Talk:Revolutionary terror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Duplicate Parts

In "The Soviet Union", the sentence starting with "Many later marxists, in particular Karl Kautsky..." is almost exactly the same as the one above in "Revolutionary terror and Marxism" which starts with "Many later Marxist-Leninists, in particular Karl Kautsky...". The same goes for the sentence about Stalin and his nota bene, which stands redundantly and completely out of context in the section "Soviet Union". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.103.60 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I suggest merge most of

red terror, and white terror. That is needed to fix multiple issued in Communist terrorism, including syth and coattrack. I am not sure that lumping up the rest of the article is even justified by reliable sources, but if so the terrorist organizations/groups adhering to some form of communism should aggregated in a separate article named terrorist groups adhering to Communism or some such. Also the terror plans of Soviet Union at the peak of the Cold war should be moved to a section or an appropriate subarticle of the Cold War. (Igny (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply
]

Comment I have removed KGB activities at peak of the
Cold war from the article in its entirety as highly speculative and largely irrelevant. (Igny (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply
]

Merge (2)

I have tagged the article with a {{

WP:POVFORK as the content is or was the same. What we should in fact have is articles on Marxism and revolutionary violence and a List of left wing terrorist organizations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

And as i said to you, you can`t have a merger tag on just the one article, you really need to wait till the other is unlocked so it can be done properly
talk) 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Original research

There are no secondary sources for this article, just a collection of primary sources and therefore it is original research. TFD (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the logic. I am not particularly referring to this article, but what is wrong in using primary sources for definition of a concept? Also, "primary sources", what the heck is this? As I understand, the wikipedia article about Das Kapital cannot be based soley on Das Kapital. But an article about, say, surplus value, written from das kapital may be a good starting point. Of course, it will lack modern views, criticism, etc., but it will be a valid version of an article. Lovok Sovok (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:it will be a valid version of an article. No, it won't, unless you are ok with a random wikipedian with an unspecified agenda drawing original conclusions from his interpretation of Das Kapital. (Igny (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
WP:NOR prevents us from providing our own interpretations. Without these policies and guidelines preparing an article would be difficult because we would be arguing about what Marx actually meant, instead of reporting what mainstream writers think he meant. Look at the discussion pages of Communist terrorism to see what happens when editors insist on interpreting primary sources. TFD (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am afraid you are making two locical errors here. First, when I cite or paraphrase Marx, I am not interpreting "what Marx actually meant", I am directly conveying his writing. If I am doing it erroneously, this is fixable by citing closer to the origin, rather than saying "Marx meant not what he wrote". Which leads to your second logical error, of double standard: if you don't trust me to correctly convey the words of Marx, hen how you can trust me to correctly convey the words of a scholar who writes about what Marx wrote? Chinese whispers, you know.
As I see it, there are primary sources and there are primary sources, as my Jewish friend from Odessa would say. It is one thing that when a Medieval monk writes that he "fought with devils" in his solitary cell, I deduce that in Middle Ages devils roamed the Earth freely (rather, I would rely on a word of a modern scholar that "fighting with devils" was a common expression for "fighting with temptations of flesh"). It is totally another thing to cite a scientific opinion of a near-contemporary author on a subject of their invention.
...And being carried away by the discussion I nearly missed the third logical blunder in it ("red herring"). The original issue at hand (viz. section header) is "original research". To put forth this accusation you have to demonstrate that the article has original conclusions, rather than deduce "since it has close to none refences, it must be personal babble original OR". In other words, the proper tag would be "citations missing", and if you question some statements as ungrounded, please do so directly. Lovok Sovok (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have valid arguments but it does not override Wikipedia rules. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."[1] It may be that the article represents scholarly consensus, only it is lacking citations, and is therefore not original research, but I doubt it. TFD (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not going to override wikipedia rules. I am challenging your interpretation thereof. I could have pointed out a couple logical errors in your latest response as well, but since we both agree that the article sucks, further discussion would be but an exercise in debating. May be next time; when the issue will be more critical (I mean I will be suckered into :-). Cheers. Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"
(1) In that case you would need to show that authors like Marx, Engels, Lenin are not reliable.
(2) Giving a quotation from Marx cannot be construed as "interpretation" or "original research" since neither are involved any more than they are in your own quotation of Wikipedia rules. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the writings of Marx and Lenin are not reliable sources, except for their opinions. But if you want to add their opinions to this article you will have to show that their opinions are generally accepted by modern scholars. You will probably find resistance to re-writing Wikipedia to represent a Marxist-Leninist point of view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact the writings of Marx and Lenin are not reliable sources" -- I am afraid you are thoroughly mistaken. "have to show that their opinions" -- So you are denying opinions of Marx in articles about Marxist concepts. I think many, including wikipedia policies, will disagree with you here. "re-writing Wikipedia to represent a Marxist-Leninist point of view." -- please don't exaggerrate. Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have original interpretations of Karl Marx, Jesus, the Founding Fathers or whoever, then you are in the wrong place. TFD (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and copyright

The implications of

WP:CC-BY-SA and WP:GFDL on merging and splitting content are also discussed here: Talk:Left-wing terrorism#Moving a part of Communist terrorism to this article -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The copyright issue is non-existent. That argument was a mere pretext used by Collect (e.g., here) to undo a well justified edit. It was a very silly argument, I could only presume that he might have thought to scare his opponent away by rising some legal implications. It could have worked on a less knowledgeable editor, and if he continues to push this idea, I'd consider to bring this matter at
WP:ANI. So I'd suggest to drop that discussion as off-topic. (Igny (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC))[reply
]
1. Try
WP:NPA. Your personal attack is not only false, it verges on disruption entirely. Collect (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Precision leads to inaccuracy and misrepresentation

The content regarding "revolutionary terror" proper, i.e., the French revolution, is basically non-existant and the entire rest of the article is Communist terrorism re-branded to create a POV:FORK (actually, more of a POV:DISSECT) of content which belongs elsewhere. Content should be moved to its appropriate destination and this, at most, should become a dismabiguation page to the French Revolution and to Communist terrorism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

The article mentions China in a couple places, and Cambodia in the lead, but does not treat them with any depth. How was terrorism used in these countries? How did it differ from the Soviet Union? Who were the key actors? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolutionary_terror&oldid=1212408934"