Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:31, 30 September 2007

Communist terrorism

- Note. Please see this version of the article [1], since a number of supporting reliable sources have been deleted by AfD nominator.Biophys 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention that Smb (talk · contribs) has just tried to censor out this note (diff) Colchicum 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. The phrase "communist terrorism" is occasionally used to refer to many different things, but there is no clear definition of the term and it is never used in counterterrorism scholarship. The page is a barely readable hodge-podge of WP:SYN violations, bringing a number of organizations together under the umbrella, using WP:FRINGE theories like Pacepa's ridiculous claim that the KGB created the PLO and making them seem mainstream. It cites people talking about "Red terror" and combines it with material about theorists like Nechaev and Bakunin (more widely understood as anarchists than communists) and other material. Nearly every citation I've looked at on the page is taken out of context to try to make a case for "communist terrorism." csloat 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So none of the thirty odd sources quoted in the piece matter then? Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence official to have defect from the Soviet bloc, would disagree with the assertion that 'communist terrorism' isn't a useful term. This from a piece in the Wall Street Journal site [2] on August 7, 2007. 'The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.'

As for it being a new fangled 'neologism' the phrase was used by Time Magazine in a piece on the Malay Communist Insurgency in 1951 - the piece, by Manfred Gottfried, chief of foreign correspondents for TIME & LIFE, begins 'They speak of Emergency here. It means Communist terrorism. The Emergency is not getting any better. Every day or so another planter or soldier or constable is killed. .' [3]

The nominator also says it isn't a term used in counterterrorism scholarship. He's obviously unfamiliar with the book 'Terrorism verses Democracy' by Paul Wilkinson which states 'Italy, Germany, France and Belguim, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s, succeeded in these efforts' [4] .

There are any number of such references if one cares to look for them. Perhaps the nominator was too preoccupied with this [5] to look them up for himself. Nick mallory 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are references that use the phrase but there are no references that define the phrase in any systematic way, and the references that do use the phrase use it in many different ways. Putting them together like this clearly violates WP:SYN; that is the problem here. Finally, I don't know you, Nick, but I would prefer if you chose not to personally attack me by questioning my motives here. My motive is to keep original research essays off of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. csloat 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per csloat and reasons explained on the talk page. There is WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN, with conclusions being drawn that would not last two seconds on their respective main pages. There might be a grain of truth in some of these sources, but two or three users have taken the grain and made it into a whole loaf. smb 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD doesn't exist to debate the quality of an article, merely whether such an article should exist. I've clearly demonstrated that the term 'Communist terrorism' is of long standing and has been covered by multiple independent sources and therefore has a place on Wikipedia. The content of the article will evolve over time but the concept of 'Communist terrorism' is not 'fringe' and is not a synthesis or product of original research. The fact that this article runs counter to your political views doesn't make it illegitimate. Nick mallory 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page does not require a whittle knife and a bit of time -- it needs a heavy axe. User:csloat is correct. The phrase "communist terrorism" appears occasionally in many different contexts. It was also considered a propaganda term during the Cold War.

• President Reagan also began his term of office by declaring his administration's concern to fight "Communist terrorism" (a charge which the C.I.A. itself subsequently described as "unsubstantiated" in a public statement two months later) [John McMurtry, 1984]

• In February 1982, his government tabled the Steyn and Rabie Commission Reports, dealing with the press and security, respectively, and publicly charged that the spectre of communist "terrorism" (a politically expedient "buzzword" for repressive regimes seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the United States government) ... [PA Marsh, 1982]

