Talk:Left-wing terrorism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extremely Biased

This article is, without a doubt, one of the least neutral articles that tries to disguise itself as neutral. It seems people have spent a frankly ridiculous amount of time on this page, versus "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism" this one. Its fairly clear that this is a neutral point of view issue; these two articles are related in many areas, and the utter lack of information on it suggests extreme bias. Also in the talk page of the linked section, the authors decry the same tactics they would come here to themselves repeat and defend.

If people are going to play games, they should find elsewhere to do so. To pretend that "left wing" terrorism warrants such a huge page compared to right-wing terrorism is utterly laughable. Right Wing Terrorism claims non neutral point of view any time information goes up on it, which is then promptly deleted. Again, this is a place for information. This level of dishonesty is apparent right away, and those same authors have come to THIS page, to engage in the exact same tactics they claimed were non-neutral on the right wing terrorism page.

We must either bar the rightwingers from obliterating anything that gets put into "right wing terrorism", or chop this page down to about four paragraphs as well. That article utterly ignores any event since the mid-90s, while this one has events at least til 2008. Considering that there have been right wing domestic terrorists in the US, that there have been rightwing terrorists in the middle east (its why we're fighting a war there...isnt it..?) to have ONLY this article with the appropriate detail is clearly a non-neutral operation.

Im sorry if you all don't think this comment is in the correct place, but pretending these two issues are in seperate vaccuums is completely nonsensical. If it takes merging them into a single article to ensure any level of honest discourse, so be it. These articles should show some form of balance, and that the authors of the whitewashed right wing terrorism come here to paint it in as bright and loud of colors shows their total and complete non-neutral perspective in their editing actions.

I will trim down this article to 4 paragraphs, with equally undetailed and roundabout wording as the right-wing terrorism article, unless someone can actually provide a neutral reason as to why these articles should be so unbalanced, especially for the post 2000 events. I should mention, that not even the 9/11 attacks are mentioned on the right-wing terrorism site. I will be reducing this page to a similar level of intentional omission, unless someone can give a good reason why I should not.

That theres a SECOND article about communism says it all. Non-neutral, to the extreme. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

These are two separate articles. The fact that another article may be too short is no reason to shorten this one as well. TFD (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not reduced in quality just because of what goes on it another article, but I also agree with the IP poster that this article is non-neutral. Both articles should be deleted, with significant content merged into the articles from where they were originally forked. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is neutral, because it accurately reflects academic consensus. You may believe that the academic consensus is not neutral, but that is another issue. TFD (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It what? It blatantly uses Wikipedia's voice to nebulously apply the label of "terrorist". And please don't make a deliberately inflammatory suggestion that I "may believe that the academic consensus is not neutral" simply because you disagree with me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that there are alternative views that are ignored in the article then please present them. TFD (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained that my problem is with the arbitrary "terrorism" label. Fixing this article would be virtually impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article and looked at the sources? University and the academic press have written about terrorism and for some reason we can determine that they are all biased and ignore them. TFD (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I must ask you to cease making deliberately inflammatory comments that question my competence. My problem is that we use Wikipedia's voice to label groups as "terrorists" because we do not always explicitly provide attribution for each occasion the label is used. Even the title of the article is inappropriate. I am not the only one who has this concern (as evidenced by prior discussion), and it is also the reason I withdrew my mediation offer earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not reject subjects because we do not believe they represent an unacceptable point of view. See for example blood libel. However we must "represent... fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If there are any points of view that you believe have not been presented, then please indicate what they are. TFD (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand. My concern is attribution. If you are going to label a group as "terrorists", it must be properly attributed. Under no circumstances should this label be applied in Wikipedia's voice (as it is done in the title, for example). "Blood libel" is not analogous to "left-wing terrorism", because the former is a known phrase and the latter is a conflation of two separate concepts. I can totally get behind a "terrorism" article that includes left-leaning and right-leaning groups (per reliable sources), but content forks like this (and its right-wing sister) are inappropriate. Expanding this into an article from disambiguation was a mistake, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey, could you please read these articles and the sources provided. Left-wing terrorism is not "a conflation of two separate concepts", any more than "blood libel" is a conflation of blood and libel. It is a "known phrase", clearly defined and unquestioned in academic literature. "Left-wing terrorism" does not mean terrorism committed by left-wing groups or individuals. TFD (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD, could you please stop asking me to read the articles and sources I have already read? Respect your fellow Wikipedians, please. You are completely mistaken in this, and I am perplexed that you have not grasped the reason for my complaint. The problem is about attribution. The title of this article labels a group without attribution. It's little different from "Left-wing murders", or "Left-wing genocides", or "Left-wing extremism" - all of which are inappropriate (yes, even the last one). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this article POV fork to exist. Its content could easily appear in Terrorism or Left-wing politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

When I search Google books for left-wing murders I find 10 hits and none discuss it as a concept. Mostly the expression was used to compare the number of murders committed by left-wing groups with the number of murders committed by right-wing groups during the Weimar Republic.[1] However a search for "left-wing terrorism" returns 3,710 hits. The first hits received contain definitions of the concept.[2] Leftist terrorism returns 1,390 hits.[3]

You cannot write an article about "left-wing murders" because the concept does not exist. It would be original research based on your definition of what left-wing meant, what murder meant and when murders committed by leftists were left-wing murders as opposed to ordinary murders.

Incidentally, I have made the same arguments against other articles, such as Communist genocide (re-named Mass killings under Communist regimes), Communist terrorism, left-wing nationalism, Conservatism in North America, National liberalism, National conservatism, social centrism, social democratic centrism, and others, all of which I have nominated for deletion with mixed results.

TFD (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wordle

This page is still super biased.

