Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Nick mallory (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Delete''' as per csloat and reasons explained on the [[Talk:Communist terrorism|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. [[User:Smb|smb]] 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' as per csloat and reasons explained on the [[Talk:Communist terrorism|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. [[User:Smb|smb]] 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::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. [[User:Nick mallory|Nick mallory]] 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
::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. [[User:Nick mallory|Nick mallory]] 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Not a neologism. See [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22communist+terror&btnG=Search], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22communist+terrorism&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search]. 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, [http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ksil/files/000230.doc 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. [[User:Colchicum|Colchicum]] 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:04, 30 September 2007
- Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- 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)
- 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 [1] 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. .' [2]
- 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' [3] .
- There are any number of such references if one cares to look for them. Perhaps the nominator was too preoccupied with this [4] to look them up for himself. Nick mallory 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep. Not a neologism. See [5], [6]. 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)