Talk:Communist terrorism

A 1RR restriction is now in effect

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, and after a discussion at WP:AE I am placing this article under 1RR. No editor may revert this article more than once in any 24-hour period. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. Violations of the 1RR may be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sections

I removed the sections about Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the Philippines and Africa. In order to be included they should be included in the literature used to define the topic and we should explain what makes them CT. Including them violates NOR. Please discuss the relevance of these sections. All the events described btw may be discussed in other articles. TFD (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See my restore and edit comment. Please adopt a more constructive approach in contributing to the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The source used for the "Africa" section that labels groups as "terrorists" is a document from the unrecognized illegal white supremicist government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. The attribution to Elain Windrich is misleading. She does not call them terrorists and says the term was used as a propaganda device. (pp. 277, 279)[1] Ironically the Rhodesian state does not call them CTs, probably because the term had become discredited by that time. This is an egregious example of representing the opinions of extremist sources as facts and misattributing them to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say, racist POV should not be expressed in Wikipedia. Incidentally, regarding South Africa, I found the source (A Theory of Categorical Terrorism. Author(s): Jeff Goodwin Source: Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 2027-2046) that explain that the main reason of another South African insurgent organisation, ANK, to abandon the tactics of indiscriminate attacks of civilian was the close contacts with SouthAfrican Communist party, which did not support such an activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

However the ANC's military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe was apparently designated a terrorist organisation by both South Africa and the United States. --Martin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WP is not supposed to reflect official positions of certain governments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, thank you for responding on at least one of the numerous sections you preemptively deleted. In deleting the content as requiring sources, were you contending that "Communist terrorists" do not engage in "Communist terrorism," that sources not only have to state that communist terrorists committed acts of terrorism but that they were, using "Communist" as a particular method employed per prior contentions--not terrorism driven by ideology as meant--engaged in "Communist (method) terrorism?" PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not following your logic, but articles must be based on reliable sources. The source that define opposition to white supremicism as "terrorism" is the white supremicist government itself. White supremicist sources are neither neutral nor reliable. TFD (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the reference to let it be know she was the editor. The source is fine and this continuing nit picking by a certain editor is disruptive. WP:SOFIXIT instead of constant whining would be a pleasant change. Their is noting in policy to prevent an editor fixing a reference they think is not attributed correctly. Tentontunic (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I am going to remove the POV tag from the top of the article, any objections? Tentontunic (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is gradually becoming a multiple POV fork of several articles, including the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, the POV tag must stay. For instance, the "terrorism" term is applied to what is known and Kampucean genocide, thus creating an absolutely false impression that the major term for this event was "Communist terrorism", which is obviously not the case, and which directly contradicts to how highly reputable sources (and Wikipedia itself) describe that event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been described as terrorism in quite a few reliable sources, if you think a counter to this is required to balance the article please add one. And I see not POV forks at all, everything in this article describes actions perpetrated by communists which have been described as terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to "counter" anything, because there is no direct dispute between these sources and the mainstream views. The situation is simpler: some writers sometimes apply the term "Communist terrorism" to different events that are known under other names: Kampuchean genocide, mass killings under Communist regimes, revolutionary terror, leftist terrorism, anti-colonial wars lead by Communists, etc. Accordingly, all of that must be clearly explained here, and the terminology should be used accordingly. For instance, when we speak about Viet cong, the primary term should be "partisans", or "querilla". The fact that they are being discussed in the article named "Communist terrorism" is quite sufficient to reflect this alternative terminology: we have a section in the article with the title "Communist terrorism" that explains that this term was applied, among others, to VC partisans, and then we discuss terrorist acts committed by partisans (a common and neutral term). In other sections the terminology must be changed accordingly. That would be a neutral way to apply the term "CT".

BTW, I am still not satisfied with the lede. It reflects minority views, because the mainstream view is that the term "terrorism" cannot be strictly defined, and, accordingly, that the term "Communist terrorism" is used just by some scholars. Instead of finding the sources to support one or another assertion, we need to think how to reflect mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With to regards to alternate terminology I refer you to my responses a few sections above which you have strangely not responded to. The lede does not express minority views, please point out that which you feel is a minority view. Tentontunic (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe these views are mainstream, prove that (it is not a request to prove negative, I do not request you to prove they are not fringe). The poof of the opposite is below:

"Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, in the United States the standard definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II."

"Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, the article about terrorism).

With regard to what this (WP) article calls "Communist terrorism" in Russia, EB uses quite different terminology:

"In the context of the Russian Revolution, the term “civil war” had two distinct meanings. It described the repressive measures applied by the Bolsheviks against those who refused to recognize their power seizure and defied their decrees, such as peasants who refused to surrender grain. It also defined the military conflict between the Red Army and various “White” armies formed on the periphery of Soviet Russia for the purpose of overthrowing the communists. Both wars went on concurrently. The struggle against domestic opponents was to prove even more costly in human lives and more threatening to the new regime than the efforts of the Whites." (EB, the article "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics")

In other words, most of what is called "terrorism" is this article is not considered as terrorism proper. Accordingly, it is quite necessary to explain in the article that the terminology the article currently uses is not mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the EB, what they have to say on the matter is neither here nor there. You still have not stated that which you think is minority view in the lede. Tentontunic (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Minority views in the lede:

1. That Stalinist repressions and Red Terror are usually referred to as Communist terrorism (EB does not use this term)
2. That Kampuchean genocide and guerilla war are usually referred to as Communist terrorism (EB and majority of mainstream sources use quite different terminology)

Neutrality issues in the article:

1. It portrays guerilla wars using terrorism as a primary term;
2. It gives undue weight to the "CT" term, whereas in actuality it is used much less widely as compared to the mainstream terminology.

The source have already been provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodness that makes me chuckle. There is noting in this article which says Stalinist mass murder, Red Terror, or the butchery in Cambodia are usually referred to as communist terrorism. It says these actions have been described as communist terrorism, quite a difference there. It does not define guerrilla war using terrorism as the primary term at all, as all sources used describe the actions as terrorism. Please point to a specific section in the article which you think does this, as that would be nice. You cannot give undue weight to a term, as has been pointed out to you a few sections above which, strangely you have still not responed to. Tentontunic (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the policy requires that all significant viewpoints have to be presented in a single article devoted to some subject, by omitting, or even by not giving a due weight to mainstream terminology the article implies that "Communist terrorism" is a mainstream terminology for, e.g.,"Stalinist mass murder, Red Terror, or the butchery in Cambodia", which is obviously not the case. Therefore, the last your post gives an example of glaring misunderstanding of the neutrality policy.

Regarding the post I haven't responded to, please, remind me what do you mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

[2] Here is the section were you have not responded to the very points you are currently debating. And as stated there, the usage of differing terms such as left wing, eurroterrorism and such are not an alternate view, an alternate view would be "these are not terrorist actions". The article implies noting, it clearly says the term has been used to describe certain actions. Which is entirely correct and is well sourced. Tentontunic (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

After brief examination of this section [3] I failed to find the question I left unanswered. Could you please reproduce it below?

Re "The article implies noting, it clearly says the term has been used to describe certain actions." Since every WP article is supposed to present all viewpoints on the article's subject (including all mainstream terminologies) the omission of any alternative information implies that the viewpoint presented in the article is mainstream. If the latter in actuality is not the case (and for CT it is not), this is a violation of the policy. However, if you see the article as a story of application of the term "CT" to various events that are usually seen as something different, I see no violation of the policy in that, provided that that will be a story of the term, not of the events this term describes (each of them has its own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how this article coheres. White supremicists called people who opposed white supremacy "communists" or "terrorists" as part of their propaganda. They did not call them "CTs" because use of outdated propaganda terminology would have made people laugh at them. But all ot this means that we should use this article to label opponents of white supremacy, colonialism, imperialism, etc. as CTs? Seemns to depart from NPOV. TFD (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to look again, at the end of that section I quite clearly made a point with regards to the differing labels used to describe groups, there is nada in policy which says different labels used for groups need be used. Please point to the policy were it says that all differing labels ought be used. As stated, a differing viewpoint on these actions and groups would be they are not terrorist acts. Not if they were called bandits, or left wing, or euro terrorists, these are just different labels used for the same groups, that is not a different viewpoint. I believe in fact it was the very conversation in the other section which has lead you to try and change policy. Tentontunic (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that call them CTs. The fact that white supremicists called them communists and also called them terrorists (but did not use the terms together) is irrelevant. We are not supposed to advance a white supremicist POV and even if we did, it would be sythesis to use the term CT. TFD (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Firstly, if several names are used for some subject, it is natural to conclude that policy requires that all of them should be mentioned. In any event, I see nothing in the policy what may justify their deletion. Secondly, and more importantly, we have here exactly what you write: we have different viewpoints, not only different labels. Majority of sources (and main WP articles devoted to each of these subjects separately) do not describe these armed groups as "terrorists", and that fact is absolutely necessary to reflect that in this article.