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3027826/How_The_Rightwing_Views_The_Left

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3027829/How_the_Right_Views_The_Right

worlde searches of their content. clearly unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 11:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to criticize the right-wing terrorism article, then do so on that articles talk page. Otherwise do you have any sources you believe should be used for this article, or are there any sources used in this article you wish to challenge? TFD (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

A Jamieson. Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15

I am unable to track this source down, Is it possible to get a link to it please? Tentontunic (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note Tentontunic has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley [4]. --TFD (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Here. TFD (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also a full translation of this source [5] As my Turkish is very rusty. Tentontunic (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY STILL ONGOING ACTIVITIES

MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

1) Revolutionary People's Liberation Party / Front (DHKP / C)

2) MVP (Maoist Communist Party)

3) TKP / ML - CONFERENCE

4) Marxist Leninist Communist Party (MLCP)

5) The PKK / KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan People's Congress-DL)

6) the Kurdistan Revolutionary Party (PSK)

7) the Kurdistan Democratic Party / Bakur (PDK / Bakur)

8) Hezbollah

9) Caliphate State (HD)

10) Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front (IBDA / C)

11) Unification-Hi (Al-Quds Army)

12) Al-Qaeda Terrorist Organization Structure of Turkey

TFD (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced text because you cannot find the source or cannot read the original language. None of the text you have removed is controversial. TFD (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall remove wrongly cited and uncited content per WP:V. I removed no content which I was unable to find, please do not make false accusations. Your translation above leaves a great deal to be desired, babel is not that good. Please explain how this describes the group as "left wing". Tentontunic (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This source is provided for the claim, "The organisation [Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front] is listed among the 12 active terrorist organisation in Turkey as of 2007 according to Counter-Terrorism and Operations Department of Directorate General for Security (Turkish police)". TFD (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that WP:V advises that "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hide discussion with blocked IP.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Synthesis An anonymour IP has tagged this article for synthesis.[6] Please explain why there is synthesis or the tag will be removed. TFD (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC) "Narodnaya Volya, a 19th century terrorist group that killed tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881,[5] and developed the concept of propaganda by the deed is a major influence.[6][not in citation given]" is made up crap. the NV were anarchists the source does not even mention left wing does it? failed verification it says. I can`t remove the crap of course or i`ll get blocked as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.159.105.106 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Here is what it says in the source: Source: "Narodnaya Volya was likely the first organization that adopted the concept of "propaganda by deed".... "Propaganda by deed" has influenced terrorist groups ever since its formulation.... [they] succeeded in killing the tsar [Alexander II].[7] How do you think that the sentence in the article could be better phrased? TFD (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Neutrality An anonymour IP has tagged this article for neutrality.[8] Please explain why there is an issue of neutrality or the tag will be removed. TFD (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I believe that quick removal of tags with such curtness is unwise. There surely are issues about NPOV here. Collect (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) The instructions for the POV template say, "Remove this template whenever,,, [n]o discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page". Well, no discussion has taken place. I have not however removed the templates, and am waiting for the IP to explain them. TFD (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC) It is POV due to you and your mate dicking about reverting in unsourced crap. I followed the little drama here yesterday and figure it is you and siebert who ought to be blocked for edit warring in content which has no sources. there is entire sections in this article uncourced, but the two of you removed shitloads of sourced stuff from communist terrorism, what a joke your double dealing is noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.159.105.106 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Could you please state specifically what you believe makes the article POV (rather than the editors, or what is wrong with another article) and provide guidance on how neutrality could be achieved. TFD (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Protect

{{editprotect}} "The Communist Combatant Cells was a Belgian terrorist organization committed to a Communist ideology. They were active for fewer than two years in the mid-1980s; primarily engaged in bombings within Belgium's borders. While the group was based in Belgium, their targets and goals were predominantly international. CCC attacked perceived enemies of communism, specifically the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), US and international business firms, and the Federation of Belgian Enterprises. The Cellules Communistes Combattantes primarily targeted property rather than human representatives of capitalism, NATO, etc., and warned authorities ahead of an attack. Nevertheless, CCC bombings led to several injuries and two deaths. In December 1985, police arrested CCC leader and founder Pierre Carette, and others, in an American-styled burger restaurant. His murder conviction on 14 January 1986 essentially eliminated the CCC. The Cellules Communistes Combattantes has not been active since 1985. Pierre Carette became a free man again in February 2003."

[9] This content needs to be removed as a BLP violation. It is entirely uncited and deals with living people. Tentontunic (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is, e.g. AH Miller "The Evolution of Terrorism" Conflict Quarterly, 1985. pp. 5-16. It states that "the Communist Combatant Cells, in Belgium< echoed the theme (RAF P.S.) after the attack on the US military recreation center outside Brusselon the same date" --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The source seems good. If you disagree you should take it to the BLP noticeboard. Also, you should not repeat comments that you believe to be a violation of BLP. TFD (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The administrator looking here needs to know which text to remove. Paul Siebert, that source does not mention the BLP in the section does it? Tentontunic (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For Pierre Carette, see Walter Enders, Todd Sandler "The political economy of terrorism" Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521851009, 9780521851008, p.55. The source confirms that he has been arrested on Dec 1985 for the attempted murder.

@Tentontunic. Let me point out that you cound do that by yourself. WP users are supposed to find needed sources to support unsourced materials, and only after that they may discuss removal of questionable unsourced content. To use a lack of sources as a pretext for speedy deletion of the content is hardly a demonstration of good faith. Please, refrain form the steps similar to what you just took. :::PS. I've just realised I already pointed your attention at the latter rule, therefore it appeared to be already a second warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not deign to issue warnings, given page 55 of "The political economy of terrorism" has neither mention of the CCC nor of Pierre Carette. Should you misrepresent a source like this again, given we are discussing a BLP I will have little option but to report you. Tentontunic (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On the page 55 (the bottom) of "The political economy of terrorism" you can find a description of the bombing act of the Brussel-Lambert bank, CCC (Communist Combatant Cells) took responsibility for. On the next page (56) you can find the information about alleged CCC members, Pierre Carette, Bernard Sassoye, Didier Chevolet and Pascal Vandegeerde, who were arrested and charged with attempted murder.

Let me also inform you that I know the cases when poorly justified attempts to report leaded to ban of the reporters themselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you ought to have said p56 when citing? However again this does not cover the BLP violation. The section clearly says he was convicted of murder, your source says no such thing. Tentontunic (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

One other thing, the section is written as fact, the source you have provided says alleged. He was alleged to have committed. Your BLP violations appear to be getting worse. The section needs to be removed and rewritten. Tentontunic (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to this[10] Carette spent 17 years in prison and was released in 2003. This is my third warning, instead of attempting to delete unsourced text, try to look for the sources by yourself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are warning. WP:V clearly states, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations" - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of my previous complaints. The usage of the word "terrorist" here is both uncited and unattributed, in total violation of WP:LABEL - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am bemused that the BLP issue has been raised here rather than in the article about Pierre Carette or the main article about the Communist Combatant Cells. Anyway, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is one of the Homeland Security Centers of Excellence, Carette was convicted of murder on 14 January, 1986.[11] TFD (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "This is an excellent example of my previous complaints. The usage of the word "terrorist" here is both uncited and unattributed..." This is an excellent example of a purely unsubstantiated statement. The De Standaard article [12] clearly states:

"Zeventien jaar cel hebben niets veranderd aan de revolutionaire ideologie van de leider van de CCC, de terreurorganisatie die België in 1984-1985 letterlijk op zijn grondvesten deed daveren."

