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

• 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

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

]

• Keep Make disambiguation only I don't see why Left-wing terrorism is seen as a neutral title. Instead, half of left-wing terrorism could be moved here, or else to Marxist terrorism. This would be more accurate and precise. Sources for "communist terrorism" : 1970s Italy:military history of Italy By Ciro Paoletti (Greenwood, 2008), In Nepal at the time of writing: Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa By Dan G. Cox, John Falconer, Brian Stackhouse (UPNE, 2009) Naxalites in India: Global cultures: a transnational short fiction reader By Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (Wesleyan University Press, 1994). This does in no way mean however that Communism necessarily leads to terrorism or anything like that and the article should not propagate such a POV. Munci (talk) 15:30, 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
   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]

• Keep Just read the original version, a really well written article, not sure why it has been nominated for deletion TBH.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:26, 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

]

• Delete There seem to be no reliable sources devoted to discussions of a specific topic entitled "communist terrorism". There are numerous academic texts on terrorism. Left-wing terrorism or revolutionary terror already contain any material that other users might have been discussing here. The page could survive as either a disambiguation or a slightly longer stub, also pointing to other articles. Best probably is a list with redirects, without any possibility for expansion. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to
  talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - At best a
  WP:SYNTH violation.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From what I've seen, it's

Flank 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
  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,
  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. Silverseren^C 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. 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]
              • Inasmuch as I did so on the article talk page, the aside here is of no value. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You did? cool, then you can provide a diff of the place where you did that. If you refuse to provide that diff, of course, that would probably indicate another lie, right? And quit with the frigging asterisks. --Ludwigs2 19:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: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]

• NOTE: Ludwig2, please cease your
  personal attacks, or you will be reported. Regardless of what Collect has or has not said or done, your conduct and comments are utterly inexcusable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Obvious POV fork. Apparently no sources. Alternatively, based on the
  Communist genocide debacle, that's the perfect criteria for article creation. We should also start a page on Neo-Keynesian paedophilia. --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 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]

• Keep - There are plenty of sources, this article has already survived 2 afds. - Schrandit (talk) 20:37, 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.