Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Removal of a large piece of sourced information.

By this edit[1] Tentontunic removed a large piece of text that was supported by good quality reliable sources. That has been supplemented with a false edit summary ("Restore a decent article"): no references to any decent articles has been restored, the text added by Tentontunic contains no new refs. In addition, the text they removed has been a subject of a long discussion on the talk page, Tentontunic abstained from. That is not how WP works. I suggest him to self-revert, otherwise I'll have to take other actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: I do not agree with your edit which (I read it as) seeks to remove the words "communist terrorism" from the actual acts themselves. It is a phrase which has been used to refer to specific acts by specific individuals and regimes at specific times, and thus embodies the acts themselves as well. I expect better from you than threatening other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep "expecting better" from your opponents. I haven't been following evolution of the Wiki etiquette recently, is it a new form of an insult in disguise, or something? Is it your own invention or someone else suggested it to you to tick your opponents? (Igny (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

PЄTЄRS J V, please, explain why didn't you express your concern during the last RfC? Your criticism was about some concrete issue, and I agreed that the story of Red Terror should be added to the beginning of the section. However, that had no relation of the rest of the text. One way or the another, below I reproduce the questions specifically for you. Please, answer, what concretely is wrong with the text:

1. Does this text adequately reflect what the cited sources say?
2. And are these sources reliable and mainstream?
3. Is it neutral, and, if not, what viewpoints need to be added?
4. Does it contain original research?
5. Is this text relevant to the article Communist terrorism?
   Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Vietnam section, as the NPOVN discussion demonstrated,[2], which had a direct relation to the disputable para, demonstrated that the ideas that are being pushed by this user violate neutrality policy. In addition, as this diff[3] it is not neutral to use the term "terrorists" as a major term for VC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PS Re "It is a phrase which has been used to refer to specific acts by specific individuals and regimes at specific times", I would say, it is a phrase which has been used by specific individuals to refer to specific acts... .Other terms are being used more widely, and if the same acts are described as "Left-wing terrorism" and "Communist terrorism", we cannot have two separate articles that use orthogonal terminology for the same events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

History section proposal.

I propose we remove the incredibly badly named section Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology as the most of it is now duplicated in the lede and replace it with the following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens. In the 1940`s and 1950`s in various Southeast Asian countries such as Malaya, The Philippines and Vietnam, communist groups began to conduct terrorist operations. In the 1960`s the Sino–Soviet split also lead to a marked increase in terrorist activity in the region.

In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. In western Europe these groups actions were known as Euroterrorism. The founders of the FCO argued that it would take violence to achieve their idealistic goals and that legitimate protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them. In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 Marxist/Leninist groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments.

Communist Terrorism in the Soviet Union

Since the article is not a sandbox, I propose to discuss this section on the talk page before adding it into the main article. My proposal is to move it into the beginning of the "Usage of the term" section, because this story is not about terrorism in its contemporary meaning, but about a state terror, which was seen as terrorism both by writers and by perpetrators in early XX century.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your misuse of twinkle is duly noted, as is your removal of well sourced content with a misleading edit summary, how dare you say explain my changes with good sources when all sources used were from academic publishers. And again, there is no consensus for your changes at all so I shall again remove your POV ridden rubbish when time allows. You may not use books from penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs for statements of fact. Your desperation in finding sources to back your skewed POV is showing. Tentontunic (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored this given your failure to respond. It is well sourced and all sources use the temr communist terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in the Soviet Union

The attacks on the Catholic church in the occupied eastern European nations have also been described as a terrorist act.

RFC on usage section

In the 1930`s the term was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda effort to create fear of communism. The Nazi`s blamed communist terrorism for the Reichstag Fire and used this as an excuse to push through legislation which removed personal freedom from all citizens. In the 1940`s and 1950`s in various Southeast Asian countries such as Malaya, The Philippines and Vietnam, communist groups began to conduct terrorist operations. In the 1960`s the Sino–Soviet split also lead to a marked increase in terrorist activity in the region.

In the late 1960`s in Europe, Japan and in both north and South America various terrorist organizations began operations. These groups which were named the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO) rose out of the student union movement which was at that time protesting against the Vietnam War. In western Europe these groups actions were known as Euroterrorism. The founders of the FCO argued that it would take violence to achieve their idealistic goals and that legitimate protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them. In the 1970`s there were an estimated 50 Marxist/Leninist groups operating in Turkey and an estimated 225 in Italy. Groups also began operations in Ireland and Great Britain. These groups were seen as a major threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments.

The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact. There was support for the above content to be added, Paul Siebert`s proposal has achieved no support at all. I am looking for wider community input so a final consensus may be arrived at and this dispute put to rest. Paul Sieberts version is currently in the article, Here. I have created two subsections for uninvolved and involved users to help keep things tidy. Tentontunic (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments for involved users

• WP:RS does not regard sources which are clearly RS as being unusable becasue one or more editors asserts that they are not "peer reviewed" or "sufficiently academic." Wikipedia is based only on the precept that claims made in articles are supported by the cites given. This sort of argument has been made dozens of times now, and the results are consistent -- once a source is "reliable" it is usable. As an aside, this is my consistent position in articles of all sorts, and is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about peer review, I am saying that Paul Sieberts sources are not good enough RS for statements of fact. If you look at my proposed text above you will no doubt agree it is neutral. If you look at what PS has written you will see a hodgepodge of sentences written to push the POV that none of these terrorist groups were communist. It is an awful POV push and supported by sources which are simply not good enough. Tentontunic (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would say Tentontunic is right that good sources are preferable. That is in accordance with what the policy says: "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." However, it is incorrect to say that the sources I used were unreliable and non-scholarly. Let's look at the sources used by me (taken from the recent article's version [4]:

My sources:

1. Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247. A scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has published many scholarly books and articles [5]
2. Anthony J. Stockwell. A widespread and long-concocted plot to overthrow government in Malaya? The origins of the Malayan Emergency. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 21, 3 (1993): 79-80. A scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has published many scholarly books and articles [6].
3. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. A book published by the State University of New York press.
4. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39. An article in the journal that "is internationally recognized as an authoritative source for original scholarly work and book reviews written from the unique public choice perspective."[7]
5. Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks, Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2010 54: 902. The article in Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, for more than fifty years has provided scholars and researchers with the latest studies and theories on the causes of and solutions to the full range of human conflict.[8]
6. Christopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, J. Craig Jenkins. Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism. Social Forces 84.4 (2006) 2009-2026.
7. Kevin Siqueira and Todd Sandler. Terrorists versus the Government: Strategic Interaction, Support, and Sponsorship. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 878-898. The same. The scholarly journal published by SAGE[9]
8. Cronin, Audrey. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58. A journal published by MIT press.
9. Peter Chalk. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy. Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 44, Number 3, 1998, pp. 373-88. "The Australian Journal of Politics and History presents papers addressing significant problems of general interest to those working in the fields of history, political studies and international affairs."[10]
10. A Jamieson. Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15. The article in "Terrorism and Political Violence", a journal that "reflects the full range of current scholarly work from many disciplines and theoretical perspectives. "[11]
11. Cristopher Fettweis. Freedom Fighters and Zealots: Al Qaeda in Historical Perspective.Political Science Quarterly; Summer2009, Vol. 124 Issue 2, p 269-296. "Political Science Quarterly, published by The Academy of Political Science since 1886, is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy, both international and domestic."[12]
12. Richard Drake. Terrorism and the Decline of Italian Communism: Domestic and International Dimensions. Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 12, Number 2, Spring 2010 1531-3298. "The Journal of Cold War Studies features peer-reviewed articles based on archival research in the former Communist world and in Western countries. Some articles offer reevaluations of important historical events or themes, emphasizing the changes of interpretation necessitated by declassified documents and new firsthand accounts."[13]

These are the sources I added, and, I would say I left most references added by Tentontinic in the new version. Therefore, the Tentontunic's statement:

"The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact. "

is, speaking politely, not completely correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting, lets look a little closer shall we?

1. An uncited paper with no impact on the scholarly community what so ever. Published 07, and then forgetten.
2. A paper with very few citations, looks to be about 8. Not a lot since 93.
3. I introduced that actually, you cherrypicked a few choice sentences to push your POV.
4. This is not a peer reviewed journal or at least it does not sat so any were onsite. [14]
5. Another paper with next to no citations, looks to be about 6, and also does not support the statement usually referred to as left-wing terrorists [15] I shall look at the rest later, but this certainly proves your sourcing is junk. Tentontunic (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Um - are you asserting that I was "deceived" in some way? As I was the only other person commenting. I would, in fact, welcome a lot more material in the article as it is the reader, ultimately, who weighs wat is presented. Collect (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic. The sources I use meet the most strict criteria applied to highly reliable sources. If you have any doubts in the sources I use, feel free to go to WP:RSN. Your refusal to do so means that you do not believe in a success of this dubious enterprise.