Do you know what "terreurorganisatie" means?

Thanks for your hostile and condescending tone, but I'd rather go without. As for your question, yes, I can figure it out, but a) that's not in the article; b) this is an English wikipedia; and c) that still doesn't provide inline attribution to specific person.

No hostility. I am commenting on the contribution, not a contributor. The statement is unsubstantiated, because it is simply incorrect. As I demonstrated, the statement can easily be supported by reliable sources, the only reason why the references have not been added yet is that the article is protected. Re your "a)", the protection was a result of the activity of the person who is complaining that the refs are missing, which is completely ridiculous. Re your "b)", non English sources are allowed when English sources are not available. Re your "c)", what do you mean? In addition, could you please sign all your posts, otherwise it is hard to see who wrote what and who responded to whom.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "WP:V clearly states, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations"" Yes. However, two solution are possible: to the {cn} tag to the statements in question and, after some reasonable time to delete it, to find the needed source and add the citation by yourself. The second option is more desirable, and that is what my warnings are about.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly states "do not leave unsourced...material in the article". That seems pretty straightforward to me. It doesn't say "do not leave unsourced material untagged" so no, adding {cn} is not a reasonable solution in this case, because it's a strong claim against a specific group/person. As for your second option, the quote I mentioned is from WP:BOP, which further states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So Tentontunic is certainly not obliged to provide quality sources for your material. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I reproduce the full quote from the policy page here:

Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

Obviously, the underlined sentence means: "if you found an unsourced statement that seems questionable, try to find a source and add the citation".

Let me also point out that that material was added not by me. However, as the references provided by me demonstrate, this material is absolutely correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

TheMightyQuill, why do you not also take this issue up on the other articles mentioned? TFD (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

All I can read on the Dutch [13] source is the first paragraph, the rest being behind a paywall. Does it say in the source why he spent 17 years in prison? Note, this article currently accuses him of Murder. None of the sources you have provided actually say this. Your warnings are pointless, you have now given three sources, none of which support the murder charge. In fact, your warnings appear to me to be an attempt to intimidate. Please refrain from doing so. Tentontunic (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the editprotected request, because there does not appear to be consensus to remove the material. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a source which shows Pierre Carette was imprisoned for murder. It is beyond parody that there is an obvious BLP violation in this article and those who are demanding this remains have yet to provide a source to back the claim. Tentontunic (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not think it is absolutely necessary to look for a source to support some specific statement. Instead of that, the article may be modified to reflect what the sources say. For instance, we may write that Carette was charged with attempted murder and served 17 years long term in prison. That is exactly what the sources found by me state. Since I was not the person who added this text to the article, I am not responsible for this concrete wording. The only thing I can say is that the current article's text more or less correctly reflects what the sources say. However, it doesn't mean the text is absolutely accurate, and it doesn't mean we cannot fix the inaccuracies if we find them. However, that is not a reason for removal of the text completely.

Re my warnings, any warning about inappropriate behaviour are just warnings, not the attempts to intimidate. I warn you that removal of some text just because it is unsourced or it contains some inaccuracies without any attempt to fix the problem by yourself is not a demonstration of a good faith.

More on inaccuracies. I failed to find anything that supported the idea that "CCC attacked perceived enemies of communism...". I would say, the sources available for me draw a connection with the student revolt in 1968, with the support of the Third World liberation movement and with the hatred towards the USA. However, nothing is said directly about Communism. The section needs to be rephrased.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption". TFD (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are either of you actually going to provide a source which supports the claim of murder? All my sources on this says he was imprisoned for belonging to a terrorist group, not for murder. One of the sources Mr Siebert supplied also says this. Will you now stop arguing and actually allow the removal of this BLP violation. Tentontunic (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See my posting above, "Anyway, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is one of the Homeland Security Centers of Excellence, Carette was convicted of murder on 14 January, 1986.[14]" TFD (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic Is my English so poor? I thought I wrote clearly that I proposed to write "that Carette was charged with attempted murder and served 17 years long term in prison." That is literally what the sources say. However, if you believe that he was imprisoned for terrorism (which is plausible) you can modify the text accordingly. However, that does not contradict to the facts that he was charged with attempted murder and then served a long term in prison. Frankly speaking, I do not understand your position: you tried to delete the whole section under a pretext that it is unsourced, and then you claim that you yourself have a source that partially confirms what the section says... --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We can look at contemporaneous news stories at Google News archive. [15] Here for example is what the original Reuters story said:

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Four Belgian left-wing urban guerrillas have been sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor for 25 bomb attacks in 1984 and 1985 that killed two people.

The sentences were passed at the end of a month-long trial of Pierre Carette, 36, the ringleader of the self-styled Fighting Communist Cells (CCC), and associates Bertrand Sassoye, 25, Didier Chevolet, 30, and former nurse Pascale Vandegeerde, 30.

On Thursday a 12-member jury found the four guilty of murder.

Bear in mind that terrorist crimes usually involve actions that would be considered criminal even if there was no terrorist intent.

TFD (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of your post aooears to be your own opinion and so is not RS and implies that editors can interpolate material not in the source. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The FBI defines 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" (my emphasis). It is not my opinion, but the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, just stating that something is consensus doesn't make it so. You are still using your own opinion here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me phrase it another way. It is probably contrary to law in Belgium to plant explosives and kill people even if one does not have political motivation. TFD (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

J.D.s in Belgiums would likly point out that speculation as to what laws were broken is not as important as what laws people were actually convicted of. Collect (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor has tagged this article for neutrality, which I will remove. Please explain why there is an issue of neutrality, and what steps need to be completed in order to correct this problem before replacing the tag. Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes for instructions on using this template. TFD (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not neutral due to over half the article being unsourced. This is due to both you and Paul Siebert edit warring in uncited content. Until such a time as the article is fully sourced it is POV, as most of what is written cannot be checked. The article also ought to be written with WP:LABEL in mind, and attribution given. Whomever added all the unsourced content, including BLP violations ought to be sanctioned. Tentontunic (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Having citations and being neutral are two separate issues. I have retained your verification tag. While LABEL should be followed, it is a guideline, not a policy, and we must also be follow neutrality, which is a policy. However it would be helpful if you could suggest how you believe any parts of the article could be re-phrased in order to meet both LABEL and neutrality. TFD (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please no not remove BIAS tags until such a time as a consensus emerges, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In response, Having citations and being neutral are two separate issues I do not see that, how is an editor or reader of this article to know it is written in a neutral manner when the majority of content is uncited? How are we to check that the content is even remotely correct? You ought to have thought of these things when reverting in uncited content against policy. Tentontunic (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

