Jump to content

Talk:Left-wing terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:46:c800:2260:cc08:972f:c0ef:499a (talk) at 01:03, 19 August 2020 (→Clarification and/or source on recent US example). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Find sources notice

US Section Needs Expanding

This is very wanting in detail, and doesn't include major incidents such as targeted killings by the members of the marxist-leninist Black Panthers and BLM, or self-described socialists who suggest that their act of violence is ideologically driven.

Just three off the top of my head: Mark Essexw's rampage in Louisiana in the 1970s. 600 police were mobilized. 9 killed including firefighters responding to the fire. A helicopter gunship had to engage the killer who was a black panther (marxist leninist org). The 2016 Dallas cop-killing spree. Pretty spectacular. Ended up with a bomb being used to kill the gunman. BLM (left wing) activist. Robby Starbuck the Ohio shooter of 9 people declared on FB before the killings that he "Would not wait for socialism." Pretty cut and dry example of left wing extremism. Some attempt to catalog these rationally ought to be undertaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

An editor continues to insert a "see also" link to Communist terrorism without providing any explanation.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Good point. TFD (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It could be added, per WP:SEEALSO. TFD (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

– 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)[reply]

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 [2],[3], [4], [5].108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced to mainstream sources TFD (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
At least you grant that I can read.  :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.[6][7] Also, this article shouldn't be limited to the obviously much more narrowly defined "revolutionary." First Light (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as making editorial judgement on the current content of the articles. Collect (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Communist Terrorism?

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

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)[reply]
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 [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism

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[reply] 

     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[reply]
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)[reply]

Small critiques

Good article, but the continent of Africa seems to be grossly underrepresented. So much so that the word Africa is only mentioned once in the article and is not mentioned or cited again. I will do further research into finding specific left-wing terrorist groups that existed in Africa, but I am willing to bet there had to have been a few given the proxy wars that took place there during the Cold War. The article could also make mention of the Animal Liberation Front who has been known to take part in terrorist activities. Despite these small few things everything is well written and cited properly. I will edit my critique after I dig deeper into left-wing resistance in Africa. Marrelljones (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article that hits on a lot of the main points about left-wing terrorism. But I agree with the previous responder. There could be more of a mention of what occurred in Africa in regards to left-wing terrorism. Africa was heavily involved in the Cold War, so it seems pretty likely that left-wing terrorism would have occurred in the continent. AlexKalban (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Alex KalbanAlexKalban (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for the neglect is that left-wing terrorism is under-represented in the sources. That could be because research on left-wing terrorism was developed in the 1970s and only examined current left-wing terrorism, while left-wing terrorists in Africa operated in the 1950s and early 1960s. Also, it could be that much of the terrorism in Africa such as by the ANC, was seen as ethnic/nationalist, rather than left-wing, even if carried out by mostly left-wing groups. The Animal Liberation Front and similar groups are more likely to come under special issue terrorism. the definition of left-wing terrorism in this article is "terrorism meant to overthrow conservative or capitalist systems and replace them with communist or socialist societies." That was never the objective of terrorist actions by the ANC or ALF. The ANC for example no longer carries out terrorist attacks even though South Africa is not socialist.
If you want to add groups, I would ask that you provide sources that connect them with left-wing terrorism.
TFD (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "Animal Liberation Front who has been known to take part in terrorist activities" is not supported by historic fact, neither the ALF nor the ELF can be considered "terrorists" since neither unorganized groups (1) actually comprise a group or (2) actually commit any terrorist acts yet even more strongly (3) neither the ALF nor the ELF can be considered to be "left wing," they are loosely-coupled individuals who commit criminal acts against property, not politically-motivated acts against humans.
For purposes of the extant article, editors should be certain that what constitutes left-wing terrorism matches the behavior and activities of actual terrorists, historically aligned with the traditional definition of what constitutes terrorism. There is a prevalence these days to try to label any act of criminality "terrorism," and because Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, care from editors must be taken to stick with testable, confirm-able facts without labeling mere criminal actions to be "terrorism."
I would add that the so-called Black Block individuals and the individuals who proclaim themselves to be Antifa likewise do not rise to the level of actual terrorism inasmuch as their histories to date do not legitimately afford such labels. That could change as time progresses, in the event such people actually organize and actually commit acts of terrorism, but for now, ALF, ELF, Black Block, Antifa, or actually-organized groups like Sandy Hook Promise et al. fall far short in their ideals and activities of what can be considered to be "terrorism." The FBI maintains a definition and, despite politically-motivated occasional divergence from their own norms, the FBI's definitions exclude the sole commission of mere crimes. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism). We either have to change all to terrorism or all to political violence, everything else would not be neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.226.214 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Right Wing Terrorism Source Poorly Sourced

It is uncertain that the comparison made in the 2.2 United States section that states "A 1994 study found that in the 1980s "the actual number of acts of terrorism committed by left-wing groups accounted for about three-fourths of all officially designated acts of domestic terrorism in America. About half of these leftist acts were committed by Puerto Rican groups, while the rest were committed by traditional leftist terrorist groups like M19CO".[12]" Is relevant to the article.

