Let the record show that I attempted to explain my action to Colchicum (diff), and that this user brazenly deleted my comment with the edit summary "get out commie" (diff). smb06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to do this by vandalizing my user page. I excercise full authority over my userpage when it is not explicitely prohibited by a WP policy. Colchicum11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to apologise for your first disgraceful comment, and also withdraw your false accusation. smb16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denied. Everything is in the page history (though in principle it is possible that you have mixed up my userpage and user talkpage, it is highly unlikely, as you seem to be an experienced editor). There is nothing to apologize for. Could you please stop disussing irrelevant stuff here? I am not particularly interested in your personality. Colchicum18:21, 1 October 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." csloat07:35, 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 mallory09:09, 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. csloat18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was a neologism, that it wasn't used in the literature etc, it's been clearly shown that you're entirely wrong. In fact several editors have entirely demolished your rationale for deletion and yet you still want to remove this article. I can only assume that, given your editing history, you simply dislike this article because it clashes with your own political point of view. That's not a personal attack, merely an observation. 'I don't like it' isn't a reason for deletion. Nick mallory03:38, 1 October 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. smb09:57, 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 mallory10:22, 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. smb13:42, 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". smb14:35, 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. Colchicum18:17, 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. Colchicum13:04, 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. csloat18:47, 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. Colchicum19:34, 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. csloat20:08, 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. csloat20:13, 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. Mandsford15:24, 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. csloat18:47, 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. csloat20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is completely without merit. There is no support for SYN, lack of notability or that the idea is a neologism. "Communist terror" turns up over 30,000 google hits (and the fact that much of it is state terrorism does not diminish the point), "communist terrorism" turns up almost 3,000 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1440 hits. In the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic. It has been used in the mainstream media, see here and here, by major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (here, here and here. One editor has added citations to the work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky (which establish that the article is not SYN), but the nominator keeps deleting them. The nominator keeps making arguments on the discussion page that much of the search results for "Communist terror" and "communist terrorism" are about terror commited by the former Eastern Bloc nations. His point is a distinction without a difference, those incidents are state terrorism but they are still "communist terrorism" nonetheless. The idea that the article is a fringe theory is perhaps the most ridiculous of them all. Anyone who's heard of the Red Brigade, November 17 or FARC know it's communist terrorism; we're not talking about flat earth or little blue men here. This is plainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the nominator's part. Mamalujo20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a very notable subject: terrorism committed by communists. The content was supported by multiple reliable sources. This has nothing to do with "neologisms". If the title of the article is not good, the article should be renamed, not deleted. I think the title is informative.Biophys21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BUT the article cannot be used as excuse for POV potted summaries of a variety of revolutionary and/or terrorist movements--which they are, depends upon one's own political views. I know what I think of most of these groups--I also know that other people think differently. The actions of the CP within what became the USSR is one broad topic, most of which is extensively discussed elsewhere. the efforts of what can loosely be called the Comintern in the period before WW II is another--and not well discussed here. All this is background to the real topic of the article--the activities of Soviet sponsored terrorism during the cold War and afterwards. The materials on the US/Canada are interesting and could well be discussed in more detail.. It's based upon the Mitrokhin Archive and Viktor Suvorov , two sources whose reliability is somewhat uncertain. The various movements elsewhere all have their own articles. Trying to write a comprehensive overview of them is difficult, and the editors of the present article have not done it in a NPOV manner. They have in particular relied upon very weak and partisan sources, freely using weasel words , most notably "described as". I have strong doubts about the accuracy of the descriptions of some of the groups. Many of these groups are seen by their supporters as heros or martyrs. Probably almost everyone here disagrees, but that does not affect the writing of the article. It has to be written so that actual supporters of the groups would find the description balanced. AIn spite of these difficulties, the topic is notable. csloat's criticisms of the article are in my opinion well justified. DGG (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said: It has to be written so that actual supporters of the groups would find the description balanced. I strongly agree that views of terrorism ideologists must be represented in such articles for the sake of NPOV. That is why I cited Marx, Stalin, Nechaev, Latsis, and marxist Kautsky in this article. But csloat deleted precisely these materials; he deleted citations of Stalin, Marx and Kautsky. Hence my objections about WP:NPOV at the talk page. Yes, csloat provided some valid criticism, and modifications were made to reflect some of his points, but he blindly reverted everything.Biophys —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Marxist-Leninist ideology, adopted by many Communist regimes and movements all over the world, terror(ism) is considered an important tool in achieving the World revolution. The result of such a policy was a multitude of terror campaigns and terrorist attacks, which should be detailed in this article. (And a number of them already are -- a good start!) Concerns of neologism appear to be a case of WP:IHAVENTHEARDOFIT, and should be discounted accordingly. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ!07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
odd that people say they havent heard of this concept -- a major concern of most of the world for the last 50 years. There seems to be a confusing mix of political POVs involved here. all the more reason for an article.DGG (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying they never heard of this concept; others are simply attributing that view to someone but it is unclear why. What we haven't heard of -- and still haven't heard of, despite all the "keep" votes -- is a single reliable source identifying the specific neologism at issue here -- "communist terrorism" -- as an observable and definable entity. This is something specific and different from "communist terror" and "communists who use terrorism," which are two other concepts that people are conflating here. I understand that conflating such concepts serves a propaganda function, but it does not serve an encyclopedic function. Anyway I think this will all be solved with a name change in due time -- "Communism and terrorism" would be a much more accurate and verifiable title that more people could agree with, and would allow us to remove original research without deleting the article. csloat20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale is in the first "Delete" comment (which I wrote). Biophys (talk·contribs) posted a "Note" above it that should really have been on the talk page; in posting it at the top of this page he unfortunately obscured the deletion rationale. I'm not sure if it violates any specific Wikipedia policy that he did that but I do believe that it has unfortunately handicapped this discussion dramatically. However, when another user tried to correct Biophys' error, that user was ridiculed with phony and uncivil charges of "censorship." csloat03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