An editor has tagged this article for neutralitysynthesis, which I will remove. Please explain why there is an issue of neutralitysynthesis, and what steps need to be completed in order to correct this problem before replacing the tag. Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes for instructions on using this template. TFD (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why have you repeated yourself here? Tentontunic (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, this is a synthesis Narodnaya Volya,[dubious – discuss] a 19th century terrorist group that killed tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881,[5] Narodnaya Volya were an anarchist group, the source used does not call them left wing and this has no place in this article. Tentontunic (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article says, "Narodnaya Volya [was] a major influence [on left-wing terrorism]". It does not claim that it was left-wing terrorism and it is sourced. TFD (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Were in this source [16] does it mention this anarchist group were left wing. Tentontunic (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, The roots of terrorism does not say the Narodnaya Volya was a major influence on left wing terrorists, rather on all terrorists. This should be clearly stated in the article. Tentontunic (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I think I would have to support the WP:SYNTH tag. Can TFD point to any books or major works which cover this specific topic (i.e. terrorism arising leftist movements in general, and not terrorism arising from particular leftist movements)? If not, I think this page should really find itself at AfD. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) Yes it is explained in all four of the major sources for the article. TFD (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Aubrey, Stefan M. The new dimension of international terrorism. Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004. ISBN 3728129496
• Moghadam, Assaf. The roots of terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. ISBN 0791083071
• Pluchinsky, Dennis A. "Western Europes's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations". In Yonah Alexander and Dennis A. Pluchinsky (Eds.), Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations. Oxford: Frank Cass and Company, 1992. ISBN 978-0714634883
• Smith, Brent L. Terrorism in America: pipe bombs and pipe dreams. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994 ISBN 0791417603

TFD (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage here, as I don't have those sources. It would seem from the title though that "Western Europes's red terrorists" deals with communist terrorism specifically and not terrorism from left wing organizations in general. So that one seems invalid.

None of the other titles suggest that the works focus broadly on terrorism from the left-wing groups in general. I'm not looking for works that mention terrorism from left wing groups as part of their thesis/central focus (obviously you could provide thousands of sources for this), but work's whose thesis/central focus is terrorism from left wing groups in general. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You can find all these sources at www.google.com/books. As the article explains, "left-wing terrorism" is not terrorism carried out by left-wing groups (which would be synthesis), but "a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government". It is one of the main categories used by writers on terrorism. Three of the books used have extensive sections on typology, which is why they are used. TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't seem to get a preview. So tell me, does the reference for "left-wing terrorism" is "a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government", actually explicitly state such? Can I get a direct quote?

Additionally, do any other sources support this definition? It strikes me that from a laymen's perspective, "Left-wing terrorism" could cover terrorism from any perceived left-wing entity... NickCT (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Aubrey's description in the typology section of his book. Aubrey's typology and terminology appears to be fairly standard. See for example Google book searches for left-wing terrorism and leftist terrorism.[17][18] TFD (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Books three and four on your list actually are about communist terrorism. Hence the titles. Nick, I have the most of these books in my personal library, which would you like a quote from? Tentontunic (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please quote the section 5.4 (a whole paragraph) from Aubrey's "The new dimension of international terrorism" (pp.44-45)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course.

5.4 Left Wing Terrorism Left wing terrorism (also referred to as Marxist-Leninist terrorism) is a political tool to replace Western capitalist regimes based on a free market economy, with Marxist-Leninist or socialist governments. Left wing terrorism was a by-product of the period of political unrest 5. Typologies of Terrorism 45 post-1968 and a part of the internationalization of terrorism that has existed since then. Left wing terrorism was not infrequently associated with state sponsorship by the Soviet Union and several of its key allies in Eastern Europe, but also played a key role in Central and South America. In Western Europe, key left wing terrorist groups included the West Germany based Red Army Faction (RAF) and its associated groups, the Italian Red Brigades, the French Action Direct and the Belgian Communist Combatant Cells. Western European left wing terrorism was decidedly anti-U.S. in nature and these European groups had as their goal the discrediting of both NATO and their respective countries’ governments. Latin America also experienced its share of left wing terrorism during the 1970s-1980s, particularly the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Peruvian Shining Path (Sendero Lumioso), the Columbian M-19, and the Columbian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), who are active to this day. For the most part, these groups, while also voicing strong anti-American sentiments, often focused their struggle indigenously, although they did enjoy sponsorship from both Cuba and the Soviet Union. Asia featured the Japanese Red Brigades (now defunct) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who have now migrated to a nationalist terrorist group. At least in the European sense, left wing terrorism has become a relic of the Cold

War.

Please explain what you wish to achieve from having me type out an entire paragraph? All this shows is one persons opinion. Tentontunic (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Book three calls them "fighting communist organizations", while book four uses the term "left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The way to avoid syntnesis, which has plagued such articles as Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes, etc., is to include only organizations that have been identified as having engaged in left-wing terrorism in books that discuss left-wing terrorism, and not leave it to editors to determine what they believe should be included. TFD (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

re "All this shows is one persons opinion" - I concur with Tentontunic on this one. My question is basically; is the term "left-wing terrorism" commonly accepted in the scholarly/academic community as meaning terrorism originating from socialist/communist groups? Tentontunic kindly provided us with at least one reliable source that suggests it is. Are there anymore? NickCT (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have searched Google Books for "terrorism"+"typology".[19] The following are the first five results:

• Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: "...terrorist groups are normally allocated to one of three broad categories: (a) socio-political...terrorism of a revolutionary leftist, anarchist, right-wing or other bent...."[20]
• A typology of domestic violence (not relevant)
• Assisting Victims of Terrorism [Table 1.1} "Social-revolutionary T[errorism](Left-wing)".[21]
• Terrorism, economic development, and political openness (not accessible)
• Terrorism in America "for the purposes of this study, 'domestic terrorism' will be divided further into (a) left-wing[22]
• Terrorism and homeland security "Here is a summary of Dyson's other typologies... Left-wing extremism. The ideology of this typology is based on communism."[23]
• Global terrorism issues and developments "In his book on terrorism, William E. Dyson...identifies the following specific types of terrorism: 1. left-wing extremism...."[24]

Although the terminology varies slightly, the typology is standard. Terrorism is categorized according to the objectives - in this case to provoke a communist revolution.

