Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 5 November 2010

/Archive 1

Article

This article was deleted in May 2006, and became a re-direct to Terrorism. However, this topic has notablity and can be written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, and I am therefore recreating the article per Misplaced Pages:Recreation of previously deleted pages. Also, I have archived the talk page which related to the earlier article. TFD (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

All the Organizations in this article are communist terrorist groups, is there any particular reason why they are in this article? mark (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) In fact none of the major left wing terrorist groups are in this article? see page 20 mark (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The history section says, "Modern left-wing terrorist groups in the United States developed from remnants of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and extremist elements of the Students for a Democratic Society. During the 1980s both the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO) and the smaller United Freedom Front were active." All five organizations are shown in your source on p. 20. I did not add them to the list of organizations because not all of them were terrorist groups, e.g., the SDS was not although some of its members became terrorist Weathermen. Since I only listed non-U.S. groups, while your source lists only U.S. groups, there is no overlap. The organizations chosen for inclusion are all included in the history section and reliably sourced as "left-wing terrorists". I left out the Sandinistas because I wanted to check whether they were considered terrorists, just as in NI a distinction is made between Sein Fein and the Provos. As a book prepared by the Rand Corporation for the U.S. government in 1987, I would question the reliablity of the book anyway. TFD (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:LABEL is what I meant. The lists is not of officially designated terrorist organizations, but the accusations of one author. Thousands of people might call Barack Obama a terrorist, but he isn't listed. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LABEL provides advice and must be properly understood. 9/11 may be called an act of terrorism. Calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist and al Qaeda a terrorist organization is probably acceptable too since that is the consensus view. What we need to beware is calling insurgencies, nations and national leaders terrorists. The fact that the listed organizations have engaged in acts of terror is not "the accusations of one author" but the consensus of the academic community. The parallel to Obama does not work. An equivalent would be if one insisted on writing, "according to x, Obama was born in the United States". The qualification of the mainstream view would cast doubt on its veracity and imply that maybe he was born elsewhere, which would be presenting a fringe view. TFD (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW I do not see you commenting on Communist terrorism which has serious POV problems. TFD (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point about Communist terrorism is totally irrelevant. I've done a lot to keep unreferenced and unattributed use of the words terrorist out of wikipedia, but it's a big encyclopedia, and I have neither the will nor the ability to "police" every page. I disagree that there is a consensus among the academic community about all the organizations you refer to. You acknowledge that it's problematic to refer to insurgencies and national leaders as terrorists, but you're happy to call Sandinistas who launched a revolution and overthrew the government as terrorists. You include the 19th of April Movement, even though its wikipedia article doesn't even include the word terror. Even at an official level, there are numerous organizations designated as terrorists by the US government, and not by the European Union, and so on. Moreover, I think most academics would acknowledge that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and only with specific criteria can one differentiate one from the other. Since Misplaced Pages is not in the business of establishing criteria, we can only use other people's criteria WITH attribution. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that the article says, "groups that became actively involved in terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s included the Nicaraguan Sandinistas... and the... 19th of April Movement", and does not call them terrorists. All of this is attributed to high quality secondary sources, viz., books published by mainstream academic and university publishers. Facts presented in reliable sources are facts and easily distinguishable from opinions. If you wish to challenge what they say then please provide sources that contradict them. Other Misplaced Pages articles btw are not reliable sources for articles. TFD (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that there is only a semantic difference between saying someone committed terrorist acts and saying someone was a terrorist. They are both contain value judgments. I'm not disputing that your books make those statements, I'm suggesting they are opinions rather than facts, and should therefore be attributed to the authors in question. I'm not disputing that they weren't terrorists, I'm disputing that your two sources display an "academic consensus". All I need to prove that there is no academic consensus is a book describing the Sandinistas which doesn't describe them or their activities as terrorist(s). That would probably include 90% of books on Sandinistas, and 99% of the books on Sandinstas written before September 11th, 2001 when terrorism became a buzzword to be thrown around without any kind of criteria or definition. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist acts have been part of most insurgencies, but it does not necessarily mean that the organizations behind them were terrorists. It was used for example during the American revolution. I would not consider the Sandinistas to be a terrorist group, although they did use terrorism as a tactic before they came to power, as did the Likud Party in Israel. Your view of academic consensus does not appear to be accurate. See the discussion pages for Climate change or Aspartame related articles for example. That someone may publish a paper opposing the orthodoxy does not mean that "scientists are in disagreement" and these articles may correctly state that there is a consensus. Your concern, which I share, is that the term terrorist has been applied in a very broad sense for political reasons, and actually was used during the Malayan Emergency and other anti-colonial conflicts. Of course these groups did use terrorism, as did the colonial powers, which was dramatically documented in the movie Battle of Algiers. The way to maintain neutrality is to keep to academic sources, rather than the very broad definitions that governments and the media use. Incidentally I agree with your removal of the Bayou of Pigs event which was not sourced to any text on terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between academic agreement in science (where by definition of the scientific method results are reproduceable) and the humanities. There is no possible dispute among scientists what "aspartame" is chemically. Professional historians would likely call your use of "terrorism" to describe acts not thought of as "terrorism" at the time, as anachronism. Even for the generous, the term is only traced back to the Reign of Terror. Since the American Revolution occurred before 1781, it would be inappropriate to use it in that case. The book you just cited was written by a criminologist and a lawyer, hardly authorities on history. TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources to support your view? Is this a general comment about social sciences that could lead to a change in Misplaced Pages policy or is it unique to this article? You obiously did not read Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy. The dispute is not about aspartame's composition, but whether case studies and isolated studies may be used to challenge the view that there is a consensus that aspartame has not been shown to be harmful. Climate change, unlike chemistry, does not allow for reproduceable experiments, neither does evolution. And yes social scientists often apply terms to periods before they were developed. We describe Marx for example as left-wing although the term was never applied to ideology (only where someone sat in the legislature) before Marx died. The term Communist to apply to an ideology distinct from socialism only arose following the Russian Revolution. The terms liberal and conservative were not coined until the 19th century. TFD (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You seriously don't get why scientific agreements aren't applicable here? One scientist could technically provide proof that aspartame causes breast cancer. A scientist could theoretically provide convincing evidence that climate change is caused by solar flares. But you can't PROVE that someone was or was not a terrorist, or that they committed terrorist acts. You can't prove it, because it's quite clearly an opinion. You can lay out your criteria for what a terrorist is, and say X fits these criteria, but it's not black and white like science. That's why attribution is required. People refer to Marxism as left-wing far more than they'd refer to Marx as a leftist. They also don't refer to Marx as a Marxist, for that matter. In trying to avoid anachronism, historians may use terms like "proto-communist" but they're unlikely to describe anyone pre-Marx as a communist. And where the words "communist" and "liberal" have negative value judgments associated with them rather than an accepted quality of identity, they should be avoided too.