Furthermore, the reference is an entire book, and does not reference the page or study to which the book refers. Futhermore, a quick look at the book in Chapter 10 p.194 says "In addition, the number of right-wing extremists indicted for terrorism-related activities far exceeds the number of left-wing extremist indicted, even when Puerto Rican extremists are included in the left-wing category".[1] While there may be a difference between number of attacks and indictments of individuals the current included statistic appears to inject bias which may not be accurate and is poorly sourced.

Recommend removing comparison to other forms of terrorism, and at most including a generalized statistic such as "XX% of terrorist attacks" or a raw number during a certain timeline.

BC.Stovall (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/Terrorism_in_America_Brent_Smith/page/n209

Modern Left Wing Terrorism?

It would be nice to see if an editor could add a section covering any modern-day left wing terrorism anywhere in the world. The phenomena seems to be virtually non-existent any more, peaking in the 1970s in the United States, China, and various other "hot spots," and then left wing-motivated terrorist acts seems to have disappeared entirely. If there's any still remaining, a new section covering the phenomena would be helpful. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The phenomena seems to be virtually non-existent any more" Are you joking? See Terrorism in Greece, where most terrorism organizations are still members of the far left. Revolutionary Struggle and its bomb attacks have been in the news for most of the 2010s. Dimadick (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new section.[8] I do not see any reason to expand this section since sources on left-wing terrorism give it very little attention. Revolutionary Struggle is an anarchist group. Anarchist terrorism is generally classified separately. TFD (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They support anarcho-communism, not anarchism. Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a branch of anarchism? TFD (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TFD, that's what I had been wondering, whether we might find suitable sources for an update for any modern left-wing terrorist activity, activity which uses actual weapons and targets humans rather than property, as actual terrorists do. Revolutionary Struggle uses weapons, though they're Anarchists, somewhat like Black Block -- which is neither left nor right -- only without weapons other than what's at hand. Doing Ye Ole Google, it does appear that left wing terrorism is virtually non-existent or, despite dedicated efforts to be politically relevant, have been successfully suppressed by governments to the point of irrelevance. Black Block looks to have started out left wing, but they attacked property rather than people, and used weapons at hand: rocks, trash cans, gasoline. So I don't see as if they apply for purposes of the extant article either.
And now that you mention it, the last round of Arab Spring was somewhat left wing which spun off a hand full of short-term armed conflicts which political powers obviously classified as "terrorism," yet that effort to overthrow the ruling class was successfully suppressed despite a few old rascals getting dragged out in to the street to be replaced by new rascals. It looks like there's not enough modern left-wing terrorism to warrant an update. Anarchist groups that come and go belong elsewhere, yes.
Thanks! SoftwareThing (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Block aren't left wing? Antifa is not even mentioned in the article. How many degrees of denial are you on? Lemonlimeotter (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you need help discovering what Black Bloc is, Black_bloc will help you. Good luck. SoftwareThing (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing neither is considered to a terrorist group in reliable sources and in fact neither are actual groups. AFAIK there are no examples of terrorist attacks carried out by anyone associated with them. In any case reliable sources draw a distinction between left-wing and anarchist terrorism, even though anarchists are considered left-wing. This is because anarchist terrorism differs from Marxist-Leninist terrorism in organization, leadership, membership, choice of targets, types of attacks and over-all goals. TFD (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and/or source on recent US example