TFD (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The point from your search seems to be "Many RSs identify terrorism from leftist elements as a distinct kind of terrorism", not "Many RSs define left-wing terrorism as terrorism arising from socialist/communist groups". The only source that seems to be on-point is Terrorism and homeland security', and that one seems to refer to extremism rather than terrorism.

Frankly, I don't see firm evidence here that the term "Left-wing terrorism" is commonly defined as "Terrorism from socialist/communist elements" in RSs. I'm leaning towards this definition being WP:Snyth. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That does not relate to the specific complaint discussed in this thread, which is about synthesis. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Do you agree that this tag at least should be removed? TFD (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The materials here are various terrorism related RSs. The conclusion is that "left-wing terrorism" is a distinct and notable topic. "Left-wing terrorism" is not a real subject. It's something that one person has apparently given definition to in one book. It is a synthesized term that doesn't really have wide spread acceptance. NickCT (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not completely sure that I understand your point. What is your proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion.... Possibly renaming.. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean complete deletion? And, if renaming, than what title do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Communist terrorism? As the majority of groups in the article are communnist terrorist organizations. Tentontunic (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is another issue, WP:NOTABILITY. This discussion thread was set up to discuss "synthesis". Could you please explain whether you believe there are any synthesis issues and if so what they are. TFD (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Tentontunic. As I already have demonstrated, the term "left-wing terrorism" is used more frequently to describe these groups than "Communist terrorism". Many reliable sources do not call them Communist at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The groups self identify as communist, none described themselves as left wing. Tentontunic (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification means almost nothing: thus, the North Korean regime identifies itself as democrats...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, irrelevant to this discussion thread. Could you please explain what synthesis issues you believe exist. TFD (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick believes the title is, thus we discuss different titles. Tentontunic (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tag says the article "may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources". Could you please explain this. TFD (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Left-wing" and "communist" are not the same. Hence we should keep and extend the both articles by including Weather Underground and other similar organizations per sources.Biophys (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss that could you please set up a separate discussion thread. In the meantime, do you wish to comment on the subject of this discussion thread, whether there is synthesis in the article? TFD (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re synthesis. And let's stop that.

Below are some quotes from one reliable source (Audrey Kurth Cronin. "Behind the Curve. Globalization and International Terrorism") published in International Security 27.3 (2002/03) p. 30-58. this is a peer-reviewed article published by Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Therefore, it has been vetted by a scientific community and by no means represents the opinion of a single individual. Its References section contains 69 references, so it is clear that the author summarised the opinions of other scholars. Firstly, the author states:

"Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reaction—such as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers."

Based of that, I propose to stop any attempts to start the article with some simple and concise definition, because any simple definition would reflect the opinion of only small fraction of scholars.
The author describes the origin of terrorism, as well as the root of contemporary terroris as follows:

"The Zealots-Sicarri, Jewish terrorists dedicated to inciting a revolt against Roman rule in Judea, murdered their victims with daggers in broad daylight in the heart of Jerusalem, eventually creating such anxiety among the population that they generated a mass insurrection. 6 Other early terrorists include the Hindu Thugs and the Muslim Assassins. Modern terrorism, however, is generally considered to have originated with the French Revolution."

Finally, the author provided the following classification of contemporary terrorism:

"Leftist, Rightist, Ethnonationalist/Separatist, and "Sacred" Terrorism

There are four types of terrorist organizations currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or "sacred" terrorists. All four types have enjoyed periods of relative prominence in the modern era, with left-wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement,¹⁴ right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from Fascism,¹⁵ and the bulk of ethnonationalist/separatist terrorism accompanying the wave of decolonization especially in the immediate post-World War II years. Currently, "sacred" terrorism is becoming more significant.¹⁶ Although groups in all categories continue to exist today, left-wing and right-wing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier decades. Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas¹⁷ —but usually one ideology or motivation dominates.

Categories are useful not simply because classifying the groups gives scholars a more orderly field to study (admittedly an advantage), but also because different motivations have sometimes led to differing styles and modes of behavior. Understanding the type of terrorist group involved can provide insight into the likeliest manifestations of its violence and the most typical patterns of its development. At the risk of generalizing, left-wing terrorist organizations, driven by liberal or idealist political concepts, tend to prefer revolutionary, antiauthoritarian, antimaterialistic agendas. (Here it is useful to distinguish between the idealism of individual terrorists and the frequently contradictory motivations of their sponsors.) In line with these preferences, left-wing organizations often engage in brutal criminal-type behavior such as kidnapping, murder, bombing, and arson, often directed at elite targets that symbolize authority. They have difficulty, however, agreeing on their long-term objectives. ¹⁸ Most left-wing organizations in twentieth-century Western Europe, for example, were brutal but relatively ephemeral. Of course, right-wing terrorists can be ruthless, but in their most recent manifestations they have tended to be less cohesive and more impetuous in their violence than leftist terrorist groups. Their targets are often chosen according to race but also ethnicity, religion, or immigrant status, and in recent decades at least, have been more opportunistic than calculated.¹⁹ This makes them potentially explosive but difficult to track.²⁰ Ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists are the most conventional, usually having a clear political or territorial aim that is rational and potentially negotiable, if not always justifiable in any given case. They can be astoundingly violent, over lengthy periods. At the same time, it can be difficult to distinguish between goals based on ethnic identity and those rooted in the control of apiece of land. With their focus on gains to be made in the traditional state-oriented international system, ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists often transition in and out of more traditional paramilitary structures, depending on how the cause is going. In addition, they typically have sources of support among the local populace of the same ethnicity with whom their separatist goals (or appeals to blood links) may resonate. That broader popular support is usually the key to the greater average longevity of ethnonationalist/ separatist groups in the modern era.²¹

All four types of terrorist organizations are capable of egregious acts of barbarism. But religious terrorists may be especially dangerous to international security for at least five reasons."