In violation of policy, this page takes as its starting point a loose term and gives undue weight to fringe theories. "Communist terrorism" in the present context truly is the stuff of legend. [6] Ion Mihai Pacepa is a notable conspiracy theorist, but not all of his theories are notable. smb 13:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is not listed in WP:DP as a reason for deletion. Colchicum 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's implicit in WP:FRINGE, which when "treated with common sense" helps establish "which non-mainstream 'theories' should have articles in Wikipedia". smb 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (unfortunately because I think that Wikipedia pays too little attention to theories) this is about a phenomenon, not a theory. There is nothing explanatory in it. Colchicum 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a neologism. See [7], [8]. There are country studies that concentrate specifically on this topic, e.g. Dennis Deletant, Communist Terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965. NY; St. Martin's, 1999; Yonah Alexander & Dennis Pluchinsky, Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations. London: Cass, 1992; Carlisle Barracks, War Against Terrorism: Malaysia's Experience in Defeating Terrorism, among many others. E.g. in Malaya it was a conventionalized term, by no means a neologism. As to the other things, these are not listed in WP:DP among valid reasons for deletion. I perfectly understand that commies dislike such topics, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Colchicum 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "commie," and my problem here is not "I dont like it." My problem with the page is WP:SYN. "Communist terror" and "Communist terrorism" refer to different things; the former is taken care of here while the latter is a neologism that has no currency in any scholarly literature. It is true that the phrase occurs occasionally but the problem is none of you have found a single source that defines the phrase in any substantive manner. Working out a definition that you think is implicit in the various authors that use the phrase is the definition of WP:OR. csloat 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0) I don't care about your problems. Don't bother 1) Wrong. Red Terror refers specifically to Communist Terror in Russia during the Russian Civil War 2) This term abounds in scholarly literature, quite systematically, as for the Malayan and Vietnamese insurgency at least. Following your logic, we have to delete more than a million of articles. E.g. do we have a definition for History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is about phenomena, not about terms. Colchicum 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Abounds in the scholarly literature"? Are you being intentionally self-parodic? Your link shows a grand total of 27 scholarly articles using the phrase in many different ways referring to different countries. If it really "abounds" how hard is it to find a definition? According to your standard of "scholarship," we should have a right-wing terrorism article, since that produces even more hits in jstor. But right-wing terrorism redirects to terrorism, which is where this page should also redirect. If we can agree to redirect the page to terrorism, it needn't be deleted. csloat 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I forgot to add - you are not "following my logic" when you compare this to articles like "History of ____". This article is allegedly about a specific phenomenon with a name. If you want History of Communists in terrorist groups or History of Soviet involvement in terrorist activities or something to that effect, I wouldn't be asking to delete the article. But "Communist terrorism" presumably describes a consistent phenomenon and there is simply no record of that phrase being used in that manner. csloat 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Colchicum 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced and detailed. There's room for improvement on the editing, but prior to 1991, there were entire nations under the oversight of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It wasn't the most benevolent organization in history. Just as one might not be able to "prove", to you, the involvement of the CIA in various events, some can dismiss the idea that there were operations directed against the U.S. and the other Western nations. No, the Communist Party didn't invent the PLO, anymore than the United States invented Israel... but in both cases, regular charitable donations were graciously accepted. Mandsford 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Soviets dominated Eastern Europe is not being contested here, and there are numerous pages that discuss that already. Any influence the KGB had on the PLO belongs on these pages KGB and PLO. This is not about politics and I find it offensive that several people jump to that conclusion. This is about a page named for a neologism that has never been defined. The fact that the neologism is being used on the page to soapbox about a fringe theory is the symptom; the underlying problem is that this violates WP:SYN. csloat 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like the title... maybe we can call it "Communist mischief" Mandsford 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with what I "like," and the problem here is not just the title. Certainly your suggested title has much the same problem as the current one. csloat 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ::The fact that the Soviets dominated Eastern Europe is not being contested here, and there are numerous pages that discuss that already.  Any influence the KGB had on the PLO belongs on these pages [[KGB]] and [[PLO]].  This is not about politics and I find it offensive that several people jump to that conclusion.  This is about a page named for a neologism that has never been defined.  The fact that the neologism is being used on the page to [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] about a fringe theory is the symptom; the underlying problem is that this violates [[WP:SYN]]. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 ::: So you don't like the title... maybe we can call it "Communist mischief"  [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
+::::None of this has anything to do with what I "like," and the problem here is not just the title.  Certainly your suggested title has much the same problem as the current one. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)