quote taken separately created an impression that Marx proclaimed a terror for a sake of a terror (which, as you can see, is absolytely wrong).

Re: "And no you can`t use self published sources here." I don't. Do you propose me to use a German quote without translation?

Re: "And i see you pal just reverted me even though WP:BRD had been called..." BRD implies that reasonable arguments are provided. Please, provide some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky

This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word "terror" is mentioned twice in footnotes. Lenin does not use it. He discusses the need of violence during revolutions, however, "violence" and "terror" are not synonyms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Violence leads to terror your argument is flawed mark nutley (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Violence not necessarily leads to terror.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m guessing you have never been on the receiving end of extreme violence then, yes violence leads to terror to say it does not is wrong mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A policeman sometimes has to use coercion. States, including democratic ones, uses violence against their opponents. However, all of that is not a terror.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is if your on the receiving end of it mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please write grammatically. It is "You're" not "your". TFD (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I`ll write how i want to, cheers pal mark nutley (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You will earn other editors respect based upon your writing. TFD (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kautsky again.

Below is an extended quote from Kautsky. The words quoted in the article are underlined.

"The development we have just sketched did not, of course, arise in accordance with the intentions of the Bolsheviks. On the contrary, it was really something, quite different from what they wanted, and they sought by all means in their power to arrest its development. But in the end they had to resort to the same recipe from which the Bolshevik regime from the very beginning had worked, i.e., to the arbitrary force of a few dictators, whom it was impossible to affect by the slightest criticism. The Regiment of Terror thus became the inevitable result of Communist methods. It is the desperate attempt to avoid the consequences of its own methods.

Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all. It is that which gave rise to the greatest hatred against the Bolsheviks. Yet this is really no more than their tragic fate, not their fault – in so far as it is permissible to speak of fault or blame in so enormous an historical upheaval as we are now experiencing. In any case, at bottom any fault or blame can only be a personal one. Whoever sets about to discuss a question of culpability must set about to examine the defiance of certain moral laws on the part of individual persons; since the “will” taken in its strictest sense can only be the will of individual persons. A mass, a class, a nation cannot in reality will. It lacks the necessary faculties for such. Therefore it cannot sin. A mass of people or an organisation can act universally. Nevertheless, the motives of each person actively concerned may be very different. But it is the motives which form the determining factor in the question of apportioning culpability.

The motives of the Bolsheviks were certainly of the best. Right from the beginning of their supremacy they showed themselves, to be filled with human ideals, which had their origin in the conditions of the proletariat as a class. Their first decree was concerned with the abolition of the death penalty; and yet if we would consider the question of their culpability, we should find that this came to light at the very time when this decree was promulgated, namely, when they decided, in order to gain power, to sacrifice the principles of democracy and of historical materialism, for which they during many long years had fought with unswerving determination. Their culpability comes to light at the time when they, like the Bakunists of Spain in the year 1873, proclaimed the “immediate and complete emancipation of the working-classes,” in spite of the backward state of Russia; and with this end in view, since the democracy had not fulfilled their expectations, established their own dictatorship in the name of “The dictatorship of the proletariat.” It is here where the culpability can be looked for. From the moment they started on this path they could not avoid terrorism. The idea of a peaceful and yet real dictatorship without violence is an illusion.

The instruments of terrorism were the revolutionary tribunals and the extraordinary commissions, about which we have already spoken. Both have carried on fearful work, quite apart from the so-called military punitive expeditions, the victims of which are, incalculable. The number of victims of the extraordinary commissions will never be easy to ascertain. In any case they number their thousands. The lowest estimate puts the number at 6,000; others give the total as double that number, others treble; and over and above these are numberless cases of people who have been immured alive or ill-treated and tortured to death.

Those who defend Bolshevism do so by pointing out that their opponents, the White Guards of the Finns, the Baltic barons, the counter-revolutionary Tsarist generals and admirals have not done any better. But is it a justification of theft to show that others steal? In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do. For they thus become unfaithful to the principles of the sanctity of human life, which they themselves openly proclaimed, and by means of which they have themselves become raised to power and justified in their actions. Do we not indeed all equally oppose these barons and generals just because they held human life so cheap and regarded it as a mere means for their own ends? It will be urged, perhaps, that it is the object in view that makes the difference; that the higher object in view should sanctify means, which, in the case of mere seekers after power, become infamous and wicked because of their evil ends. But the end does not justify every means, but only such as are in agreement with that means. A means which is in opposition to the end cannot be sanctified by that end. One should just as little strive to defend one’s principles by surrendering them, as to defend one’s life by sacrificing what gives to that life content and purpose. Good intentions may excuse those who have recourse to wrong means; but these means nevertheless remain reprehensible, the more so the greater the damage that may be caused by them."