Based on all said above, as well as the fact that the author even haven't mentioned Communist terrorism as a separate category of terrorism, I propose:

1. To stop any allegations about Synthesis;
2. To stop any attempts to delete/merge this article into the Communist terrorism article;
3. To seriously think what to do with the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Amount of references in the book bear little weight, how do we know what he is referencing? I shall point out the obvious, Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations and from the write up This unique volume explores Europe's most dangerous communist terrorist organizations and reveals how they use violence as a means of political communication The clue is in the title. And this particular book is highly praised. Tentontunic (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a book, this is an scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal published by one of the leading university. And this highly reliable source provides a general classification of the contemporary terrorism. We do not need any clues from any titles, we have to stick with what the reliable sources explicitly state. BTW, if you have any doubts in reliability of this source, try to contest its reliability on WP:RSN.

In addition, since this source explicitly states that no common definition of terrorism exists, and since it provides a different description for the left-wing terrorism, I have to re-write the lede, because in its present form the lede creates a false impression that a generally accepted simple definition exists for the left-wing terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Please point out were I said the source was not reliable? Europe's Red Terrorists was published by Routledge which is an academic publisher. Yonah Alexander Knows a little bit about terrorism. as does Dennis Pluchinsky. Are you suggesting this is not a reliable source? This reliable source explicitly defines the majority of groups in this article as communist terrorists. Tentontunic (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Amy Zalman identifies communist terrorism as a classification of contempory terrorism. See Ethnic Profiling and Counter-Terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions page 41. Tentontunic (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we sort out one issue at a time. Are there any synthesis issues? If not I will remove that tag and we can move on to other issues. TFD (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not go by "clues". The word "Communist terrorist" is not in the title or anywhere else in the book, although the term "leftist terrorist" is used. The author prefers the term "fighting Communist organizations" (The clue is in the title). Back to the topic of discussion, do you have any synthesis issues? TFD (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote the last time Zalman's quote was mentioned:

"That source came up before and I replied, "This links to a footnote in Ethnic Profiling and Counter Terrorism which is sourced to "Terrorist Groups - - A List of Terrorist Groups by Type" at About.com. Zalman follows the same typology but calls the group "Socialist/Communist". She does not distinguish between socialist and communist, and excludes anarchists and "National Liberation" groups, such as ETA and PKK." Note she does not use the term "communist terrorism" and defines the term in the same way that other writers define left-wing terrorism, excluding anarchist terrorism. Left-wing terrorists are by the definition used "Marxist-Leninist". TFD (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)"

Do you have any synthesis issues with this article?

TFD (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would she need to distinguish between socialist and communist? Both groups have similar beliefs and both groups carry out similar acts of terrorism. She would exclude anarchists as they are neither socialist or communist, and truth be told all forms of terrorism are defined in roughly the same way. However this does not detract from the reliability of the source, not what it says. Please stop repeating yourself regarding the synth issues, that section is above. Tentontunic (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummm.... yes, anarchists ARE generally socialists and communists, must not of the Marxist-Leninist stripe. Read up on the history of anarchism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-syndicalism. All generally left wing movements. In fact, that's the biggest problem with conflating "left-wing terrorism" as being synonymous with "Marxist-Leninist terrorism" since Marxist-Leninism does not account for the entire spectrum of left-wing political views.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support move/merge to Communist Terrorism. @TFD - We're merging/moving because of the synth issue. Remove the tag after the merge. NickCT (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How does that resolve the synth issue? What is the synth issue? TFD (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained that here. You replied that I was raising notability concerns, but I clearly wasn't.

Imagine if I created an article called Beesleflubber in which I said "a beesleflubber is a horse with 6 legs". There would be 2 chief concerns - 1) Is it WP:NOTABLE as no one has written about beesleflubbers before, and more importantly 2) is it an entirely synthesized (i.e. made up/fabricated) creature.

The way you are trying to define "Left-wing terrorism" is a fabricated abstract definition, that is apparently only explicitly supported by one single RS. NickCT (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, there is currently a merger discussion Here Tentontunic (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If it is only in one source (which we can discuss in a separate discussion thread), then there is no synthesis. The only issues is notability. Re-naming an article could not resolve any synthesis issues. TFD (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "Why would she need to distinguish between socialist and communist?" Because these two are different political movements, although both of them belong to the left part of political spectrum. And, I am somewhat bemused with the development of the current discussion: I presented a reliable source that demonstrated that the current synth discussion is absolutely unsubstantiated and senseless, and that described the left-wing terrorism (which is sometimes referred to as "Communist terrorism") as one of four major types of contemporary terrorism. What merging are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, could you please explain why you chose an article written by Amy Zalman in About.com as definitive and reject scholarly writing. Zalman is not an academic, but an advisor to the Lincoln Group, a "contractor with operations in Iraq hired by the United States military to perform public relations". She does not even use the term "communist terrorism", but "communist/socialist terrorism". I feel that we should use academic rather than partisan sources, but await your reply. TFD (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry TFD, I'm a little confused. Could you remind me where I "chose an article written by Amy Zalman in About.com as definitive and reject scholarly writing". I don't recall doing so.... NickCT (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Tentontunic introduced the source as evidence that the article should be called "Communist Terrorism". You then suggested moving the article. How does moving the article remove synthesis? TFD (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not choose Amy Zalman on about.com either The Four Deuces, I cited a reliable secondary source which had in fact quoted Zalman. Ethnic Profiling and Counter-Terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions Do you see the difference? Tentontunic (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source quotes her incorrectly. In any case, we should not be interested in what individual writers say, but in what writers in general say. Different writers may use different terminology - left-wing, leftist, fighting communist organizations, communist, communist/socialist, Marxist/Leninist, etc. We chose the terminology most often used, by using a source that explains what terminology is most often used, not by conducting a survey. In this case, however, a survey shows that left-wing terrorism is the term most commonly used. Incidentally, the terms left-wing and red include socialism. TFD (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I ought to have said interpreted her. It is not for us to interpret sources, for that we use reliable secondary sources, which is exactly what I did. Tentontunic (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The claim that she uses the term "communist terrorism" is false. If something in a reliable source is found to be false then we do not use it. TFD (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your are again incorrect. Please actually look at the source properly id future before commenting. Tentontunic (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See Zalman's essay at About.com.[25] TFD (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You would be better served looking at the actual source I mentioned, not the primary source. Tentontunic (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletions to article

I noticed that an editor has removed large amounts of text without discussion, which I will restore. I have also set up a discussion thread at the OR noticeboard.[26] TFD (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You have again restored unsourced content to this article, given your continued insistence on adding unsourced content I have had to restore the refimprove tag which you removed. Tentontunic (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disambiguation