I see no need to change the policy in this case, because the policy is quite clear and needs in no changes. What is really need to be changed is your vision of this policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For "natural to include" you mean this is what you should like, it is not policy and as such need not even be discussed further. Again which armed groups? Please be specific that I might address your concerns directly. The VC section already says "they fought a guerilla war and continued this insurgency" All other content in that article describes certain actions of theirs as terrorism as this is what the sourcing says. Tentontunic (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean how our common sense suggests us to interpret what the policy says. Regarding the armed groups, I would say, each armed group discussed in the article is wrongly labeled as "terrorist" despite the fact that most sources do not do that. That is a systematic and persistent violation of the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Common sense would be to follow policy, not make it up on the fly. And again, please actually point out were an action depicted in the article is not described as terrorist in the sources. You cannot say that the NPA are not terrorist can you? So that is one out of the way, which other group is being depicted as terrorist? None that I can see, only actions which reliable sourcing says were terrorist in nature. Tentontunic (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the Rhodesian and South African governments referred to their opponents as terrorists. Acts of terrorism could include such things as stating that you supported majority rule, i.e., that non-white people should have the same voting rights as white people. TFD (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite for Ian Smith, or the Afrikaners calling any specific person a "terrorist" who only opined that non-white people should have equal rights? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Common sense would be to follow policy" I would say, to apply common sense is a policy. Please, familiarise yourself with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is naught in policy which says that all this differing terminology needs be used. Well done for agreeing on this. And for the last time, please point out the section were you feel a group is being described as terrorist. Either let it be known exactly what you feel is the issue or stop posting here about random policy`s which fail to back your claims. Tentontunic (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need a source that actually calls them "CT". The racist sources that you use never called them that. Even if they did, white racist governments are not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WP:RSN#Are white racist sources reliable?. TFD (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "there is naught in policy which says that all this differing terminology needs be used." No. Both WP:NPOV and common sense tell us that we cannot have two articles for the same subject, one of them describe the event as "anti-colonial insurgency" and another as "terrorism". To do that is a severe violation of the policy. To r5ead WP:LABEL would be also helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And there is naught in NPOV which says this either, give it up. There is no need at all to create a hideous hodgepodge of an article just because you want it to be so. Just because an article on a subject does not say they are terrorist. This article discuss the actions they took which have been deemed terrorism. And that is quite clear in the article as it is currently written. Your ongoing refusal to actually state which group is being labeled terrorist over partisan or insurgent shows you really have no point at all. Tentontunic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To present someone as terrorist or as freedom fighter means to express some concrete point of view. The policy requires to present fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Obviously, since WP articles are, by and large, independent from each other, these viewpoints must be presented in the same article. That is a direct quote from the policy you requested. I do not believe that it is possible to interpret it in some different way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good god man, just respond to the question put to you, which section in this article describes any group as just terrorist? I am not interested in the least over your thoughts on policy, just tell me which group which is not deemed terrorist in majority sources is currently in this article as being just terrorist. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All of them are not deemed as "Communist terrorists", and most of them are not deemed as terrorist in majority sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Last chance, either respond to my question or I will not respond in this section again, give a name saying all of them is not a response. Tentontunic (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "the Red Brigades, Front Line and the Red Army Faction" "Left-wing", not "Communist terrorists, per majority sources.
2. "actions carried out by states, such as acts against the populace by the Soviet Union,[1] the Peoples Republic of China,[1] North Korea[2] and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia" Neither "Communist terrorism", nor "state terrorism" per majority sources.
3. The "Communist view on the use of terrorism" confuses between the old and the new meaning of the word "terrorism". The latter is seen as "terror" by majority sources.
4. Vietnam. The primary term must be "partisans" and "guerrilla", and proper explanation of the onset of terrorist activity, and of its role in VC strategy should be provided.
5. Soviet Union. "State terror = Communist terrorism" only per some authors. Majority views are different.
6. Africa. "Freedom fighters", not terrorists.
7. Philippines. Guerrilla.
8. Cambodia/Kampuchea. See below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1. This is not an issue, I have in fact already made this quite clear twice. Also the source used says these are examples of communist terrorist groups.
2. The sources used describe certain actions as terrorism, get used to it. This is why it is written in the article as "some actions have been described as"
3. Not even a point, sources call these actions terrorism, that is it.
4. The section already says they fought an insurgency, the only time terrorism is used in the article is when a person has described as action as terrorism. It also says that terrorism was a specific tactic used by them.
5. See previous responses.
6. Sources describe these groups actions as terrorism, find an alternate source for balance.
7. See below.