You seriously want me to post a list of books on the Sandinistas that don't refer to them or their actions as terrorist? That would satisfy you? You can spend the hours sifting through the books to double-check my sources. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If claims are made in peer-reviewed and academic literature that do not share consensus support then we can find reports that contradict them. Furthermore it is against professional ethics for an academic to represent a view enjoys consensus support when it does not. Your view of the scientific method appears confused. Scientists do not "prove" theories, they find evidence that supports theories, e.g., the theories of climate change, evolution and that aspartame causes breast cancer. You seem to believe that there is a problem with the use of the word terrorism, that there is no consensus that any such thing exists. However your views are inconsistent with academic writing and you so far have been unable to persuade me otherwise. If you wish to continue on this path, I suggest you use content dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I recommend merging Communist terrorism here as it is largely WP:POVFORK of this article. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

• Move No evidence has been presented that "Communist/communist terrorism" is a valid topic and most of the article is about groups described as involved in left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Move, but to Revolutionary terror. That's what is really being discussed here (and that is certainly a notable topic). --Ludwigs2 15:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it not be moved to both - the sections about groups using left-wing terrorism, such as the Shining Path moved here, with the comparisons of actions taken by the governments of revolutionary France and the Soviet Union moved to that article? TFD (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Stronly Leftwing terrorism obviously is broader than communist terrorism. There are leftist terrorist who are not in any way communist and conflating the two will lead to reader confusion. Also, the history of this talk page shows that the move is motivated by a POV pushing agenda - an attempt to get rid of communist terrorism. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any examples of "leftist terrorist who are not in any way communist"? For disclosure, Mamalujo created the article by writing a lead section with no basis in any sources, adding groups he considered belonged. TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Move The 'communist terrorism' article was clearly a WP:POVFORK, and has never been justified with any significant WP:RS for its central thesis: that 'communist terrorism' is qualitatively different from other forms of leftist terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, really? THAT article is a POV fork? Forked from what article? If any article is a POV fork, it would be this one. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Response to comment Left-wing terrorism was created on 3rd June 2003, by '217.158.203.220'. Communist terrorism was created on 29th March 2007, by Mamalujo. I'm at a loss to see how someone could have created a POV fork to your article before you wrote it, Mamalujo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I had never read the article left wing terrorism. Indeed, at the time I created the article, this article was merely a redirect. So, plainly "communist terrorism" was not a fork. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, I may have misunderstood what you were implying, Mamalujo, if so, I apologise. Nevertheless, looking at early drafts of the communist terrorism article it is clear that it was being used to push fringe POV views from very early on - there was a long edit-war over attempts by yourself and others to include references to Hitler in the article on the (dubious) grounds that he was an atheist. Hardly indicative of an attempt to present a neutral article.

In any case, the central problem with the communist terrorism article remains: that it implies that 'communist' terrorism is qualitatively different from other forms of leftist terrorism, without providing any WP:RS that supports this thesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have demonstrated on the Communist terrorism talk page, all terrorist groups discussed there are being more frequently described by the words "Left wing terrorism" than "Communist terrorism" in reliable scholarly sources. Therefore, neutrality requires us to move the content from the Communist terrorism article to this article into the section named "Most notable left wing terrorist groups".
Since neutrality criteria cannot be superseded by consensus, the outcome of this discussion is void. I would ask another question: "'Can anyone point at any flaws in the search made by me and presented on the Communist terrorism talk page?" If noone will be able to refute validity of the results of the google scholar search made by me, I'll move the sections about terrorist groups from the Communist terrorism article to this article per WP:NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with merging the articles is that it conflates distinct and distinguishable types of terrorism. For example, terrorist activities by anarchists, Sandinistas and other non-communist leftists would fall within this article, whereas they would not belong in the other article. Communist terrorism is a subset of leftist-terrorism. It is not an either/or. Both articles should remain. Suggesting that communist terrorism be merged here is analogous to saying the fascism article should be merged into the totalitarianism article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But once most of the terrorist groups are moved into this article per Paul's argument on RS calling them left-wing rather than Communist, and all the theoritization on connection of Marxism to revolutionary terror is moved to revolutionary terror, what is going to be left in communist terrorism? (Igny (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose Noting also the discussions aimed at this between two editors -- saying that this was their goal. Anyone miss those posts on user talk pages? At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Its nice to see that Collect quoted this in full at Talk:Communist terrorism#Merger. I wonder where he got the idea that Communist terrorism is POV crap. I have never said or implied such a thing. What I have said here is completely general. Maybe this needs to be expanded into an essay. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. – There is now a related essay at WP:ACTIVIST. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ==Left-wing terrorism== I have re-created the article Left-wing terrorism. It would be useful to attract neutral editors which I will try to do through use of categories, etc. It often is better to start anew with a poorly written POV article, but we cannot create POV forks. In this case though "Communist Terrorism" is just OR, something combining different subjects including Left-wing terrorism, in ways that no one else has. TFD (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) and so on. The orchestration is contrary to WP policies and guidelines, and violates WP:CANVASS to boot. Collect (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Some experst equate leftist terrorism, while others don't. Therefore I suggested a different intro, which combines both opinions, both referenced from sources. Gus Martin is a reputable exopert in terrorism, multiply cited in wikipedia. Please explain your reasons of reversal. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My version

. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism, also called leftist terrorism or revolutionary terrorism is terrorism used as a tool of left-wing ideologies. The philosophical basis for this kind of terrorism was provided by anarchism and Marxism in the second half of the 19th century.