This example is mentioned without further explanation: "The 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting during the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia was committed by James Thomas Hodgkinson a supporter of Bernie Sanders and an virulent Donald Trump hater." My questions: Was this considered a terrorist attack? By who, and can someone add a citation? What distinguishes assassination attempts, terrorism, and other types of political violence? What is the evidence for specific political motivations and what were the specific political motivations? I'd just like some clarity on this example since I was surprised to see it characterized as an example of a left-wing terrorist attack. 204.11.129.240 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Congressional baseball shooting has more details on this. Per that article, Virginia District Attorney Bryan L. Porter described it as terrorism against Republicans. That article should explain this more clearly, and with better attribution. This article should cite a reliable source directly supporting that this was left-wing terrorism. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per no synthesis, we can't just find a statement that he was left-wing and that the attack was terrorism and call it an act of left-wing terrorism, we would need a source that said that. The topic is defined in this article as "terrorism meant to overthrow capitalist systems and replace them with Marxist–Leninist or socialist societies." There is no evidence that he was a Marxist-Leninist or undertook this attack in order to overthrow the capitalist system. His support of Sanders, who was condemned by revolutionary communists in the U.S., makes it unlikely. Furthermore, expert sources often do not categorize lone wolf attacks, since it is difficult to analyze their motives. It could be for example that he had mental pathology and was motivated by revenge. And left-wing terrorists plan their attacks in order to have a good chance of getting away. TFD (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that shooting does not meet any aspects of what is considered to be terrorism, though I would add the note that Republicans often described it as terrorism against Republicans any time they don't get to violate other people's rights, when extremists attempt to impose Theocracy against the United States and the U. S. Constitution puts a stop to them, extremists consider that to be "terrorism" and "oppression." Point being that proclamations by extremists aren't rational, leave alone significant references or citations in, well, anything.
If the extant article suggests even remotely that the shooting was "terrorism," that claim or suggestion needs to be removed entirely. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Terrorism-The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The Virginia Attorney General concluded it was an act of terrorism. Why should any editor regard the above as acting in good faith? That is hyper partisan babble that has no place on any talk page. Point being the single largest and most exhaustive government investigation into the shooting declared it an act of terrorism but because hyper partisan editors don't like that conclusion it should be removed.

Note on 41.182.149.210 adding "Antifa" to article talk page

The organization that added Antifa to the talk page is on IP address 41.182.149.210 which is located in Namibia, Walvis Bay. The extant article is about left-wing terrorism, so I removed the irrelevant talk section. We may need to ban that organization making these updated by IP, the group's alterations consist only of this article and George Will, a Republican "commentator" in the United States. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all, apologies for not signing in when I made the aforementioned edits, my bad. I'm a long time wiki-lurker and haven't really gotten into actually editing/adding information but am hoping to help contribute to a site that's offered me a wealth of information for a long time. All that to say, please do correct me on any points of protocol (not being signed in is pretty basic and from here on out I'll be sure to do that. I have read some of the basic guideline stuff so hopefully I'll avoid some of the more egregious errors in the future) as I am a new editor and am admittedly ignorant. However, I think that the addition I made regarding AntiFa in this article was well-sourced, used uncontroversial mainstream news/academic sources and was informative. I tried to write it without too much bias either way, so I'm uncertain why it was deleted wholesale. I'm going to attach my addition below (again, if that's not how this works, please do direct me) and would really like to enter into dialogue about what alterations/edits would be necessary for it to constitute a legitimate entry by the community. Here it is:

AntiFa

The time period between 1994-2017 saw a dramatic increase in US political polarization as well as violent confrontations between far-left and far-right protest groups. [1] [2] [3] Far-left activist groups, such as the militant, left-wing anarchist group AntiFa, have used black bloc tactics to sometimes engage in violent counter demonstrations and deplatforming campaigns. [4] [5] [6] [7] In 2017 groups associated with AntiFa were involved in the Berkeley protests, some members attacked the peaceful rally, throwing molotov cocktails and smashing windows, causing more than US$ 100,000 of damage. [8] [9] The ideology underpinning certain members of Antifa is described as being "self-described revolutionaries" who "have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending." [10] In leaked documents from 2016, officials in the Department of Homeland Security designated AntiFa activities—such as starting fires and throwing bombs—as a form of "domestic terrorist violence." [11] Partially in response to these accusations of terrorism, in addition to shutting down various far-right groups Paypal also shut down all AntiFa associated accounts. [12] [13] A White House petition asking for AntiFa to be classed a terrorist group garnered more than 350,000 signatures. [14] Multiple Republican senators have also asked for AntiFa to be labelled as "domestic terrorists." [15] Other commentators and Democratic spokesmen have argued that this would be unhelpful and would create a false equivalence, distracting from the more pressing issue of combatting right-wing extremist terrorism. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Thanks in advance for constructive criticism and, again, apologies for not signing in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwearable (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References

  1. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/trump-partisan-divide-republicans-democrats/541917/
  2. ^ https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/
  3. ^ http://marina-azzimonti.com/papers/Polariz2.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html
  6. ^ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/neo-nazis-face-new-foe-online-irl-far-left-antifa/
  7. ^ https://beta.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/01/the-history-theory-and-contradictions-of-antifa/?outputType=amp
  8. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html
  9. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/
  10. ^ https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/antifa-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right-mark-bray
  11. ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235
  12. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/09/paypal-shuts-down-accounts-for-proud-boys-and-founder-mcinnes-as-well-as-antifa-groups/
  13. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/9/18079880/paypal-proud-boys-gavin-mcinnes-antifa
  14. ^ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0
  15. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/20/senators-want-antifa-activists-be-labeled-domestic-terrorists-heres-what-that-means/
  16. ^ https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-antifa
  17. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/09/paypal-proud-boys-antifa-ban-gavin-mcinnes-criticism
  18. ^ https://www.salon.com/2019/07/23/ted-cruz-ignoring-surge-of-far-right-violence-introduces-bill-labeling-antifa-a-terrorist-group/
  19. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/16/sorry-conservatives-theres-no-equivalence-between-the-extreme-right-and-the-extreme-left/
  20. ^ https://theintercept.com/2018/10/31/pittsburgh-shooting-anti-semitism-media-bias/
The problem is that we don't have any reliable sources describing their activities as terrorism, as opposed to say groups like the Weather Underground. The closest we have is that some reliable sources think it possible that some members may resort to terrorism in the future. Note we don't call the pro-life movement a terrorist group, although some supporters have carried out terrorist attacks such as the Atlanta bombing. TFD (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwearable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue of "predictive editing" of articles where a volunteer editor might suggest that a group or organization or an individual may some day qualify to be included or mentioned in an extant article and "proactively" add text in an honest effort to improve articles. The Antifa arena does tend to appear to be violent inasmuch as they are opposing fascism, opposing Nazis and white supremacists, all of which gets -- as intended -- fascists to react in violent ways despite Antifa attempting to adhere to non-violent ideals, but have seen property damage being committed by people joining Antifa demonstrations, prompting supposition that some how property damage equates to "terrorism" which it does not.
Terrorism is political, it's an effort to use asymmetric warfare against people or governmental institutions as a means to effect political or social change. What Antifa is doing is opposing fascism, an ideology, and they do not hold as a motivational factor the change of any political system aside from the United States government harboring numerous fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists in various disperse entities, yet again, Antifa does not meet any expected aspects of what could be considered to be "terrorism."
Still, it's good seeing you volunteer to improve Wikipedia! Your text on Antifa's activities might best be placed in the Wikipedia article that covers Antifa. That work that you did -- references and citations -- would be valuable added to the Antifa page. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Wikipedia doesn't use terms such as terrorism lightly, we need authoritative sources, usually government bodies. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice narrow projection. Only on WP could anyone find such a myopic projection. Terrorism- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

DHS declared Antifa committed acts of domestic terrorism.(They must not be familiar with the intellectually bankrupt narrow projection above?) Occupy are also left wing domestic terrorists, but most odd of all on this page less than 5percent in the last 20years were declared terrorism by government bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks

The authoritative sources there are the usual MSM purveyors of mis and disinformation most of which do not even mention the word terrorism. Left wing terrorism did not magically vanish 20yrs ago as this supposedly NPOV but obviously left wing biased as is humanly possible encyclopedic article tries to purport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:CC08:972F:C0EF:499A (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, there is an amount of legal liability involved with Wikipedia as a foundation, allowing anyone to edit pages comes with legal risks, so due diligence is a part of what every editor is expected to be aware of, which is why editors oversee and eliminate actionable suppositions. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Section Needs Expanding

This is very wanting in detail, and doesn't include major incidents such as targeted killings by the members of the marxist-leninist Black Panthers and BLM, or self-described socialists who suggest that their act of violence is ideologically driven.

Just three off the top of my head: Mark Essexw's rampage in Louisiana in the 1970s. 600 police were mobilized. 9 killed including firefighters responding to the fire. A helicopter gunship had to engage the killer who was a black panther (marxist leninist org). The 2016 Dallas cop-killing spree. Pretty spectacular. Ended up with a bomb being used to kill the gunman. BLM (left wing) activist. Robby Starbuck the Ohio shooter of 9 people declared on FB before the killings that he "Would not wait for socialism." Pretty cut and dry example of left wing extremism. Some attempt to catalog these rationally ought to be undertaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in Mark Essex suggesting terrorism, it appears to have been a spree killing. 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers ditto. Nor is the 2019 Dayton shooting called a terrorist attack - it was a mass shooting and "A preliminary assessment did not indicate he had a racial or political motive". Editors can't decide if something is terrorism, see the discussions above. So these shouldn't be added. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources categorize these as left-wing terrorism and none of them are mentioned in articles about left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Female members

This article doesn't mention the high proportion of women in left-wing terrorist groups, as well as why that's the case. The Red Army Faction and FARC had proportionately more female members than terrorist groups of other ideologies, especially when compared to right-wing terrorist groups, which are typically very male-dominated. Jim Michael (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left-wing_terrorism&oldid=973749292"