Have you actually looked at the article recently? I have already enacted some of your concerns to compromise, yet you continue to demand more. None of the issues you are raising have any substance at all. Tentontunic (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. It is an issue, and, concretely, it is a neutrality issue.

Re 2. These actions, which are usually referred to as ...., has been described by X and Y as CT.

Re 3. It is a point, because the obsolete viewpoint should be represented as such.

Re 4. Yes, however, the stress on the word "terrorists" is still redundant. They were the insurgents who used terrorist tactics, not terrorists.

Re 5. Unsatisfactory. The article uses "terrorist" as the primary, if not the sole, term to describe insurgency in Africa.

Re 6. I'll do.

Re 7. The answer below is unsatisfactory.

Re "Have you actually looked at the article recently? " Yes, some sections are gradually improving. However, that is balanced by addition of more POV. For instance, by adding Valentino's views of Chinese events you fully omitted the fact that Valentino uses his own definition of terrorism, which, he concedes on the p.84, differs from the generally accepted one. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re 1, no it is not, as has been explained to you quite a few times now.

re 2, your point being?

Who says it is an obsolete viewpoint?

re 4 the stress is not on the word terrorist, in is on actions deemed by a reliable source to be a terrorist action.

re 5, this is what the source says.

re 6, good luck with that.

re 7, tough, if an action is described as terrorism by a communist group or regime then there is no issues with it rating a mention in this article.

You ought to have added Valentino`s definition, not remove to content.

It may work better if instead of complaining about everything you try to focus on one thing at a time, it ought to make things a little easier for me to explain to you why you are wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked me to outline major problems, and I did that, so you recommendation to try to focus on one thing at a time sound somewhat illogical. Your answers sometimes are just a repetition of your old replies where you totally ignore my points, hence the tag.

Re "You ought to have added", I believe that the reverse is even more relevant: you ought not to remove what I write. I hope, in future you will refrain from such steps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I ought not remove what you write? There`s that ownership issue again. If you write junk it will be removed. You did not outline major problems, you waved your hands vaguely all over the place. Quite simply your "points" have not been ignored, and have in fact been responded to quite a few times. I believe if you try to focus on one perceived issue at a time it shall be easier to address these concerns. At the moment your just saying "all of it" "I like none of it" even though I have compromised and utilized your proposals and some of your sources. I suspect you will not he happy unless you get the article back to the last mess you created. So lets focus on the VC, what exactly do you think is wrong with this section? I shall keep in mind you know little of the history of the region and shall let you know when you are in error. Tentontunic (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "There`s that ownership issue again." So far, you demonstrated such a behaviour more frequently and more openly. Re "compromised", remember, this word has two meanings, and what you have done is to "compromeze/undermine" what I proposed. The article still has major neutrality issues, and by refusing to to fix them you demonstrate misunderstanding of basic policy principles. You make some reasonable changes, however, this requires enormous efforts from my side, and importantly, is compensated with additional biased context you are adding. I give you some time to think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The only issues with neutrality are in your mind. Your refusal to actually point out any actual problems with the Vietnam section speaks volumes. I have no misunderstanding with policy, it is your attempts to label that you do not like as a NPOV issue which is the problem here. Tentontunic (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambodia

Could someone please explain what the U.S.-backed government of Cambodia (1975-1979) has to do with CT. TFD (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why it is included either, though I question it on the grounds that I do not see how their actions could be called terrorism, and that both the references which back it lead to the few pages in each book which are not available through google books so I cannot verify. Passionless -Talk 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the Khmer Rouge have been called terrorism in quite a few sources, The one used in the section was Valentino`s mass terrorist killings chapter. Tentontunic (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh, again the stated pages are just missing from goggle books, so I can not verify this, but the book did state the the US attacks on Cambodians were terrorist attacks so it would not be a surprise if he did also label the other events as terrorism. None the less, the article did read as if 2.5mil died due to terrorism by Pol Pot, I changed it to the more true that they died during his rule but it still needs to be made clear how many died as a result of whatever is being claimed to be terrorism as no doubt this number will be extremely lower than the full 2.5mil. Passionless -Talk 07:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Valentino has that number as total dead from mass terrorism, it does I believe cover all dead from the time of pol pots regime. Perhaps it ought not be in the article, I shall dwell on it a little. We have mention of this in the lede of course, Perhaps a section on actions which have been termed terrorism to include what are essentially state killings would be more in order. Tentontunic (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the KR activity was officially qualified as genocide, and not as terrorism. Secondly, the majority viewpoint is that three major factors affected the onset of this genocide, and only one of them had a relation to Communist (ultra-Maoist) ideology. Therefore, even despite the fact that this event has been characterised as CT by few sources, this viewpoint is minority views, and should be represented as such. I also expect Tentontunic to provide needed quotes from the sources they used. It is desirable to see extended quotes to make sure the phrases have not been taken out of context. If needed quotes will not be provided, the burden of proof will be considered not sustained, and the text will be removed as non-supported.

Although I think that the changes made by Passionless correctly reflect the real state of things, these changes created one important problem: it is not clear what is the connection of the described events with terrorism. Taking into account that some mainstream sources (e.g. EB) clearly distinguish between the actions of KG (partisan war) and terrorism, I see no reason to have this section in the article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Valentino has that number as total dead from mass terrorism" Page? Quote? In the table 6, page 88 Cambodia has not been listed. It is listed on the page 5 ("Counter-guerrilla mass killings") as an example of mass killings committed by the US.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it was Tuman, not Valentino. Try this link [4] Tentontunic (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the header per my thoughts above and have attributed the text to Tuman. Please let me know what you think of the change. Tentontunic (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is better. However, it should be clearly explained that these acts, which are seen as ...., have also been described as terrorism by some scholars. In addition, the same approach has to be extended to the article as whole: all these events are seen differently by most scholars, and only part (small part) of scholars see them as terrorism, and even smaller part as Communist terrorism. As a result, the scope of the article should be the history of the term, not the event, which would be perfectly neutral and correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to write "seen by some" As it is attributed to one person, Tuman has said it was an act of terrorism. This is his opinion on the matter. I see no reason for section bloat when the article is saying, this is what this guy thinks of the situation. Tentontunic (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding Tuman, his opinion hardly has significant weight, because he devotes not more than one page to the issue, and provides no detailed analysis of this event (" In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.". By contrast, other scholars devoted specialised articles to this subject (e.g. Genocide by Attrition 1939-1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan: Links between Human Rights, Health, and Mass Death Author(s): Helen Fein Source: Health and Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1997), pp. 10-45 Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard College; Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966 Author(s): Helen Fein Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823 Published by: Cambridge University Press). They do not describe it as terrorism, and the reason was quite clear:

The social base of the KR regime was poor Khmer peasantry, whose economical situation was terrible, and who hated more rich non-Khmer urban population. There were no need in any special measures for KR to get a support from them, so there were no need in terror against them. As a demonstration of this fact, let me remind you that even after Veitnam troops entered Cambodia and stopped the massacre, KR continued to resist, and they did it very successfully due to a support of local population. That would be impossible, had their power was a result of terror. The second question is what was the need of the mass killings (which were in actuality a genocide)? The reason was as follows: firstly, the ultra-Maoist KR concept required formation of fully agrarian society, so all urban population has to be eliminated; secondly, the Khmer's hate of non-Khmer urban population (and Khmer intellectuals, who were seen as non-genuine Khmers), was so high that the only thing KR needed was just to remove all barriers preventing the outburst of hatred. In other words, the goal of these mass killings was not to intimidate, to create the atmosphere of fear (the necessary and the major trait of terrorism), but to physically eliminate a certain category of population, and to give to rural population an opportunity to manifest their hatred, which had been being accumulated for centuries. That is why it was not terrorism (which, however, makes that even more terrible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He deserves as much weight as Deery. And yes, it is terrorism. State terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Such official, state-based policies are commonly referred to as "terror" and are thus distinguished from terrorism, which is usually understood as violence emanating from non-state actors." (Moghadam, Assaf. The roots of terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006, p. 56) [5] Tuman also mostly refers to this as "state terror" and never uses the term CT. I fear that this section is moving the article farther towards OR, SYN and POV. If we want to write about the KR, then we should be adding all this into the KR article. TFD (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary goal of Genocide is to eliminate some category of population, not to create fear. Genocide is not terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cambodian genocide has been described as state terrorism in hundreds of sources, please do not even try to say it has not. As stated, it has been described as terrorism and is attributed to the person who said it. Further discussion on this is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not more than in 419. ""Cambodian genocide" terrorism"[6]

Importantly, it is not described as terrorism by more many sources ""Cambodian genocide" -terrorism" 943 [7].--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

595 "cambodia" "state terrorism" I am not getting into counting google hits. As I said hundreds of sources call this state terrorism. It is not a minority view. Tentontunic (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You continue to mix google with gscholar. Whereas the former gives all results, including pure junk, the latter searches within peer-reviewed and academic sources predominantly (~92% of the sources gscholar searches in belong to this category). I do not want to know how many sources support your POV, what we need to know is what majority views are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is described as "state terror", not "state terrorism". Some writers, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn do indeed call it "state terrorism", but they are a minority. The actions of the KR against the Hun Sen government (after the defeat of the KR) have been described as "terrorism", but it would be bizarre to describe U.S. backed terrorism against a Communist government as "communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, we had this discussion at Talk:United States and state terrorism. There some editors were trying to use the same sources your Google search returns to define American actions during war, including their attacks on Cambodia, as state terrorism. As I wrote there, "Here (again) is a link to an article in Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos"." Ironically, the first sources I looked at in your hit were writing about state terrorism by the United States against Cambodia. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge is listed as a terrorist organisation here, so its inclusion here is most proper. --Martin (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one source. Much more sources state the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

More than just one source, it is a consortium of researchers and leading social scientists at more than 50 academic and research institutions[8]. So listing the Khmer Rouge as a terrorist organisation on this site represents the consensus view of researchers from more than 50 academic and research institutions. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source is only a single opinion from START - "Based at the University of Maryland, START supports research efforts of leading social scientists at more than 50 academic and research institutions" This means START supports 50 others not that 50 others came together to create START or that everything stated as START is agreed upon by all 50 either. Even if it had been the other way around I feel it would still only count as one source as they are all very intertwind by START. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, you do understand what the term "Consortium" means, don't you? I hardly think this centre would publish anything that the majority of these 50 institutions would disagree with, particularly for something as controversial as designating a particular group as "terrorist". In any case they would carry more weight than an individual author. I would note that while this consortium lists the Khmer Rouge as a terrorist group, it does not list the Viet Cong. --Martin (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you need to show a source that describes the KR as CTs. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original views. Rather than rely on my view of your opinions, publish them and see what type of response they attract. TFD (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a link above, did you not see it? Here is another link to the Global Terrorist Database that lists the Khmer Rouge[9] --Martin (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, does not list them as CTs. Incidentally they were supported by the U.S. government which, unless you believe in the NWO, is not communist. TFD (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorist groups

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has a category for communist terrorism[10], making a clear distinction between that and leftist terrorism which has its own distinct category. Material on this site represents the consensus view of researchers from more than 50 academic and research institutions, so this is an excellent source which I think we can use for this article. -Martin (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a single source that can be used, but if other sources disagree, which they do, than their opinions may be treated as WP:FRINGE or at least require attribution to the source. Passionless -Talk 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you considers these institutions associated with the Consortium are all purveyors of WP:FRINGE theories? --Martin (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I was just saying that this single source cannot be used to state things in wikipedia voice, and that if many many RS were found which do not agree than START may hold a minority held opinion. Passionless -Talk 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, it is not a single source, many other sources state the same. However, much more sources describe these groups as left-wing terrorist groups, so in general you are right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact it does not have a category for "communist terrorism". Tammsalu, could you please read your sources before presenting them. Passionless and Paul Siebert, could you please check the sources that Tammsalu presents before responding. The Consortium is part of American security and therefore is unlikely to use the type of jargon promoted in this article. TFD (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does, see the drop-down menu "Or by ideology", there you find both "leftist" and "Communist/Socialist" categories. --Martin (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried this, and in the category "Leftist" I found, e.g. [11] (Communist/socialist, leftist). It seems to me that this site mixes leftist with Communist/socialist quite arbitrarily. In addition, it does not separate Communist from socialist, so your focus on just one word seems somewhat odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show where the site explains either "leftist" or "communist/socialist" and how the two are distinguished. Even if you cannot find it, do you have any idea what distinction they assume? TFD (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I failed to find anything. As I already explained, these two terms are frequently being used interchangeably, with "leftist" is more predominant. Therefore it is simply ridiculous to try to separate them. It seems to me that it would be more correct and neutral to speak about "Left-wing (aka Communist) terrorist groups". The only think we need to do is to add the explanation to the Left-wing terrorism article that "Communist terrorists" is an alternative name for them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Or add "Left-wing terrorism" as an alternative name in this article. This entire dispute, edit warring, and moves were only about words and not about meaning. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article with this name already exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to PS several times above now, there is no need whatsoever to add all the differing terms used by authors to this article. An alternate view would be they are not terrorist or they did not subscribe to some form of communist ideology. We already have left wing in the types section of the info box. Which is more than enough I believe. Tentontunic (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base provides separate statistics for 'communist/socialist' and 'leftist' groups, relying on DeticaDFI group taxonomy. See MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, 'TKB data methodologies', <http://www.tkb.org?DFI.jsp?page=method>."[12] The explanation is no longer available on-line and there is no evidence that it is in general use. Moreover, they made no distinction between CT and socialist terrorism. So the source is not really helpful. It is doubtful however that their definition would agree with definitions from the 50s, which used the term "terrorism" to describe non-violent actions. For example were one to write that people who were not Caucasian deserved equal rights, that would be an act of communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite for the claim that "were one to write that people who were not Caucasian deserved equal rights, that would be an act of communist terrorism. "? I can not find one after careful search, but trust you would not simply make the example up. Collect (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fascinating how you can conduct "careful research" and post a reply, all within 15 minutes. Any read for example, "Derfinitions that serve the interests of the powerful".[13] But we are drifting off-topic. The descriptions assigned by the post-UDI Rhodesian government are not reliable sources to define groups as "terrorists". TFD (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? When in doubt, attack the other editor? Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

A number of changes have been made to this article by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. We should revert to take out all the material that has been added without consensus. TFD (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, many people seem to have supported his edits, so I don't believe there is any consensus for a wholesale revert. --Martin (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us see what other editors believe. I would have thought that finding out that the editor whose opinions you trusted was untrustworthy might have lead you to question his views. TFD (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of trust and the viewpoints of particular editors, but what is verifiable in reliable sources. --Martin (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your preemptive attempt to remove content without having to discuss its merits. If what you contend were true, I could mass delete every article having to do with Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Please feel free to point out specific items you believe are in error. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to support articles. Are you claiming that a POV about minor republics is driving your motivation to bolster this article? In order to understand the situation in Transnistria (wherever that happens to be) we need to explain to the people about CT? TFD (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret my intent. What I stated was that if practice was to remove all content created by documented socks, I would be justified in deleting pretty much all content having to do with the frozen conflict zone, as an example of the application of your contention regarding normal editorial practice. Any wholesale removal of content without discussion of the content (not the author) is vandalism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)