Anarchist ideology gave rise to the concept of propaganda by the deed, which, among other, included terrorism. However over time major ideologists of anarchism abandoned the idea of violence, such as bombings and assassinations.

Currently the leftist terrorism is mostly associated with communist terrorism, or Marxist-Leninist terrorism, as a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government.

The RfC on merging failed - but has now been relit per template on Communist terrorism. Once it failed, it failed. Collect (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues", by Gus Martin, 2009, ISBN 1412970598, p. 231
2. Aubrey, pp. 44-45
3. Moghadam, p.56

Further discussion

User:TFD wrote in my user talk page:

You should read the sources provided for Left-wing terrorism. They say that left-wing terrorism is also called "Marxist-Leninist terrorism". Although anarchism is also left-wing, it is grouped as "anarchist terrorism". Actions by left-wing special interest groups are classified as "speical interest terrorism". This is the terminology used by experts on terrorism, and my opinion is that we should use their categories unless we can find experts that use different categories. TFD (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC

I may answer in the same way: "you should read the source I cited with my changes". There is nothing unusual that different experts use similar, but different definitions. I think Gus Martin makes an excellent point by mentioning an often overlooked historical source of left-wing terrorism, i.e., anarchism. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article special interest terrorism is missing. See eg a FBI Congressional Testimony, "The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States" as a good starting point.

I would also to point out that terrorism, as many other things, may be chassified into severat, mutually-non-exclusive ways: domestic/international, by ideology, by goals, etc. "Left wing terrorism" is a high-level classification by ideology. Anarchism is traditionally considered as left-wing. Therefore I see nothing wrong in hierarchial classification, just like categories in wikipedia. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the sources for the article, anarchist terrorism is considered to be a separate type from left-wing terrorism, even though anarchism is left-wing and left-wing terrorism is influenced by anarchism. The other types normally recognized are right-wing, religious, nationalist, state-sponsored and special interest. Certainly there may be overlap but we should follow what is in reliable sources. If someone has reliable sources that contradict this typology then please discuss them rather than engage in original interpretations not supported by sources. And yes, there should be a special interest terrorism article also.

Martin btw does not provide a typology of terrorism. While he does mention "left-wing terrorism" (exactly once) he does not define it or provide any examples, but does state that it has "ancestors" in 19th century terrorism. We cannot synthesize a definition from this writing.

TFD (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While "Exactly once" is not an argument, still you are wrong here. Down the text he uses synonyms and expressions like "left-wing terrorist groups", "leftist terrorism", etc. Further, he repeatedly mentions, that Marxism represents vast majority of political flavor among leftist terrorists. He is careful not to say that alll of them are Marxist-Leninists. In particular, he mentions New Left, and possibly some other flavors, but I am just lazy to read it all in (expecially expecting that my opinion will be disregarded anyway). I don't care about the politics much (I will not even vote about the merge), and if you disagree to move towards a common solution, I will no longer waste my time. But if you see something useful in my opinions, I am willing to continue the dialog and the investigation of the issue. Lovok Sovok (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His lists are very much the same as the other sources used in the article. While he includes Irish nationalist groups, which other writers do not, he does say they are "included under the category of "left wing" because of their professed adoption of socialist ideology, it is important to remember that their primary goal is reunification with the Irish republic". Most writers include them as nationalists. The article terrorism provides a typology that is standard. I realize that these are conceptual frameworks developed by academics and individuals and groups are sometimes stubborn in not conforming to them. Nonetheless they are helpful in understanding the topic. TFD (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)