An editor continues to insert a "see also" link to Communist terrorism without providing any explanation.[27] See WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." It is unlikely that someone clicking on left-wing terrorism would actually be looking for "Communist terrorism" instead. Therefore the link is unneccessary and I will remove it. TFD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why leave the other two there? It is a see also after all, communist terrorism belongs there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. TFD (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you feel this article does not need a see also? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be added, per WP:SEEALSO. TFD (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Left-wing terrorism → Left-wing revolutionary terrorism
• Right-wing terrorism → Right-wing revolutionary terrorism

– Both of these articles limit their scope to “overthrow” of governments. This needs to be reflected in the titles, which are now overbroad. There are many types of terrorism besides the revolutionary kind. Because the titles are now overbroad, inattentive editors are inserting information about terrorism completely unrelated to overthrow of governments. This results in faulty and misleading articles (not to mention creating a false inference of treason). Here is the pertinent policy: "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise."108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose We use the terminology of mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any mainstream sources that confine the term "left-wing terrorism" only to efforts at overthrowing governments? I am not aware of any such mainstream sources. "Revolutionary terrorism" is a standard term used by mainstream sources, such as [28],[29], [30], [31].108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is sourced to mainstream sources TFD (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This article cites Aubrey, Stefan M. The new dimension of international terrorism (Zurich 2004). Aubrey says, "Left wing terrorism (also referred to as Marxist-Leninist terrorism) is a political tool to replace western capitalist regimes based on a free market economy, with Marxist-Leninist or socialist governments." From a layman's point of view, the term "Marxist-Leninist terrorism" is much more precise, and much more suggestive of overthrowing a government, so I would much prefer it to the present article title which sounds much broader. Incidentally, Aubrey relies upon a categorization of terrorism from the Council on Foreign Relations website that seems to be outdated; I cannot find anything like this now at the CFR website. Anyway, as the set of links I provided shows, there is more than one categorization of terrorism in mainstream sources. Do you agree that a layman who sees the title "Left-wing terrorism" is likely to understand it as broader than Marxist-Leninist terrorism? And given the existence of the article Communist terrorism, how do you justify the existence of this article?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While you may see the term "Marxist-Leninist" as being more precise to the layman than left-wing, we use the terminology most commonly used by experts. If you do not like their terminology, then write to them, get them to change it, and come back to us. It is disingenous to argue that the name of this article should be changed to "Left-wing revolutionary terrorism" then say "given the existence of the article Communist terrorism, how do you justify the existence of this article". If you think that, then have that article merged into this one. TFD (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, let's be civil. I asked a sincere question. Given the existence of the article Communist terrorism, how do you justify the existence of this article? I also would like to ask two more things, please. Do you think the two articles need to be merged? Would you mind if we merge this one into that one? Thanks. I hope you understand that I have honest motives here; I'd like to prevent the kind of BLP violations that we've seen recently at the two articles in question, while obtaining titles that people will easily understand (to the extent that Wikipedia rules allow it). Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you justify the existence of the article "Communist terrorism"? The topic is not defined and it has been nominated for deletion 3 times, two of which were "no consensus".

Communist terrorism btw normally refers to names given by the governments of Belgium, South Africa, etc. to insurgencies supporting independence and is a relic of Cold War terminology. TFD (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting responses, thank you. The two articles (this one and Communist terrorism) appear to have virtually the same scope, despite the fact that this article title sounds broader. So it would seem that one of them definitely should be merged into the other, unless the scope of this one is broadened. That article was created first, but that fact is obviously not dispositive. That article's title is also less likely to be confused, but that may not be dispositive either. I'll step aside and see what others may have to say about it, and maybe that will get me to agree with you that the Communist terrorism article should be merged into this one, and the title of this article should remain unchanged. I don't want to agree with you, for the reasons I've already explained, but maybe I will have to. Let's see if anyone else wants to chime in. Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Communist terrorism is defined in the article as "terrorism carried out in the advancement of, or by groups who adhere to, Communism", while left-wing terrorism is defined as "tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes". None of the examples of terrorism in the article Commmunist terrorismm are normally described as left-wing terrorism because their objective was not the establishment of communist regimes. Also, none of the groups described in left-wing terrorism were big-C Communist. TFD (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd just add that communist terrorism is defined a tad more broadly than that: "Communist terrorism describes terrorism carried out in the advancement of, or by groups who adhere to, Communism or related ideologies, such as Leninism, Maoism, or Stalinism....These groups hope to inspire the masses to rise up and begin a revolution overthrowing existing political and economic systems" (emphasis added).108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So Communist terrorism, according to the article is terrorism carried out by Communists, while left-wing terrorism is terrorism carried out in order to achieve communism. Most of the terrorism in the article "Communist terrorism" was carried out in order to achieve national independence, not communism, was carried out with non-communists and stopped once independence was achieved. I advise you to read about the subject before commenting again. TFD (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At least you grant that I can read.  :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree that these articles should be limited to terrorism by groups trying to overthrow governments. The right-wing terrorism article doesn't appear to be limited in that way, and I don't think this one should be either. Doing so would exclude certain groups who would otherwise be logical inclusions: for example, the Official Irish Republican Army were arguably leftwing, arguably terrorist, but arguably were not trying to overthrow the British government as such. They should probably be listed here. Robofish (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources overwhelmingly prefer the current title. While Google Scholar results only give a general picture, it shows that those sources use "Left-wing terrorism" over "Left-wing revolutionary terrorism" by 1,080 to 12.[32][33] Also, this article shouldn't be limited to the obviously much more narrowly defined "revolutionary." First Light (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as making editorial judgement on the current content of the articles. Collect (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing at least three commenters here who believe that the title of the article should be kept, but the scope of the content expanded so that it is not limited to terrorism that seeks to overthrow governments. This would definitely be an improvement, because the title would then correspond to the text, in the eyes of a layperson. However, it raises a couple problems. First, the reliable sources that use the term "left-wing terrorism" do seem to define it as only pertaining to overthrowing governments. Second, if we go against those sources by expanding the scope, then we would have to decide what the correct scope is. For example, if I stalk and harass Michelle Bachman because I don't like what she did to that poor lady in the State Department, and the press makes me a hero, would I qualify to be mentioned in this article?108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why we depend on reliable sources to determine the scope of each article, rather than editors' opinions. Sources categorize terrorism according to objective, which in the case of the IRA was the re-unification of Ireland, hence nationalist terrorism. The IRA was not uniformly left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that the objective of left-wing terrorism is revolution? If so, why not at least put that in parentheses in the title: "Left-wing terrorism (revolutionary)"?108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Because articles shown be named using the most commonly used term. Also it implies that there is "left-wing terrorism (non-revolutionary)". That would be defined as "a set of tactics directed at the gradual overthrow of capitalist governments by democratic means and their replacement with social democratic regimes". TFD (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If we were to re-name this article "left-wing terrorism (revolutionary)", then I would redirect "left-wing terrorism" to "left-wing terrorism (revolutionary)", and also redirect "left-wing terrorism (non-revolutionary)" to "Terrorism#Types of terrorism". I think this would be preferable to the emerging consensus, which is simply to broaden the scope of the present article.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would you create an article and re-direct it to a section that does not mention it? If in the unlikely event someone did type in "left-wing terrorism (non-revolutionary)" they would be directed to a section with a link to "Left-wing terrorism" that re-directs to "left-wing terrorism (revolutionary)". In any case, can you provide any sources (books or articles) written about the subject? Also, the left-wing members of the IRA etc. were on the revolutionary, but only used terrorism in support of non-revolutionary, non-leftist objectives. TFD (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If consensus at this talk page is any guide, this discussion is headed toward expanding the scope of this article. You're not in favor of that, TFD, and so it might be a good idea for us to discuss some solution that will make everyone happy. I have already pointed to reliable sources that use the term "revolutionary terrorism". It's a fairly common term. Regarding the term "left-wing terrorism", I can provide lots and lots and lots of reliable sources that define "left-wing" and that define the separate term "terrorism", much more broadly than left-wing attempts to overthrow the government.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if the article were or weren't expanded, it would not resolve the objection raised by three of the oppposes so far: Reliable Sources show little or no use of the term "left-wing terrorism (revolutionary)" or "left-wing revolutionary terrorism." Until reliable sources change, the article title won't change. The discussion about the scope of the article is only a side issue. First Light (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If the title doesn't change, then I support the three opposing commenters' wish to expand the scope of the article, so that it is not limited to attempts to overthrow the government.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