It is interesting to see how misleading can be the quote taken out of context. Yes, Kautsky does criticise Bolsheviks for their terrorist tactics, however, it clearly states that terrorism was immanent neither to Communism in general nor to Bolsheviks in particular ("The motives of the Bolsheviks were certainly of the best. Right from the beginning of their supremacy they showed themselves, to be filled with human ideals, which had their origin in the conditions of the proletariat as a class. Their first decree was concerned with the abolition of the death penalty..."); he also points at the very obvious fact that the Red Terror was a reaction on the terror of their opponents ("Those who defend Bolshevism do so by pointing out that their opponents, the White Guards of the Finns, the Baltic barons, the counter-revolutionary Tsarist generals and admirals have not done any better. But is it a justification of theft to show that others steal? In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do.") Note the last words ("In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do."). These mean that, according to Kautsky, the Bolshevik's goals were by default more humanistic and noble that those of their opponents.
My conclusion is that the way the Kautsky's words are used in this article is an example of a blatant POV pushing. The quote from Kautsky must be removed and the article must be carefully examined for other examples of POV pushing and OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore to last stable version

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Communist terrorism. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Due to the recent edit war in which three editors continually inserted a self published source i request the article be brought back to the last stable version per WP:STATUSQUO as the self published source is still in the article. The last stable version was here when i first removed the SPS and replaced it with a Reliable one, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Clearly, marknutley exhibits symptoms of WP:DONTLIKEIT. It is easy to find RS for the quote in the article, yet marknutley decided to edit war instead(Igny (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

It already had one which you reverted out in favour os a SPS mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment An alternative edit proposed: add , as a reliable source for the full quote. Please note that I have recommended mark to do that above, yet mark insists on his version of the quote. I wonder why.(Igny (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Comment A reference to RS (from the book above) is

Issue of November 17, 1848 in Revolution of 1848-9. Articles from Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New York 1972), p.149.

Oppose Misplaced Pages should not promote fringe theories or conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What would these fringe/conspiracy theories be then? mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the whole section is moot, because, as the ANI discussion demonstrated no self published sources have been added to the article. In addition, as I already demonstrated, the previous (truncated) quote takes the Marx's words out of context and therefore is misleading. I reproduce my post again:

/////////

Re: "What was wrong with the sources already provided?" The problem is in selective quotation. Compare this:

“The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”

and that:

"… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.” "

It is quite clear from the full quote that the Marx's words are (i) a response on a concrete situation (therefore they hardly can be generalised), (ii) a call for a terror as a response to the opponents' terror. However, the second part of the quote taken separately created an impression that Marx proclaimed a terror for a sake of a terror (which, as you can see, is absolytely wrong).

/////////

In my opinion, Marknutley must stop this activity, otherwise it will be difficult for us to assume his good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The source has not been proven to be not selfpublished i`m guessing you missed the last post i made about that. You also seem to be putting a bit of OR into this quote, you are using your own interpretation of it, not one from a reliable source. The source i used was from an academic publishing house, your source was written up for the web by some guy and put on his own website, this is not a reliable source at all. The article ought to go back to were it was before all this crap happened mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source is "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848". It is self-published, because it was published by Marx in his newspaper. However, I do not think that is a reason for your revert, because Valentino quotes the same text. You concern about possible inaccuracy of translation is also baseless, because it was made by a reputable translator. You also can check that by yourself by comparison with another translation of the same article, which was published in the book that meet all RS criteria.

Re: "You also seem to be putting a bit of OR into this quote, you are using your own interpretation of it..." Please, point at concrete fragment of the article's text where I did OR. With regards to my interpretation of this quote here, on the talk page, I am not aware of WP policy which prohibits that.

Re: "The source i used was from an academic publishing house..." No matter what source you use, if it quotes Marx, nothing prevents us from doing that directly.

Finally, the only crap that happened is that we found this piece of tendentious text too late.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose We now have several different sources for the full quote, as Paul Siebert has shown. If the edit protected article is to be amended, it should be with a verifiable complete version, not the truncated one that suits a particular POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

General comment. Upon careful reading I realised that the whole section "Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders" deserves to be deleted.

1. The first para, with the Marx's quote is in actuality a call for violence in a response on violence, so no theory were put forward by Marx that connects the need of terrorism with Marxism.
2. The second para is a vague Pipes' general notion that is not logically connected with the rest of the section and has no relation to terrorism.
3. The third para is a selective quote from Trotsky, who explained that the Red Terror policy was a response on the resistance of the bourgeois. Obviously, that is hardly a theoretical work, because during the first days of the revolution Bolsheviks even abolished death penalty (which demonstrated that initially they didn't plan to launch a terror campaign)
4. The fourth para is an evidence that Marxist theory rejects individual terrorism, and, therefore, it cannot serve as the theoretical base for the late XX century terrorism. This para is the only section's para that is relevant to this article.
5. The last para is simply false. As the extended quote (see above) demonstrates, Kautsky condemned the Red Terror tactics of Bolsheviks, because such a tactics was in a sharp contradiction with Communists' goals and intentions, and he recognised that this tactics was a response on similar actions of the Bolsheviks' opponents. One way or the another, since Red Terror does not belong to this article, the Kautsky's opinion is hardly relevant to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Respond I believe you are wrong here.

1. The Quote says nothing at all about violence in response to violence.
2. The second one, perhaps your right. Although it must also perish in order to make a room for the people who are fit for a new world this could be seen as terrorism
3. The third one On the other hand, they are opposed to individual terror (this one)? is actually trotsky saying anyone who stands against the revolution will be deemed a terrorist and executed. Which to me is state terrorism.
4. Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all Kautsky and red terror would fall under state terrorism so certainly belongs in this article mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but difficult to follow what you are writing. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? How so? mark nutley (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "The Quote"? What does Paul Siebert's right have to do with anything? Bolshevism is responsible for phenomena? The oi mate awright goin down the pub no porkies estuary English is getting a little thick, don't ya think? TFD (talk) 00:32, 7 October 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates