Talk:Communist terrorism

A 1RR restriction is now in effect

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

Malaya

I modified the section, which has been added by the suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Marknutley/Tentontunic without any attempt to discuss it. I would like to made some comments on that, because this section is a demonstration of how the article as whole should be written. The structure of the section is as follows:

1. It contains the link to the main article;
2. It explains the historical background (two participants were the British authorities, whose goal was to keep their valuable colonial possession under control, and the Malayan Communist party, who had a previous experience of partisan warfare due to their active participation in the WWII on the Allied (British) side);
3. It explains the goal of the insurgence (to seize the power in Malaya and to liberate it from the British dominance);
4. It explains the connection between their activity and terrorism: they were labeled as terrorists by British authorities for clear political and economical reasons, and they resorted to the terrorist/sabotage tactics to decrease a value of this colony to Britain;
5. It explains the sides' tactics;
6. It tells about the conflict's end;
7. And, last but not least, this section does not contradict to the main article.

This version is dramatically different from many other parts of the article, because other parts do not explain the origin and motives of the communist insurgence, creating an impression that no explanation is needed for the Communist attacks ("since the Communists are an infernal force by definition, no explanation of the causes of the violence outburst is needed"), which, obviously, is completely unencyclopaedic approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

An IP has again removed the POV tag without discussion. However the article remains POV because no coherent definition of CT is used and therefore the article has become a coatrack. I would remind the IP that this article is under a 1RR restriction and will apply for semi-protection if there is edit-warring from the IP. TFD (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that people who have been warned under Digwuren specifically should be very sure about any edits to this or any article dealing with the Soviet Union and ethnic minorites thereof, as well as Eastern Europe topics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A connection between this article and the (broadly defined) Eastern Europe is highly questionable. With regard to this British IP, think it is a re-incarnation of Mark Nutley. If this will repeat, the total amount of the examples of sockpuppetry may become sufficient for community ban of this user. In any event, a revert of suspected sockpuppet is not edit warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I requested for the article's semiprotection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel socks are involved, provide evidence at SPI. Asking for semi-protection when there does not appear to be any substantial disruption might well be a misuse of semi-protection for the mere purpose of preventing non-vandal edits from IPs. Have you followed the discussions on "pending changes" at all? Collect (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes is a good idea. I forgot about that option. Thank you for reminding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI does not deal with IPs. TFD (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment - since you have used SPI on a great number of IPS. Collect (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. We are all well aware of your great effort to persuade SPI clerks that mark nutley was not responsible for socking. TFD (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Commenting that you've made a number of SPI reports about IP addresses is a personal attack how? Your reply seems to be far more a personal attack than his comment. Silverseren^C 00:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently opened an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33, saying that two accounts "both have been involved in editing the article United States and state terrorism and its talk page from a similar point of view, arguing that the US has been involved in state terrorism". Collect then made the gratuitous comment, "The routine use of the SPI noticeboard based upon two or more users disagreeing with TFD is part and parcel of the problematic behaviour from which TFD narrowly escaped a lengthy topic ban on all articles remotely related to Eastern Europe and Communism (Digwuren). Absent any actual evidence of socks being used, the record is that well under a third of these accusations have ever been found to be accurate. SPI is not a fishing hole, and ought not be treated as one". Despite support for the SPI from two other editors on the article, Collect has continued to comment, saying for example that the fact the IP came from the same city and used the same provider was irrelevant. I welcome any attempts by him to provide evidence pro and con, but argumentem ad hominem are unhelpful. Note that he was successful in derailing the first mark nutley SPI. TFD (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response is an ad hom against me once again. The "connection" you had was that they were Comcast users -- which is the single largest ISP in the US <g>. This talk page is reserved for discussion about this article, and I fail to see why you need a screed about me here. Cheers. By the way, note that there was absolutely zero evidence given in the accusation - which does rather seem to lead to a reasonable result - no socks were found. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Comcast, both from San Francisco, both making the same edits to the same articles, both being blocked for their edits, the new editor showing experience of WP, and two other editors familiar with both suspecting sockpuppetry. Could be a coincidence, but that is something for SPI to determine. TFD (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Silverseren^C. Although the Collect's comment is innocent per se, you should keep in mind that in actuality it is a continuation of an older dispute, during which Collect was insisting on the TFD's bad faith, and was not supported by others.

@ Collect. A recent AE discussion revealed no abuse of the SPI tools by TFD. By contrast, other users encouraged TFD to continue this his activity. Your persistent references to SPI as an indicator of TFD's bad faith can hardly be considered as a sign of your own good faith. The sooner you stop that, the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your repeated spirited defences of TFD. Alas - they seem more designed to continue personalization of issues that to clarify them. The sooner you stop that, the better. TFD has had an extraordinarily bad run at SPI - though he has gotten a few folks whome he has had disputes with banned as a result of "duck" allegations. And a few of those have, in fact, been overturned upon examination of "facts." I know "facts" are inconvenient, but I find it easier to accept that some folks have different views than to try getting them all banned. Your mileage apparently varies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

anyone here thinking i am a sock would be wrong, i read the article and see fuckall pov about it. This blocking of an article from unregistered users is just another commie joke.

why were my comments removed? please do not remove my comments again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.52.247 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather be blocked for breaches of WP:NPA instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The absence of capital letters, the language (especially "commie"), rudeness, anti-Communism and the British origin of this IP indicate that the edits have been made by Marknutley/Tentontunic. It is highly likely that the amount of the examples of disruptive sockpuppetry is sufficient for community ban of this disruptive editor. It is interesting to know what TFD, with their large experience in SPI, think on that account.

@ 94.12.52.247. If I am wrong, and you are not a marknutley's sock, please, create a user account, and you will be able to edit this article. In particular, I would like to know what concretely is wrong with the article in your opinion. However, before answering, please, read the marknutley/Tentontunic posts to avoid re-iteration of old arguments, which have already been addressed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@andythegrump just read that npa you linked to, I do not see were I have attacked any particular editor. @Paul Siebert, this is meant to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I should not have to create an account to do so. If you do not appreciate my language tough crap, If you do not appreciate the lack of capitalisation tough, I was in a rush. Removing my comments on spurious grounds that you might think I am a banned editor is bullshit, do an spi as the collect geezer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.52.247 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you are insisting, I addressed to the admin who analysed this case[1]. Hope this will help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is the verdict then? Does your spi investigation clear me of wrongdoing and allow my editing of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.33.212 (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No verdict so far. It is unclear for me, however, why haven't you created an account so far. There are many advantages and no disadvantages in that. If you are not a sockpuppet, you can do that freely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, when editors are suspected of socking using dynamic IPs, the correct approach is to request page protection. We already have page protection for the article and I will request talk page protection if the disruption continues. TFD (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created an account, however i fail to see the point of logging in only to get banned because you guys think i am a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.33.212 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ihave logged is but am still unable to edit this article, why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And I am still blocked from editing this article, would someone please explain why? I created an account as suggested and surely by now your investigation is over so why am I not able to see an edit article tab? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a "magic number" of edits needed to get past the bar (100). Collect (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Collect, it is good to see one take the time to explain such a strange rule. It will be a while I suspect before i amass 100 article edits though. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The rule is not strange. Since, as a result of the recent edit war, this concrete article is under edit restrictions, the article has been semi-protected, so only experienced editors can edit it. I also recommend you to carefully read the article's talk page discussion, including the archives, because you seem to reproduce the arguments that lead to the previous edit war, and eventually to the block of one user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Paul Siebert, I have been reading the rule over the last few days, most some very strange indeed but I am quite sure I shall get the hang of it. I have not actually produced any arguments thus far regarding the content of this article, but once I am able to edit it I shall quite happily argue with you all you want :) Thank you for the welcome on my talk page, I had not found some of those pages of rules. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall also remove the POV tag today given no actual policy based reason has been given for it to be there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is POV because it does not properly define CT and thereore implicitly advocates the theory that there is a connection between communism and terrorism. Also, it uses contemporaneous propaganda writing, including from white racist sources, in order to promote the connection. TFD (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see n racist sources used in this article, should you have an issue with a source then you need to post at the reliable sources notice board. An issue with a source is not a POV issue. I als osee no propaganda sources used, the majority of sources appear to be quite modern and not from the cold war. You should also add new sources if you feel there is a neutrality issue to create balance, not just demand that others put right that which you think is wrong. ~i`m going to remove the tag now. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot remove a POV tag unilaterally: we must have a consensus about that. I am also interested in removal of this tag, however, before doing that we have to made some changes in the article. Let's discuss what should be changed. For instance, you mentioned "racist" sources. They definitely should be removed. Which sources are racist in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not said there are racist sources in the article, your friend TFD did. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Another problem with the article is that it deals with multiple subjects, and it describes as "Communist terrorism" the events that are not described as such in main articles devoted to those events specifically. For instance the Malayan Emergency describe the events in Malaya as anti-colonial warfare, not as "Communist terrorism". According to our guidelines, we cannot have two articles that describe the same event differently: all viewpoints that deserve mention must be present in the same article. The multiple conflicts with other articles can be resolved if we convert this article into the story of the term, which has been applied to quite different events (each of which already has its own article). By doing that, we can write a good article, and remove the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) ::::::And in that you are completely wrong. This article is about terrorist actions carrided out by communists and as such ought to focus on that. What this article ought say is that the communists carried out actions which were terrorist in nature and which the British responded to be beating the shit out of them. What you have written is not even close to the truth and presents a very lopsided and highly partisan version of events. This is why I have said I shall rewrite it s it actually tells an accurate version of events and is not a pro communist propaganda piece. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Malaya is dubious

I have been looking over the section on Malaya and see what can only be described as massive errors. For instance, the majority of material I have read on the subject says the British fought a brilliant campaign and the relocation scheme was a great success, but the article section says the opposite and seems to portray the British forces as having made major errors and committed massive human rights violations. I intend to rewrite this section to accurately portray the facts and not the opinions of a few left wing wackos. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The section is not devoted to the campaign itself, just to the terminology and the actions of partisans. The whole campaign has been described in the main article. With regard of the British mistakes, these mistakes occurred at the first stage of the conflict ("initially lead to casualties among innocent civilians, with destruction of whole villages, population transfers, detainment and mass deportations"). With regard to the rewrite, please, do not repeat the mistakes of others: the sources used in this section are quite reliable and mainstream, and previous discussions on the WP:RSN demonstrated that quite persuasively. In addition, if you want to change anything, please, try to start with the main article ("Malayan Emergency"), which currently does not describe the actions of Malayan partisans as "terrorism". The main article and the section on the "CT" article must be consistent: that is a requirement of the WP policy guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such requirement that two articles must have the same consensus, so that argument fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CFORK. If you believe I am not right, we can put this dispute on the WP:NPOV talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on the majority of literature I have read on the subject", TFD (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, sorry but your sources do not appear to represent the mainstream views to be honest, i think you may have piked a few outliers. The Four Deuces, I am not here to give you a history lesson, it would be almost certainly be best if you would take the time to read up on that which you wish to comment upon. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We have had a discussion on the WP:RSN about that, and the consensus was that the sources are reliable and mainstream. If you want to contest that conclusion, please, familiarise yourself with the RSN archives, and, if you believe that you have new arguments, start a new discussion. I do not have to prove that the sources I use are not fringe, however, if you want, you may try to prove the opposite. The burden of proof is on you. Meanwhile, since the Malaya section is in accordance with what the Malayan Emergency article says, you may try to give a history lessons to the people who wrote that article. Try to persuade them first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I know what the Briggs Plan was, and I am familiar with the fact that it was crowned with a success. However, since we discuss mostly the activity of the partisans, we do not need to focus on the British tactics here. By contrast, to mention the British mistakes is necessary, because that partially explains the outburst of violence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that`s just plain wrong, you cannot say the communist party began actions based on violence from british troops as it is utterly incorrect. The communist party began terrorist actions before the british began to implement the Briggs plan, and to say what you have written is in accordance with policy is also wrong. You can`t pick a few sources which support your view and exclude what the majority of sources on this subject say. The British fought a brilliant campaign in Malaya and combined with the resettlement plan made the entire conflict a resounding success. Let me know what you think of it once I have rewritten it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not say that. The Communist party started national-liberation partisan war, which British authorities described as "terrorism". That is the only reason why this section belongs to this article. Regarding British atrocities, they were a reaction on initial Communist acts, however, since they were redundantly cruel, they contributed into the escalation of violence. Later, when the British authorities modified their policy, it became more efficient and less cruel, and eventually led to a victory. However, this article discusses not that, but the relation between the Malayan emergency and communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man, articles are based upon sources. The subject "communist terrorism" appears to be obscure indeed - no docs on the Beeb, no degrees at Oxbridge. So perhaps you could share with us this esoteric body of literature. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Go look for it, if you are not familiar with the subject then make yourself familiar before making comments which only serve to show your ignorance. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This your statement is supposed to be supported by serious evidences, otherwise it has zero weight. Please, provide some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)