IP, this is a name change not a content discussion thread. You can read through content discussions in the archives. TFD (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I always kind of had the idea that the content of an article is relevant to the name of that article. Silly me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I concur with earlier comments, that the scope of the articles is artificially limited. Moreover, the limited scope forces editors to attempt predicting the future in deciding whether content should be included - never a good practice. Expand the articles instead of further narrowing their scope. Belchfire-TALK 06:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose All of my comments have been expressed pretty well by the above. The article's name should remain the same per RS, but the article should also be edited to rectify the artificial limitation of scope. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Left-wing terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100607235923/http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3234 to http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3234
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807222654/http://www.state.gov:80/s/ct/rls/fs/08/103392.htm to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/08/103392.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Communist Terrorism?

Shouldn't this be merged with Communist Terrorism? --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Left-wing terrorism is identified in literature on terrorism as one of the major types of political terrorism. Not all left-wing terrorists were communist andd not all actions described in Communist terrorism meet the definition of terrorism (for example Khmer Rouge rule.) TFD (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Communist terrorism has it's own definition, where as this is strictly leftist which can include communist and socialist ideals but not solely one or the other. Bridgetflynn (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Bridgetflynn

References

New Page completely

Left-Wing terrorism is not nationalist terrorism. Left wing, while may present some socialist ideals, is not strictly marxist terrorism. Left-wing can be anything from he environment to standardized wage. While this page does analyze and mention left wing groups, left wing is much broad and can be applied to animal rights groups even. The article does not specify between nationalist groups even though some of these groups are strictly nationalist and sources should be applied. Specifically the ELF Refutatory (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Refutatory

     I agree, the idea of left-wing terrorism is broad and caused by many affiliations and grievances.  Since it is such a broad topic, it is not only influenced by communist ideology.  The only subtopic is "History", while I believe the information could be displayed better with more topics, like the number of ideologies of Left-Wing terror groups. WesDuchene2.0 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)WesDuchene

Reliable sources distinguish between left-wing terrorism carried out to achieve socialism and terrorism carried out for other reasons such as ethnic/national independence or single issues such as animal rights or the rights of the unborn. Also, the article distinguishes left-wing from nationalist terrorism: "The rigidity of the demands of left-wing terrorists may explain their lack of support relative to nationalist groups." I don't think there are any nationalist groups incorrectly included here. Can you name any? TFD (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Move comment so index is on top

I was very distracted in this article following the initial background of the term. I felt that the history and examples are extremely relevant to the subject matter and thought you brought up many important facts. The majority of this article was spent providing examples of different groups practicing Left-wing terrorism in many different countries. I think that this article would have been more to the point and concise had you mentioned a few examples of major terrorist groups in this category. I know that the Red Army Faction and a few others you mentioned were very popular, however, I do not think it is necessary to mention numerous groups from many countries to get the point across. Overall this article was very factual and informative. I just would have trimmed some frivolous examples out. Madeline.mcclaran (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Left-wing terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061119150657/http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp to http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114042731/http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorgrup1.html to http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorgrup1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224134701/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking news story

Before including events we need sources that identify them as left-wing terrorism. I have seen no sources indicating that the suspect intended "the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes." TFD (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the name of this article be changed to "Left-wing revolutionary terrorism". There are various types of terrorism, and the lead of this article indicates that it is only directed at the revolutionary kind. Right-wing terrorism could likewise be changed to "Right-wing revolutionary terrorism". Changing the article names will help stop well-intentioned editors from putting the wrong kind of stuff into them.108.18.174.123 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I petition and have added that The 2017 Scalise shooting and the 2017 Chicago torture incident be added to a new list of "modern" events similar to how Right-wing terrorism does theirs. I mean this in an unbiased way, and to facilitate public dialogue, as I have also updated that page with recent incidents as well. Noblesseoblige22 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Left-wing terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210075716/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm to https://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221144918/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021008701600.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021008701600.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa310542005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226121106/http://www.libertaddigital.com:6681/noticias/noticia_1276307643.html to http://www.libertaddigital.com:6681/noticias/noticia_1276307643.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301011041/http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/January/20060120111344atlahtnevel0.3114282.html to http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/January/20060120111344atlahtnevel0.3114282.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

terrorism or political violence

The articles about Left-Wing, Right-Wing and Islam are named "terrorism" while for Zionist "political violence" is used. All describe terrorist attacks as defined as in the Wikipedia article about terrorism ("Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. , see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Terrorism). We either have to change all to terrorism or all to political violence, everything else would not be neutral.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Islamic_terrorism http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Islamic_terrorism http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zionist_political_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.226.214 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)