@Collect. I am not asserting that you had been deceived, I am asserting that the intention was to deceive. And, although you have been the only person commenting, you hardly a sole person who have read, and will read that. In addition, I anticipate that further comments will follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Upon meditation, I realised where the statement about Penguin Books came from. I used this reference in another section. I took this ref from the Vietnam War article, however, I agree that the source should be replaced with something more reliable. I'll fix that (both here and in the VW article) in close future. Thank you for pointing at that problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not doubt that some would fall under RS guidelines, this however does not automatically make them reliable. You are in my opinion pushing a fringe perspective onto the article, as I said I am looking over the rest of your sourcing. And please remove your personal attacks, accusations of deception are not on. Tentontunic (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are free to have any opinions you want, however, please, stick with what mainstream reliable sources say.

Re "please remove your personal attacks, accusations of deception are not on". Are you seriously insisting that the statement "The above content which is all supported by academic publishers was added and then replaced recently by Paul Siebert on the grounds that it was not neutral, he has replaced it using sources from non academic publishers such as penguin, St. Martin's Press and PublicAffairs. I am of the opinion that these publishers may not be used for statements of fact." is true? In particular, please, explain:

1. Had I removed a major part of your text?
2. How many sources used by you had I removed?
3. Which sources I cited in my version are non-scholarly or fringe?

Or course, I am ready to withdraw my statement about deception, when your deceptive statement will be withdrawn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "I do not doubt that some would fall under RS guidelines, this however does not automatically make them reliable." Firstly, not guidelines, but policy. Secondly, if you have any doubts in their reliability, or you believe they are non-mainstream, go to RSN, and stop posting the same baseless arguments. I provided the sources that fit all RS criteria, and now the burden to prove the opposite rests with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Another paper with next to no citations, looks to be about 6, and also does not support the statement usually referred to as left-wing terrorists(51)" I have no idea what do you mean, and what the refs provided by you is intended to demonstrate: this article ("Terrorism in the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism") contains not a single word "Communist", and just confirms my point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think it means? usually referred to as left-wing terrorists followed by two refs, neither of which support that statement. Tentontunic (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Term" versus acts

"Communist terrorism" is used as early as 1917 1919 in reporting by the New York Times--and that is only in a brief search. It is not a "term" which exists in and of itself and then is selectively applied to specific acts, it is the name for specific acts by specific individuals, groups, and regimes at specific times.

@Paul, the burden of proof is always on the person bringing the source to the game. Saying you believe you have met requirements does not make it so and now it is up to someone to throw sticks and stones at your contentions (and then you threaten to report them for throwing sticks and stones). Clearly there is genuine disagreement over the suitability of at least some of your sources. So we should (a) discuss those sources one at a time and then (b) determine whether your contentions and suggested content fairly and accurately represent reliable sources or if there is some synthesis going on (speaking of result, not intent). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a term that was used during the Cold War as part of an effort by Western governments to educate the public and create a link between communism and terrorism. Post-Cold War scholars avoid the term. We do not for example refer to the current governments of China, Vietnam, Cuba etc. as "Communist Terrorists". BTW, could you please provide details about the 1917 NYT reference. TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 1919, here. I draw your attention to executing hostages and mutilating bodies. One can also readily find reference to China in the 1930's, also long before the Cold War. As for "post-cold war" avoidance, that's stretching credibility--exactly how many Communist regimes are there that today engage in terrorism against their populace? It is your personal synthesis that a decrease in usage is the result of a decrease in scholarly preference if the proverbial shoe fits. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, WP:BURDEN states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." However, nothing in policy suggests that, when a reliable source has been provided, and it has been demonstrated that this source directly supported proposed changes, I have to prove that my source is not fringe and that it is mainstream. To prove the negative in not what WP:BURDEN implies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the term vs use, I already presented several quotes on the talk page to demonstrate that the term "terrorism" has evolved during the last century, and, whereas old "terrorism" included the terror of the state against civilians, the new term "terrorism" usually refers to the acts of non-governmental organisations directed against the state. Please, read the talk page before starting the discussion about the subject that has already been discussed recently. Therefore, we need to make needed clarifications to avoid confusion. I personally believe that these clarifications should be added at the beginning of the "Usage of term" section, however, I cannot do that right now. try to propose your wording (I love to discuss the drafts on the talk page) as a starting point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, could you please provide details about the 1917 NYT reference. What does it actually say? TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I found another reference from 1919: "On May 4 Munich celebrated its liberation from Communist terrorism. Crowds thronged the streets and cheered the Government troops, which included a detachment of 800 Austrians. Bands played and national airs were sung outside the palace ...". Another reference from 1931: "50 hsiens out of the 69 hsiens of the province were at one time and another affected by Communist terrorism. More than 15 hsiens were sovietised in southern Hunan. Bands of Communist bandits were also roaming." Another source from 1932 discussing Communist terrorism in Italy in 1920: "It is easy to forget the condition of chaos into which Italy had fallen after the War, the Communist terrorism of 1920, the incompetence of Nitti, the degradation of a great nation.". So clearly the term has been in use long before the Cold War era. --Martin (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin seems to ignore the argument he fount inconvenient, namely, that the term "terrorism" has evolved since 1919, so now it means something else. I also expect Peters to address the same question. The sources and the quotes supporting this my claim have already been provided. Please, comment on that, and be advised that WP:V and WP:NPOV are two quite independent policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

?? I'm not sure how you can draw your conclusion, I was merely replying to TFD. What my three quotes from before 1933 show is that in each case communist terrorism was perpetrated by non-governmental organisations against the state, in this case Bavaria, Hunan and Italy respectively, not by the state as you contend. What you need, Paul, is a source that states the term "communist terrorism" has evolved over time, so far this is just your personal argument. However if you publish you claim in a journal, then we could use it in this article, with attribution of course. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not contend, I took this info from scholarly articles and from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Regarding Bavaria and Italy, the same events were described as revolutionary movements by other sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The examples used by Martin were used at the time to describe the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Mao's army and the government of Francesco Saverio Nitti. None of these groups are described today as CT, nor do we (and we should not in Wikipedia) applaud the Freikorps, the Kuomintang and the fascists who are presented as the heroes in these old "news" stories. None of these examples btw meet the criteria described by Drake for CT. Doubtful anyway whether this amounts to a term or merely an adjective and a noun strung together. Do you have any sources that explain the historical usage of the term? TFD (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Except this isn't the viewpoints of the Freikorps, the Kuomintang or Italian fascists, but of the The New York Times, The China Weekly Review and the English Review. --Martin (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as the time. Mais où sont les neige d'antan? What do you suppose the writers meant by the term "communist terrorism"? Do you think that it meant the same thing as Drake meant? TFD (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to know that sort of thing. Nor for us to fret about Joan of Arc etc. per Villon. Collect (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If we do not know what the sources meant (because we have not sources to explain them), then we cannot use them as sources. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". TFD (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not find such a claim anywhere in any WP policy at all. It is up to us to represent what the sources actually state, and specifically not up to us to say what we think they should state. Collect (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that we should include them as examples of Communist terrorism? Should we accept that the Communist parties of Germany, Italy and China are all terrorists? Put in that China is governed by Communist terrorists? TFD (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not care - I only care that reliable sources are used and that claims follow from what the reliable sources say. I suggest that insisting that we "know what they mean" is irrelevant - it is not up to us to insert what we "know" into any wikipedia articles - it is up to us to strictly base wikipedia articles on what the sources state - wven if we "know" they are "wrong" or that "they do not mean what they say" or anything of that sort. Thank you most kindly. As for your absurd suggestion that I must think every Communist is a terrorist etc. - such arguments hold absolutely no water in genuine discussions. Ever. Really ever. Collect (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well should be put in the article what it says in the sources, that Bavaria was governed by CTs until "liberated" by the Freikorps or that Fascism rescued Italy from Communist Terrorism? TFD (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever reliable sources say. I do think your contention that Italian fascists were more highly regarded than the NYT at the time (did I understand that correctly?) is spurious and, even if true, irrelevant. "We don't know what sources mean?" They are in English, no? They use CT with regard to specific behavior and acts, no? By the very use of CT with reference to individuals and actions, what the "sources mean" is stated explicitly. Where is the confusion you speak of regarding not knowing what sources mean? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please do not misrepresent other editors. I wrote, "The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as the time". Whatever reasoning makes you think I meant more highly regarded that the NYT? Any reasonable reading of my passage would be that they were more highly regarded then than they are now. TFD (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "The Freikorps, the Kuomintang and Italian Fascists were more highly regarded as [sic.] the time.", i.e., at the time. For whatever reason, I took that "as compared to the New York Times (reporting at the time)." I did specifically ask if I was misunderstanding you, obviously I was, you did not have to respond by prefacing with a personal attack that I'm intentionally (as you request that I cease and desist from such further misrepresentation) misrepresenting you. Don't do that again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: New article: Terror

I have created a stub for Terror. Feel free to expand. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another POV fork. How quaint. Collect (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid attempts at sarcasm. It is not funny and is unproductive. TFD (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not a fork? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A fork of what? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way we were discussing (generalizing here by removing "Communist") the equivalence of "X terrorism" = "X terror". I'm not persuaded that "Terror" is not better served by a redirect to "Terrorism." While conceptually scholars do regard them somewhat separate, "terror" being parent to "terrorism," I'm not sure that separate articles are the best way to inform readers of that distinction. All things considered the best solution might be instead that Terrorism (being the progeny) redirect to Terror (being the parent) and become a section of Terror. That might make for more interesting reading as well, the focus of these sorts of articles as simply "list of atrocities by X" isn't terribly informative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Terror = Terrorism?

Now, what we really should do is have a discussion on whether or not Terror = Terrorism? Better yet, we should have had the discussion two years ago. The outside world has differentiated between these concepts for the last one hundred years, but every month on Wikipedia we get new editors who cannot see the distinction. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They are separate but related concepts and are sometimes used interchangeably. Also, the term "terrorist" is used by leaders in the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and Libya in order to obtain support for civil rights restrictions. TFD (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources in the section you have tagged discuss terrorism, it is neither off topic nor needs to be merged, your tag shall be removed when time allows. Tentontunic (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In case someone does not understand the difference I will give you an example in the form of a Russian reversal joke:

In America, bin Laden terrorize state. In Soviet Russia state terrorize you!

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All that shows me is you have a poor sense of humor. Or such jokes do not travel well, ont or the other. It also has no bearing on this discussion. Tentontunic (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A POV tag

The POV tag has been added to the Usage of the term section. That requires a user who did that to open a discussion on the talk page devoted to this issue, where concrete POV problems are outlined. In the absence of the discussion, or if the discussion is dormant, the tag can be removed by anyone.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing above, as well you know. Your removal of the tags without even bothering to talk about it is a joke, I shall reinsert them when time allows. Tentontunic (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the person adding the tag should explain what the issue is before adding. There has been a lot of discussion above and editors need to know what specific issue must be resolved. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the POV tag. Moreover, I am glad that by adding the tag you initiated a discussion about the section's neutrality.

With regard to the "vf" tags, I believe, my edit summaries are self-explanatory. Try to go to your local library and familiarise yourself with the sources you question: most of the "vf" tags added by you have been added under a false pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, if you want others to AGF you have to AGF first. All, can we dispense with constant discussing the editors and get back to content?PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not discuss any editor, I just warn some concrete editor, who, according to their own post, is going to re-add the tags, not to do that. All requested clarifications have been provided, and it is not my problem that they didn't bother to read the source properly.

I fully agree that we need to focus on the content. In connection to that, could you tell me please, do you have anything to say on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They were not added under a false pretext, your continuing attacks are getting tiresome, I would urge you to stop. I have explained several times now why your sources do not back the claim for usually referred to. Perhaps this time you will actually see what I have written. Tentontunic (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's not take the text out of context. The sentence states:

"These groups, usually referred to as left-wing terrorists, "leftist terrorists", "Communist terrorists", the Fighting Communist Organizations (FCO), or "Euroterrorists" (the latter term has been applied to European terrorists only),..."

In connection to that, please, explain, what viewpoint appeared to be left beyond the scope? Which terms have been omitted? --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "They were not added under a false pretext, your continuing attacks are getting tiresome, I would urge you to stop." I would urge you to stop making false statements. Most vf tags you added are simply false, see WP:RSN discussion (one of them was placed correctly, I simply put the ref to the wrong place). The "unreliable source" tags are simply bs, see the same WP:RSN discussion. Do not add the tags when you are not familiar with the sources you attemtp to question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless a consensus is reached here or at WP:RSN discussion, preferably including initially disagreeing editors, you can't assert motives. Regardless, that is discussing the editor and not the edit and you certainly know better than to do that, and it only increases animosity. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not interested to know any motives. What I need to know is whether someone is going to explain me what concretely is non-neutral in this section, and how, in their opinion, it can be fixed. It is also quite necessary to back these suggestions with reliable sources (which are at least as reliable as those used by me). If not reasonable explanations will follow in few days, all tags will be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving/merging CT in the USSR elsewhere ???

I am sorry, but you cannot have an article on Communist terrorism which omits the Soviet Union. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that the Soviet government "inspire[d] the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing [Soviet] political and economic system". Do you have any sources for this? TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. As I already wrote, the USSR should be mentioned, however, the explanations should be provided that most contemporary sources that describe Stilinist terror or the Civil War in the USSR do not use the term "Terrorism". I already suggested you to come out with some concrete text. Are you intended to do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources in the soviet union section discuss communist terrorism. TFD, the soviet union was born out of revolution, a revolution in which terrorism played no small part. So yes, a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar. I oppose any merge proposal. Tentontunic (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You again mix WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: the fact that the sources in this section discuss this event as "terrorism" doesn't mean that majority sources do the same. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is irrelevant, the section is not off topic. The sources discuss terrorism committed by communists, if you feel the sources are not good enough go post another list. Tentontunic (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar". That group was called the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and they were overthown by the Communists. The Soviet Union was not formed until five years later. TFD (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying the Czar was in fact not killed by a detail of the cheka? Under orders from lenin? World War I: encyclopedia, Volume 1 By Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts p86. Tentontunic (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas II abdicated 15 March, 1917. Georgy Lvov of the liberal Constitutional Democratic Party became prime minister (15 March to 21 July), succeeded by Kerensky (21 July to 7 November. Lenin became premier 8 November, 1917 and Nicholas II was executed 17 July 1918. Your view that the Communists executed the czar "to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the czar" does not fit the historical facts. TFD (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The aim of killing of Nicolas II and his family was to eliminate any possibility of reviving the monarchy, was committed secretly and had no aim to cause any fear or terror. Had the execution been public, we could speak about terror. However, it was secret.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The killing of the Czar is an aside, and an amusing one in the TFD seems to think it were not communists who carried the murder out. The point is a group in russia used terrorism to inspire the masses to overthrow the existing political and economic system. Tentontunic (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BS! TFD is 100% right in what he is saying. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party was a terrorist group, one of many in Czarist Russia. In fact, even the Kadet party had a terrorist wing. On the contrary, the Bolshevik party was anti-terrorism – the only major party to be so. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? the bolshevik`s never committed acts of terrorism during the revolution? And yo uar e sure of this? [16] Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What your Google Books link calls "Bolshevik terrorism" is in fact covered in the articles Red Terror and Revolutionary Terror. It is traditional terror, not terrorism according to the modern definition of the word. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, where are getting these ideas? Communists killed the tsar but they did so after they came to power, not as part of their rise to power. And all of this happened long before the Soviet Union was established hence the execution of the tsar cannot justify the inclusion of the Soviet Union in this article. You seem to have your timelines mixed up. TFD (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. The soviet union was born from acts of terrorism, but if you would prefer the section can be renamed terrorism in the soviet union and russia. Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also did not say the Czar was killed during the revolution, I said he was overthrown. Tentontunic (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was born as a result of the decision of three governments to unite. With regard to the "acts of terrorism", we have reliable sources that clearly and unequivocally state that by using such an approach we will inevitably come to a conclusion that, e.g. the US were "born from acts of terrorism". Yes, such a POV does exists, so what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In actuality Czar was not overthrown. He abdicated as a result of the request of the government and military command in favour of his brother, who decided not to accept this title. I see no terrorism here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You personally do not see terrorism. All we can do as responsible editors is record what acts constituted Communist terrorism when, as reported in or indicated by reputable sources. Anything else is synthesis. There is nothing to "conclude" about anything. And (elsewhere) I don't even know what to say about the Bolsheviks being anti-terrorists. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this article is clearly defined as "actions they {hope] will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system". The Soviet Union did not attempt to persuade the masses to overthrow the Soviet Union and therefore do not belong in this article. TFD (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, that's because the definition is inappropriately narrow. Communist terrorism is whatever acts by whomever that it has been reliably used to refer to. Period. The definition you quote is a useless synthesis (or one of potentially many definitions equally appropriate based on use) whose primary purpose, it seems, is to ridicule potential content with insulting syllogisms. Or am I missing something? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the definition in the article is wrong then find a source that provides a better one. TFD (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I trust you find the expansion of the lead maintains what was already there and now also addresses the dangling part of state/regime Communist terrorism at the end which made no sense with reference to the definition provided. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. All we can do as responsible editors is to keep in mind that, per reliable sources, "terrorism" in general is a very vaguely formulated and subjective term. That means that almost every attempt to apply this term to some act or event made in a categorical form is almost inevitably non-neutral. In other words, every sentence build like "A group X committed numerous terrorist acts" that contains no alternative viewpoint and needed reservations is almost automatically non-neutral. That is how I see the duty of responsible editors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, again, our primary focus is to represent what acts by whom and when were considered "Communist terrorism." There is no problem of neutrality or POV. I am fine with a section such as "Post-Soviet scholarship" if you want to talk about changing perspectives on the original Red Terror, et al. Perspectives on Chinese communism have evolved since the fall of the USSR as well. I would emphasize that changing perspectives on terrorism generally speaking are definitely outside our scope here, and any applicability is synthesis; any "changes" need to be regarding—again—specific acts at specific times by specific individuals/regimes considered to be "Communist terrorism." This might not be your preferred method of organization, however, I think it does provide a place for content addressing your concerns. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I would say, the primary focus of this article is to describe who, how and when applied the term "Communist terrorism" to the acts of violence that were perpetrated or committed by various groups of peoples, who have been associated by others with Communism, and to explain, clearly and unequivocally, that usually these acts are described in different terms by mainstream sources. By omitting the later part of my previous sentence we create a multiple-POV-fork article, which is a direct candidate for deletion. By doing what I propose we preserve the article and do not harm Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: This is where we part paths, I am with you until you get to the "and to explain, clearly and unequivocally, that usually these acts are described in different terms by mainstream sources" part. I have not seen any preponderance of sources which describe these acts in as divergent a terminology as you purport exists. Regardless, as I expect your sources (to be discussed) are of recent scholarship, that content would be appropriate to "Post-Soviet scholarship," no? Not "The Red Terror, which was responsible for [A], is now viewed by [B] as an attempt to [C] in the broader context of [D]." et al. countering the implicitly misguided label of "Communist terrorism" and/or "terror" applied at the time—such pepperings throughout the content at every instance of the mention of anything are not an appropriate treatment of the subject matter. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: P.S. The section could even be called "Post-Cold War perspectives" to give you a bit more latitude. I'm not unreasonable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I believe you, being reasonable, will agree that all significant viewpoints on some subject should be presented in a single article. In connection to that, what do you propose to do when the simple search:

• "vietcong guerrilla -terrorist" give 4,730 results [17]
• "vietcong terrorist -guerrilla" give 2,570 results [18]

demonstrates that "terrorist" is not the major term describing VC activity? I believe, taking into account that the article's title is "Communist terrorism", clear and unequivocal explanations are absolutely required to avoid serious POV and FORK issues.

Re you "Post-Cold War perspectives". These "perspectives" are in actuality called "contemporary views". Do you think it is reasonable to devote the article to the Cold War views, and add a separate sections for "contemporary views"? That idea seems not more reasonable than the suggestion to devote the Thermodynamics article to the Flogiston theory, and move the views of Carno, Gibbs, Helmholtz and others to the separate section at the article's end .--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism" came long before the Cold War, was one of the reasons for the Cold War; that does not make it less terrorist. It's not about slanted Cold War views versus post-Soviet contemporary enlightened views. You've got my suggestion for historical view and you can work on "contemporary perspectives" if you will. ("Views" seem more shallow.) Metaphors or similes regarding other articles are ultimately synthesis regarding handling of subject matter. Also, I see no impediment to treating the Vietcong here. There are no POV or FORK issues. Those only arise from artificially splitting topic matter as has been going on, IMO, the last year. BTW, per the ngram viewer, it would appear that "Vietcong terrorist" trumps "Vietcong guerilla" here, alas, but not guerrilla. Still, a good showing for terrorist. And even the 2000 (post Cold War) "Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" uses "Vietcong terrorist." Rather than complain my way is fraught with all sorts of insurmountable POV/FORK/et al. problems, consolidate some needlessly splintered content and give it a chance. You might find it works. I have studied on the writing about history. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And P.S., you don't need to create SYNTH-violating content, you can write an interesting and informative article using historical sources, e.g., here about a "Russian terrorist". Stop trying to write the article you WANT to write and start writing the article the sources TELL you to write. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original research. If you believe that the academic community has missed something, then take it up with them, but do not try to right great wrongs here. TFD (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: ""Communist terrorism" came long before the Cold War, was one of the reasons for the Cold War;" Interesting point, do you have mainstream non-Cold-War-time sources that support it?

Re: "It's not about slanted Cold War views versus post-Soviet contemporary enlightened views." I would say, that is exactly about that.

Re: "Metaphors or similes regarding other articles are ultimately synthesis regarding handling of subject matter." No, they just an attempt to demonstrate my point.

Re: "Also, I see no impediment to treating the Vietcong here. There are no POV or FORK issues." I explained why I see it. Please, explain, why you do not.

Re ngram. Does it search only within reliable sources or within all books?

Re ""Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" uses "Vietcong terrorist." " Whereas the idiot's book can use this terminology, Wikipedia (whose audience are normal people, not idiots) should stick with reliable sources.

Re Russian terrorists. Yes, it is rather interesting material, however, what relation does it have to the topic we discuss.

Re: "Stop trying to write the article you WANT to write..." I want to write what the reliable sources tell, and, please, don't prevent me from doing that. And, please, don't even try to claim that the sources I am using are junk, or I interpret them incorrectly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing your points in order:

1. Several pre-1933 sources that used the term "Communist terrorism" were presented, don't you recall?
2. Many of the sources that discusses VietCong terrorism have been published long after the Cold War ended.
3. You shouldn't be demonstrating your point, but demonstrating what the sources say.
4. The Vietcong committed acts of terror against the civilian population in a systematic way to further a political goal, but to argue therefore that they are thus deemed "terrorists" and thus this is a POV fork because sources describe them as guerilla is a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
5. Ngram presumably searches within all books
6. "Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War" is written by Timothy P. Maga, Professor of American Heritage at Bradley University, while Wikipedia is written by anonymous editors of unknown educational backgrounds.
7. Regarding "And, please, don't even try to claim that ... I interpret them incorrectly", only the Pope claims infallibility. --Martin (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

re 1. An evidence was presented that the very term had evolved since those times, don't you recall?

re 2. And?

re 3. Exactly. Therefore, if different sources say different things, all these opinions should be presented.

re 4. Weinberg & Eubank, on the pages 80-81 (Forest, James J. F. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century Praeger 6/30/2007 ISBN 978-0-275-99034-3) say that, by contrast to the insurgent groups that used terror as a major and primary tools (IRA, ETA), for Vietcong terror "is simply one weapon, one arrow in the quiver, at the disposal of armed insurgency", so these authors explicitly distinguish between the terrorist groups and the armed insurgency that just resorted to terror. The US also resorted to terror, but that does not make them a terrorist state.

re 5. Exactly. That what I meant.

re 6. Yes, but they use the books and the articles authored by serious scholars.

re 7. The Pope also claims that? I didn't know :). Note, I wrote "claim", however, I am open to any discussion where concrete arguments and facts are provided. If you believe I interpreted some sources incorrectly, please, provide the quote from this source that contradicts to what I am saying.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, this is where you endlessly create synthesis, from (#1) "Communist terrorism" is not terrorism as we know it today to your synthesis (#4) that a terrorist who also paints, to use a metaphor, is therefore less of a terrorist and belongs in some other article on painter-terrorists. That is why my approach for the article works and yours does not, as I keep all the food together on one plate but separate so you can see what is what, while you either toss everything into a pot and make bouillabaisse or separate components into separate courses and make the dish into something completely different; however, at risk of further overextending my metaphor, I would note that even in traditional bouillabaisse the fish is served separate, but still part of the same dish. (So, what you present as rigor and clarity and precision I see as muddling and obfuscation and inaccuracy.) And to something a bit earlier in the conversation, I try to use "comparisons" which are designed only to illustrate a message, not direct comparisons to how unrelated content on WP is organized and we should try the same method here—which is another personal synthesis that the "other" organization applies here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "as we know it today to your synthesis" Who? If you see synthesis here, go to the appropriate noticeboard. The attempt to question the sources I am using had recently failed[19]. The attempt to question the neutrality of the edits I made had failed also[20]. Of course, it would be good if you went to WP:NPOVN to complete the set of ridiculous accusations, and to finish all of that once and forever.

Re "that a terrorist who also paints, to use a metaphor, is therefore less of a terrorist". Incorrect. Please, read the book I quoted. Pages 80-82. The author says that VC were the armed insurgents who also used terror, although it was not their primary tool. Therefore, I would say it was you, not me who are wrong.

Re "That is why my approach for the article works and yours does not, as I keep all the food together on one plate but separate so you can see what is what" I probably misunderstand something, but I do not see how do you "keep all the food together". I would say, your approach is to separate Communism from any other doctrines and to connect it with all conceivable manifestations of violence, carefully omitting all alternative terminologies and theories the scholars use to explain the origin and the reasons of this violence. This approach does not work and will never work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing and escalating mischaracterizations of my simple and unmistakeably straightforward proposal and now your howlingly misguided speculation on my motives and your charges that I am out to create a POV-laden Franken-Communist-bashing monstrosity are grossly offensive. You craft your words carefully to be civil at the surface, but your message is quite clear, that I am a POV-pushing Communist-bashing ultra-nationalist editor who can't possibly be trusted to objectively contribute to this article. I suggest you reconsider your attitude and your preemptive strike strategy. If you find yourself constitutionally unable to even do me the courtesy of adopting a wait and see attitude then I suggest you quietly give this a break for a while and return when there's more to discuss. There's no train leaving the station. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source that supports your POV your personal view of the subject is non-notable. TFD (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in Imperial Russia

I would like to get an explanation what relation does this section have to the article. It tells about the views of some Bolsheviks, however, according to the standards of non-totalitarian societies, the views and the acts are quite different things. I would like to see in this section some concrete examples of some concrete acts of "Communist terrorism" that occurred before February 1917, otherwise the section will be deleted as irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Century Magazine article I linked to above as pertinent to a thoughtful and complete presentation of the subject matter of this article is from 1914. (BTW, the first task our newly initiated terrorist is assigned is an assassination.) Please refrain from threats to unilaterally delete content and do not cloak your threats by using the third person, as if some higher authority will come and do the cleansing of content you do not personally approve of. Your antagonisitic approach is squandering my patience and good will, and I suspect that of other editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The tsarist Russia section is taken from a section on terrorism and state terrorism. No indication in the source how this relates to CT. Were the actions undertaken to "inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system"? Unless the source desribes the connection with CT it is just OR.

@Peters. Please, demonstrate that the Century Magazine article tells about Communist terrorism, explain, why, in your opinion, this source is reliable (that is not a request to prove negative: this source is pretty old, and I have a serious reasons to suspect that it is simply outdated), and, please, add the facts to the section. Otherwise, the section, which does not tell about Communist terrorism, will be removed as irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I envision the article as being about the rise and fall of Communist terrorism (given the current state of world affairs). Here, again, we part ways, as I advocate for content on the concept of historical continuity, whereas you contend that anything that smacks of "a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply. Again, do not delete the section, as Russian terrorism, Bolshevik terrorism, Communist left terrorism, et al. are all part of the subject matter in telling the story—not constructing a precise but ultimately incomplete and inaccurate according to your wordsmithed inventory—of Communist terrorism. Put your content deletion threatening blunderbuss away. I don't respond well to threats. (That supporting appropriate continuity requires a reorganization of the current content is a separate matter.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia is not the place to develop our personal theories. If you believe that you know what CT is then I suggest you get a paper published in a journal. Meanwhile you are just putting together unrelated things into one article. TFD (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia is advocating for a historical accounting absent of interpretation called a "personal theory" and a POV aggregation of unrelated stuff. Feel free to give me a concrete example of two things which do not belong together and exactly why, otherwise you're just engaging in a personal attack. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, generally speaking "anything that smacks of "a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply." It equally can be a rose oil, geraniol, nerol, or other monoterpene alcohols. In addition, we cannot objectively describe a development of historically continuous term that by its nature is extremely subjective and heterogenous (see the works I have already quoted on this talk page, and, please, do not use the words "personal contentions", or something like that, because it is simply an insult of common sense): during various periods of time it was applied, to state terror committed by various revolutionary authorities during civil wars, or to mass terror campaigns organised by totalitarian authorities against their own citizens, or to the acts of sabotage committed by security services of some socialist countries, or to the socialist state sponsored terrorism, or to left-wing terrorism, or to guerrilla warfare, etc. This terms has been independently used by counter-revolutionary forces, by the administrations of some Western states during the Cold war era, by journalists, etc. The term is being rather infrequently used by scholars, who rarely combine these two words together, so they, as a rule do not form a separate category. Terrorism committed by Communists is not necessarily "Communist terrorism", the bombs and rifles they use are not "Communist bombs" and "Communist rifles" (I mean these bombs and rifles do not form a separate category). Remember my previous example: sea shells that are being sold by seashore do not form a separate category "seashore shells".

In summary, if you want to discuss not the evolution of the term, but the evolution of the category, you must prove that this category exists in the works of mainstream scholars. Otherwise, you are engaged in synthesis. I got no such a proof so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, your contention that a factual historical tracing of "Communist terrorism" ending with a section on "Current perspectives" is by (regretfully, your) definition not objective simply boggles the mind. If you are my enemy and you murder someone, my calling you a murderer does not make you less of a murderer or "murderer" a mere propagandic label by the fact that I, your enemy, utter it. Your focus on "Communist terrorism" as just another sort of propagandic name-calling that changed to suit the needs of the name-caller is a grossly inappropriate approach to the subject matter.

Infinite red herrings do not change historical events nor their contemporary descriptions nor current scholarship in hindsight. That scholarship may refine on, or evolve regarding, types of Communist terrorism is material to be added, not synthetic justification for other material to be subtracted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for "Terrorism committed by Communists is not necessarily 'Communist terrorism'", yes, logically that is true, but please then cite acts of terrorism committed by Communists which were not committed with the purpose of advancing Communist goals (whether of individuals, groups, regimes, or states). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If this "contention" boggles your mind, please, provide a mainstream source that supports your contention. As I already wrote, even "Terrorism" (without "Communist") has no specific definition, therefore I doubt it is possible to find a serious book or article saying that "Communist terrorism" as a term, which is commonly defined as blah-blah-blah to describe blah-blah that started in ..., passed thorugh different stages in XX century and eventually had declined by 2000s. The burden rests with you.

I do not focus on propagandistic name calling in general, I mean that it was used primarily for propaganda purposed by Nazi, and, quite independently by British and US authorities, who applied it to quite different events. With regard of other cases, it is just a synonym, in one case, of left-wing terrorism, and, in another case, of Stalinist state terror. In both cases, this term is less abundant than alternative ones.

Re "with the purpose of advancing Communist goals" Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism? What about the US, who used terror against VS to advance democratic goals?

I removed your text about Socialist-revolutionaries. Try to read Russian history: they had no relation to Communism, and were political opponents of Bolsheviks. As I already explained, secret execution of the Czar's family cannot be considered as terrorism, because terrorism implies public action, othervise no fear of terror is created.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, stop taking generalities about terrorism and synthesizing the contention that no one has any idea what "Communist terrorism" is therefore we don't even know where to start to write an article. CT is whatever reliable sources say it is at any time. I have read Russian history. The continuity is in the use of terrorism in the pursuit of revolutionary goals, that groups change (e.g., the Socialist-Revolutionaries ultimately were opponents of the Bolsheviks) does not change the evolution and practice of Russian revolutionary terrorism. Organizational continuity is not a requirement. As for the imperial family, those murders are deemed terrorism in current sources as well, it is your personal contention (as you "explained") that because they were "secret" they were not terrorism, i.e., if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it didn't make any sound. They were dead were they not? It's a bit difficult to keep that a secret.

As for Re "with the purpose of advancing Communist goals" Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism? What about the US, who used terror against VS to advance democratic goals? We are talking about Communist terrorism. Feel free to contribute to the article "United States and state terrorism" or whatever it is called today. More red herrings. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As "CT is whatever reliable sources say it is at any time," your conundrum about term versus category is, I regret, immaterial as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "...does not change the evolution and practice of Russian revolutionary terrorism. " Please, specify, is this article about "Russian revolutionary terrorism", or "Communist terrorism"? Please, also keep in mind that the article cannot be devoted to both these subjects simultaneously, because, independently of how vague CT is defined, these two subjects are not subset of each other.

Re "We are talking about Communist terrorism." Do you imply that common sense should not be used when we talk about CT? And, let me point out that I am a little bit disappointed with your double standards. You wrote:

"but please then cite acts of terrorism committed by Communists which were not committed with the purpose of advancing Communist goals"

in other words, your responce contained no references to the sources, but a pure syllogism ("if all these acts were aimed to advance Communist goals, then it was terrorism"). However, when I responded in the same vein

"Do you imply that terror aimed to advance some ideological goals is always terrorism?"

you replied that we speak about CT only, so all general syllogisms are offtopic. Well, if you prefer not to use general logic, let's go this way, however, I expect you to be consistent in doing that, which, in particular, means that you will apply this restriction to yourself also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Peters, in order to show that the article is not synthesis, could you please provide a source that defines CT so that it should include everything in the article. What is CT? Is it possible to be a Communist and not a CT, or is CT just a POV term for Communist? TFD (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking of a source to define "communist terrorism" is engaging in the logical fallacy of Loki's Wager. --Martin (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link. Thanks. However, I would disagree that it is relevant to this dispute. Peters states that the term CT has quite concrete meaning, and it refers to some quite concrete phenomenon ("I envision the article as being about the rise and fall of Communist terrorism (given the current state of world affairs). Here, again, we part ways, as I advocate for content on the concept of historical continuity,") In other words, if we discuss the rise and fall of something, and speak about its historical continuity, then it is natural to ask, "what concretely we are going to discuss"? However, if no commonly accepted definition for this something exists in litersture, and the Peters' idea is to describe the history of some amorphous conglomerate of events loosely connected by the word "Communism", then, sorry, the article, the whole article, must be deteted as a pure example of original research. That is why the request to provide a commonly accepted clear definition is quite reasonable and is absolutely justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Actually in response to TFD) @TFD, the last time the "definition" of discussion was had, the result was the single definition in the lead which, while at least partially appropriate, left it sorely wanting, so let's not travel that road again—doing what was done before isn't going to yield a different result. More generally, I don't understand your fixation (my perception, per this article and others) on:

1. we MUST define "X" first
2. ONLY THEN can we understand what we are writing about and write about "X"

No. The lead can lie in a state of abject inattention while we write an article which simply goes through "Communist terrorism" in history and, as I've suggested, appropriately ends in considerations of the same in current scholarship. The lead is then, simply, a summation of the article--an abstract, if you will. It is your insistence on a "definition" up front that stymies any and all progress on content.

From my viewpoint, given:

1. TFD's superfluous request for a "definition" in order to proceed;
2. Paul's irrelevant contention that there's no agreement on "terrorism" so how can we write about "Communist terrorism"—that is, merely a more sophisticated variation on TFD's theme;
3. TFD's and Paul's sentiments that they are being neither superfluous nor irrelevant, respectively;

we're not going to make any progress continuing to go about the conversation in the same manner. I think I'll go off for a few days or so to write what I would consider an appropriate "Origins" section. While I would not be surprised that demands for definitions, charges of mixing apples and oranges, ignorance of Russian history, et al. might again arise, at least we'd have something new to talk about as debates over what's here or what should or should not be here, in the abstract, are not moving us forward.

To Paul's, after I had written this, there is absolutely no need for a "definition"; nor is writing an article without that "definition" synthesis. That is because "Communist terrorism" is whatever policy or acts that reliable sources write about when referencing those as being, or being reflective of, "Communist terrorism." However, you seem to eschew the straightforward approach. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely Loki's Wager, Paul and TFD seem to be arguing that since the concept of "Communist terrorism" cannot be defined, it therefore cannot be discussed, and hence the whole article must be deleted. However Communist terrorism is simply terrorism implemented by communists (or those who claim to be adhere to communism), just like "Communist totalitarianism" is totalitarianism implemented by Communists. --Martin (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And a P.S. to Paul's characterization: "Peters' idea is to describe the history of some amorphous conglomerate of events loosely connected by the word 'Communism'", I did not state that. My proposal is a rigorous review of sources which directly relate to "Communist terrorism" and creation of content in the form of a historical narrative followed by a review of current scholarship. Only on WP can one propose simply following the proper and accepted method of writing any article or paper and be accused of synthesis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. And your post is precisely straw man fallacy. I never claimed that CT cannot be discussed, our disagreement with you and Peters is about the way it should be discussed. If you or Peters will provide a commonly accepted mainstream scholarly definition of CT we probably will be able to discuss it as you suggest: as a single strictly defined phenomenon. However, if no such definition will be provided, CT should be discussed as a vague term that significantly evolved during last century, and which was used to describe quite different events by quite different people, and which was frequently used as a synonym of something else.

Again, if you claim that CT is not something vague, but something strictly defined, then provide a non-controversial mainstream definition of CT, otherwise stop this endless contention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, in Loki's wager, Loki claimed that the dwarves could not take his head because there was no clear definition of where his neck ended and his head began. But the story presupposes that there is a definition for head, and it can be found in dictionaries and anatomy textbooks. Where is your dictionary or textbook definition for CT? I suggest that if the dwarves had tried to cut off his foot, that his argument would not be considered a logical fallacy at all. In the same way you are trying to include things are unrelated to CT. TFD (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Short version, CT is a story (historical narrative), not a definition (dictionary). @TFD and @Paul, barking up more loudly up the wrong tree isn't going to change the answer. Encyclopedic content dictates that CT is whatever reliable, reputable sources write about it. Nothing more, nothing less. @TFD, exactly who is "trying to include things [which] are unrelated to CT"? What are those "things?" I did ask you for two things which don't belong together in the article. If you both keep demanding a "definition" prior to any progress on discussing sources and content, then I can only conclude that you're not really here to create content for this article, only to make demands which are not germane to what is required to improve the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is an historical narrative, then please point to someone who has written this narrative. Wikipedia is not the place for you to write your own historical narrative. No way btw of knowing what is not related to CT because I have no idea what it is, and by your own admission you have no idea either, but want to talk about it nonetheless. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be counting on there being references which address certain aspects of CT at certain times without there being a comprehensive survey and using that to make spurious claims of synthesis. As far as I can tell, all you are doing is throwing up hurdles. You've given up on the definition, now you're insisting I produce sources which treat CT in its full panorama over time. Your and Paul's contention is that inclusive content fairly and accurately reflecting Source 1 about a subset of CT 1, Source 2 about a subset of CT 2, Source 3 about a subset of CT 3, etc., is not a scholarly narrative but is, instead, a personal synthesis, an amorphous Franken-terrorist creation of my own making.

It is only a synthesis if it were Source 1 talking about A and B, Source 2 talking about B and C, and I created content linking A and C based on my own suppositions. An article containing materials from Source 1 about A, Source 2 about A, Source 3 about A is not synthesis. That aspects of A span time and space is what drives the need to create superior article narrative, but that narrative is in no way my personal synthesis—I make no conclusions, I posit no new theories, I merely organize: temporally, geographically, organizationally,.... I know full well what "synthesis" is, you are completely mistaken in applying that label to what is proposed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

We do not know that they are talking about the same thing and it appears that they are not because Drake for example distinguishes between terrorism supported by communist ideology and terrorism supported by nationalism, while noting that nationalist terrorists may hold communist ideology. If you believe they are talking about the same thing, then it should not be a problem to find a source that backs up your belief. We should not group together things we believe belong together unless scholars do. TFD (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "CT is whatever reliable, reputable sources write about it." See WP:DISAMBIG: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is :the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. There are three important aspects to disambiguation: Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology)."

So we might have for example, see (1) Malayan insurgency, (2) Cold War propaganda term, (3) Nazi propaganda term, (4) left-wing terrorism, etc.

TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You need not share Paul's apparent concern that I am simply out to create some POV-soaked disjointed inventory of Commie-killing fields. The situation you describe, connectedness and motivation, are invariably covered in sources indicating what earlier (Communist) individuals' or organizations' tactics were adopted, and how, by later (Communist) individuals or organizations. I would add that CT's methods have been documented as being studied and adopted by nationalist terrorists with no Communist ties or sympathies; I would expect to mention this as well but obviously not as a focus of the main subject matter.

As for your example of appropriate disambiguation, added after I wrote the above, that reflects your viewpoint of unrelatedness for which I do not find support in sources; as I just indicated, sources do discuss predecessors and antecedents. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There's no impediment to child articles covering aspects/subsets of CT in more detail. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I must find sources that show no connection exists between unconnected things would give editors carte blanche for all kinds of fascinating synthesis and original research. I do not care whether editors are Communists or anti-Communists so long as they adhere to WP politices of neutrality, NOR and verifiability. If editors wish to advance an opinion, the best approach is for them to ensure that the views they support are fairly represented in WP. Tentontunic for example created an article on the book Bloodlands. TFD (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, Really, you must improve your command of logic in debate. I did not claim you must find sources to show that unconnected things are indeed unconnected, i.e., ask you to prove a negative. I merely stated that your example of "unconnected" with regard to the specific list of articles you would disambiguate because they are unconnected except for sharing a common term (CT) is erroneous. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So you think I should find a source that says for example that when the ``NYT`` in 1919 called the Bavarian Soviet CTs they were not using the same definition as when Drake wrote about groups like the Red Brigades. TFD (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When I say sources do not support your contention of un-connectedness that means they do support the contention of connectedness, not that there are no sources which positively affirm your contention of un-connectedness. Surely you must have better things to do than insisting that I'm insisting you do something which I'm not insisting you do. And you're back to definitions again—both unsuited to and irrelevant to treatment of a historical topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then provide a source that discusses both the Malayan Emergency and left-wing terrorist groups in the 1980s as CT. TFD (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there are direct connections within the historical continuity of CT and ones which are more evolutionary. The article should/will reflect continuities per reliable sources per what I've already stated. However, it does not appear we can have any sort of thoughtful discussion of the subject matter at the moment as you persist in arbitrary demands. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, taking into account that reliable sources (all needed quotes are available upon request) state that, e.g. Malayan "comminist terrorists" were not terrorists, but guerrilla, and the uprising had no connection to the global opposition between the first and the second world, how do you propose to reflect that in the article, and how does it fit into the "narrative" about some "evolution"? Please, propose your wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, could you please provide a source that supports your statement "there are direct connections within the historical continuity of CT and ones which are more evolutionary". Also, if there is a coherent concept of CT that runs through all these groups, then someone somewhere would have written about it. One does not expect that the first place that this approach has been taken is a Wikipedia article. For example the article Liberalism draws a connection between groups over several centuries that it terms "liberal". If one types in "liberalism" in Google books, one may find sources that connect these groups. TFD (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am merely stating the obvious, that in some cases CT(B) following CT(A) was by the same individuals, inspired by, or in the case of CT(...Q) still linked to CT(A) but no longer directly, but by evolution for lack of a better or more succinct word. I suggest holding off on demanding more sources for my suggestions having to do with organization implying those suggestions are some sort of synthetic concoction or POV assemblage on my part. When I have some narrative ready—I think I'll start at the "beginning"—then we'll have something concrete to discuss. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not wonder why no scholars see the subject the same way you do and even extremist writers do not represent the topic the same way as you? These are your own opinions and I suggest you find some other forum to advance them, before promoting them here. TFD (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What I wonder is how you can comment on how I represent topic, contending I'm off the radar screen beyond extremists, when we've only been talking about organization of content based on, of course, reputable sources. Really, is this sort of preemptive disparagement and insults that I'm using article talk as a forum really necessary? I've assumed good faith in our interchanges, clearly you aren't offering me the same courtesy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is it, exactly, that I've been spouting about Communist terrorism that qualifies using this page as a "forum?" I've only been attempting to discuss the most basic of article organization, clearly within the purview of this talk page. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you for example find a book or article about CTs that presents your views? If no one has written any such book (including revisionists) then you are alone in your view of the subject. While I would love to read your article about your original beliefs, they should not be published here first. TFD (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, what about a proposed general outline (CT in historical order, nothing specified otherwise, also making sure to cover current scholarship) is "original beliefs"? You insist there are impenetrable walls of unrelatedness between CT1 | CT2 | CT3. We can discuss your POV when there's content to discuss. Until then, you're simply attacking me for my "views" when there's no cohesive article content yet to debate as to whether my suggested approach has demonstrated concrete value. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that has treated the subject historically or made a connection between the groups you wish to include. TFD (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism and Vietcong

Since there was no consensus to add the below text to the main article, and because main issues (neutrality, correctness of interpretation of the sources, etc.) have not been addressed, I moved the section to the talk page for improvement and (hopefully) adding it back to the main article. The issues that need to be addressed are described in the previous discussion on this talk page and on the WP:NPOVN#Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This content certainly looks to be properly sourced, and I see no impediment to adding the content as written. Let's dispense with arguments over "neutrality"—that's too often a code-word for "I don't like it." Let's address where you believe the content specifically misrepresents a source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Every source used describes the actions written as communist terrorism, I shall put this back as reliably sourced content. Tentontunic (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer not to elaborate a mutually acceptable version on the talk page, but to modify each other's text directly in the main article, I don't mind. I added some text and modified the existing one to put it into a broader context of the Vietnam War. It is also necessary to remember that, since many, if not majority sources call Vietcong not "terrorists" but "insurgents", "partisans" or "guerilla bands", the usage of just one of these terms is against a policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and what a wonderful job you have done, you replaced academic press sources for St. Martin's Press a publisher of popular books, Penguin Books I mean seriously? For statements of fact? PublicAffairs you have really got to be kidding me here? A publisher of politics and current affairs? Sorry but these sources are junk, I shall have to revert your changes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't do that without providing a serious ground. In addition, I think Stanley Karnow is notable enough to be trusted. I also added an additional source that states essentially the same, but in more details (a story of decapitation or disemboweling of political opponents is the most striking), I also plus added this information about the events preceding the partisan war. In my opinion, it is useful for a reader to know that the atrocities of partisans came not from nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism in the Vietnam War In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. In Saigon terrorist actions have been described as "long and murderous" The firing of automatic weapons, planting bombs and throwing grenades were the tactics used. The prime minister of the time Tran Van Huong was shot in an attempted assassination.

Infant victim of Dak Son massacre

The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War. with some estimates saying up to 5000 dead. The United States Army recorded as killed, "3800 killed in and around Huế, 2786 confirmed civilians massacred, 2226 civilians found in mass graves and 16 non Vietnamese civilians killed. Some apologists have claimed the majority of deaths were caused by US bombing in the fight to retake the city, however the vast majority of dead were found in Mass Graves outside the city.

Historian Douglas Pike has also described as a terrorist act the Dak Son Massacre. On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children. In May, 1967 Dr. Tran Van-Luy informed the World Health Organisation "that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries, maternity homes and hospitals"

Guys, I believe we need to stop that. Under "that" I mean the last addition to this section:[21], which, in my opinion, is intended to demonstrate that the Vietcong partisans were more cruel than their opponents. Of course, I could, in response, add that the Ngô Đình Diệm's regime was characterised by reliable sources as "the most authoritarian regime Vietnam ever had" (by the way, some authors explicitly refuse to call partisans fighting against authoritarian regimes "terrorists"), and to add that he started a program of mass repressions and even ethnic cleansing (which added the number of Vietcong supporters). However, do we really need that? Do we need to know that young Ngô Đình Diệm himself accidentally avoided a massacre, where whole his family was burned alive, and that, of course, had a profound impact on his mentality? I don't think so. The war in Vietnam was brutal, however, it is hard to tell, which side was more brutal, and who started first. However, taking into account that the atrocities and barbarism took place from both sides (or, I would say, from all three sides, if we consider the US as a separate actor), by making a stress on the Communist atrocities we deviate from neutrality more and more. We cannot take a story out of historical context (see, e.g. the two main articles telling this story). If you will do that, I will have to restore a balance, however, our combined efforts will lead to creation of a fork, which is not desirable. BTW, please don't blame me in WP:POINT, because, whereas forking is not recommended, non-neutrality is directly prohibited, so by adding more materials about historical background I'll just choose a lesser evil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the aim of terrorism is to terrorise the people, it is appropriate to describe the notable tactics as described in the sources. Your threat to create a WP:POINT POV fork is duly noted. --Martin (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. As I already explained, WP:NPOV (the policy) has precedence over WP:NPOV (guidelines). Only part of scholars and writers describe these events as terrorism. Others prefer not to use alternative terms. In addition, does anybody have a proof that all activity of partisans was aimed to terrorise people? As we all can see, peoples, including the Communists themselves, had already been terrorised by one of the most authoritarian regime (Ngô Đình Diệm's), and, taking into account Diệm's biography, it becomes clear that this brutality didn't came from nothing, but it had a long traditions. Therefore, by writing about VC "communist terrorists" and by omitting alternative points of view, we violate the essence of the WP policy. In that situation, we either need to clearly explain that "some acts of VC were considered as terrorism by some scholars", or I will have to add needed historical background to balance this POV charged text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Re "Your threat to create a WP:POINT POV fork is duly noted". I cannot comment on that in terms allowed by WP policy. I wrote that if we describe in details what some writers see as terrorism, whereas others do not, we will have, to balance such a non-neutrality, to add the alternative POVs as well as to describe a historical context on these events. As a result, the section will become a fork of the Vietcong and Vietnam war articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that to achieve NPOV one has to synthesise a middle ground between two viewpoints? I thought NPOV was achieved by presenting all viewpoints according to due weight. This claim of "writing about VC 'communist terrorists'" and claiming that all acts were terrorism is a straw man. No body has been presenting that argument. That the Vietcong adopted terrorism as a tactic that was applied in many specific instances, such as the Dak Son Massacre, is beyond dispute. Ofcourse you are free to provide a source that argues that the Dak Son Massacre was not an act of terrorism, but I dare say it would be fringe. --Martin (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that to achieve NPOV we need to present all viewpoints according to due weight. In this particular case, it should be stated (in the introduction) that the term "terrorism" is vague and no uniform definition of terrorism exists so far. In particular, there is no consensus among scholars if it is correct to describe partisan or national-liberation movements as "terrorists". In addition, the term "terrorist" has been extensively used to label political opponents. And, based on that background we can safely say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism"). Please, point at any flaw in this proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" is not vague, there is a uniform definition: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Whether to describe a particular organisation as "terrorist" is something different, and I think a straw man. This article is not called Communist terrorist organisations, so the need to describe a partisan or national-liberation movements as "terrorists" is not being considered. I think your proposal to say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism") is better except that it is flawed by weasel words "what many sources describe as" and "some of them as". We have (non US government) sources that describe events like the Massacre at Huế and the Dak Son Massacre as acts of terrorism. Do we have a source that asserts these acts were not terrorism? --Martin (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Terrorism is a loaded term without a uniform definition. Of course there are obvious cases when something/someone was described terrorist by someone else, but almost in all cases such usage has to be attributed and does not define the term. (Igny (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Some quotes:

"Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed in the attack, but rather the governments, publics, or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender a reactionsuch as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term, only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts: Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers." (Cronin, Audrey Kurth. Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Volume 27, Number 3, Winter 2002/03, pp. 30-58 (Article) Published by The MIT Press)

In other words, the author clearly states that the term "terrorism" (i) has no strict definition; (ii) this problem is intrinsic; (iii) the usage of this term is frequently politically motivated.

"Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. " (Encyclopaedia Britannica [22].)

In this case, no comments are needed.
Let me also point out that, whereas I see on misinterpretation of the opponent's words in Igny's statement, the statement:

"So you are saying that to achieve NPOV one has to synthesise a middle ground between two viewpoints?",

contains a direct misinterpretation of my words (explained above) and therefore is a typical straw man argument. I already explained what straw man fallacy is, so, please, try to use the terms properly.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Do we have a source that asserts these acts were not terrorism?" To demand to prove that some opinion is not commonly accepted is against the policy. (And, as I see from your own post ("Do you want me to prove negative?"), you yourself perfectly understand that). In addition, I already presented the source that contrarposes guerilla warfare as whole (and Vietcong in particular) and terrorists. That should be sufficient to conclude that description of VC as terrorists is not commonly accepted. And, please, read my posts carefully before writing your objections, because otherwise I can conclude that you simply ignore what I write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: " I think your proposal to say that during their partisan war against the authoritarian regime of Ngô Đình Diệm Vietcong committed what many sources describe as "terrorism" (and some of them as "Communist terrorism") is better except that it is flawed by weasel words "what many sources describe as" and "some of them as". " Unfortunately, that is exactly opposite to what the policy says. It states: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."". That is directly relevant to this particular case. In addition, as I already wrote, I did provide the source that describes them not as terrorists. Why do you ignore my arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "''Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Obviously, this definition implies that some group or person that committed just one or few acts of terror cannot be considered as terrorists. That is nonsense, in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that "communist terrorism" was a term used by the American government (c. 1961-1972) to create a connection in the public mind between Communism and terrorism in order to justify their war. It is similar to the modern attemnpt to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. We should report that the link was made. But to adopt the Cold War terminology for this article would be POV and anachronistic. TFD (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Only one source was presented, by Carol Winkler, claims that the term was exploited by the US Government, so it should be attributed to her not represented as a general view. While Carol Winkler may have a certain viewpoint on the usage of the term "terrorism", she is clear on the fact of terrorism in South Vietnam when she herself acknowledges:

"Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them."

There are many sources independent of the US government that support the claim that the VC engaged in terrorism to support their goals. Even Britannica entry acknowledges the use of acts of terror by the VC:

"Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia)".

This is not inconsistent with what Michael Lee Lanning and Dan Cragg write in their book 'I'nside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces:

"The final tactic used by the VC/NVA was terrorism. Although much more a political weapon than a military one, it nonetheless was an integral part of Front operations. According to writer Douglas Pike: 'To the communitst, terror has utility and is beneficial to his cause … terror is integral in all the communist tactics and programs and the communist could not rid themselves of it if they wanted to.' "

These authors go on to define the goals of VC terrorism:

"Terrorism, admitted or not, as practiced by the CV/NVA was aimed at three important goals:

-Intimidation of the people: The VC/NVA assassinated, abducted, threatened, and harassed the population of South Vietnam in order to force their cooperation, to obtain labourers and porters, to collect taxes, food, and other supplies, and to prevent the local inhabitants from giving intelligence to the Allied forces…."

In another source Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom By Ami Pedahzur we have a chapter devoted to Viet Cong suicide terrorism[23]:

"In other words, the overall volume and lethality of Viet Cong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century. The Viet Cong campaign is obscured by the fact it occurred in the context of a more general conflict, one in which not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. The terrorism was a war within a war."

Thus claiming that some sources prefer to describe the VC campaign as an guerilla/insurgency/partisan war obscures the fact that there was a terror campaign existing within a wider military campaign. --Martin (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice that they do not use the term CT, which is a relic of the Cold War, and coined in order to draw a connection between terrorism and communism in the mind of the public. In fact the type of terrorism used by the Vietnamese insurgency is normally called "nationalist terrorism", while the term CT if it is used at all is used as a synonym for left-wing or Marxist-Leninist terrorism. This distinction is clear in some of the sources you have provided (e.g., Martin). TFD (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ngô Đình Diệm was the nationalist who beheaded VC sympathisers, are you now contending that the VC were nationalists too and committed acts of "nationalist terrorism" against Ngô Đình Diệm's nationalist regime? --Martin (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Diem's actions, if they were terrorism, would probably not amount to nationalist terrorism, but would more likely be seen as state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. Others might see it as counter-insurgency. The typology of terrorism does not depend on the ideology of those carrying out terrorism, but the reasons for their actions. That is why for example scholars do not refer to actions by the VCs as CT, or actions of Diem as NT. And the term "nationalist" in this case merely refers to objectives, and other writers use other terms such as "ethnic" or "separatist". It is possible to have terrorists on both sides of an ethnic dispute, e.g., in Northern Ireland, where the loyalists militias would hardly call themselves nationalists, although their actions are grouped with nationalist terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The EB clearly distinguish between terrorism and the usage of terror. Accordingly, terrorists are those who rely primarily on terror, and, based on this criterion, they should be distinguished from guerrilla and regular military, who, despite wide usage of terror (for instance, Wehrmacht or Yugoslav partisans used terror very widely) cannot be considered as terrorists. Moreover, some authors explicitly refuse to "attach the terrorist label to anyone resisting an authoritarian regime" (Crenshaw, M. (1990). The logic of terrorism: Terrorist behavior as a product of strategic choice. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, (pp. 7–24).Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center and Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.), and the fact that Ngô Đình Diệm's regime is indisputable. One way or the another, despite wide usage of terror by partisans, the EB article "Guerrilla warfare" does not describe them as terrorists[24]. Despite the article about Viet cong[25] states that "For the most part, the Viet Cong fought essentially a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage; they used small units to maintain a hold on the countryside, leaving the main population centres to government authorities.", it does not characterise them as "terrorists": "Viet Cong (VC), in full Viet Nam Cong San, English Vietnamese Communists, the guerrilla force that, with the support of the North Vietnamese Army, fought against South Vietnam (late 1950s–1975) and the United States (early 1960s–1973). " To ignore that would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Therefore, since I anticipate that the attempts to add other Communist guerrillas to this article, we need to decide if we have to characterise them as guerrilla that used a terrorist tactics, or as terrorists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you really of the opinion that EB saying the VC fought a guerrilla war of ambush, terrorism, and sabotage means they are not terrorists? ~Even though EB says they used terrorism? I will point out that so far in this section there is far more support for the content I proposed over the mess you inserted, shall I restore my version so you can go block shopping again? Tentontunic (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We go by whether there is a consensus in the literature to term them as terrorists. Usually only groups whose primary activity is terrorism (e.g., the Weather Underground, the "fighting communist organizations"), are called terrorists. Groups the have used terrorism as a tactic, e.g., America's founding fathers, are not normally called "liberal terrorists",[26] Soviet and American governments that backed terrorism are not called terrorist governments. See also WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". TFD (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no shortage of sources saying the VC were and engaged in terrorism. Stop being silly. Tentontunic (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are. But there are few sources that call them terrorists. Similarly, the founding fathers engaged in terrorism, but are not normally called terrorists. Modern American presidents who supported Gadaffi are not called terrorists. TFD (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you always post random nonsense? Who cares what the founding fathers did? What has that to do with this article? And "few sources call them terrorists"? Have you actually looked? "viet cong terrorists" 618 "viet cong terrorists" 621 That`s over 1200 hits on a quick book search. Do not try to say it is used by few sources. Tentontunic (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of your sources are contemporaneous, most of the others are repeating how terms were used contemporaneously. We are no longer living in the 1960s and calling the VCs CTs went out with a lot of other terminology of the time. And the reference to the founding fathers is apt. We do not call people who carried out terrorist acts terrorists unless that was their normal occupation. That is because Wikipedia follows a policy of neutrality, it does not take sides on the U.S. revolution or the Vietnam War. If you learn to accept the principle of neutrality you will avoid constant argument over content. TFD (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic. Never use google results, because it searches within all sources, not only reliable ones. Try gscholar instead:

• "viet cong terrorists" -guerrilla [27] 15 results.
• "viet cong guerrilla" -terrorists [28] 127 results.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS And always compare. For instance, based on this search results one may conclude that "Soviet peaceful" policy ('288 results [29]) is a mainstream term. However, by doing this search ("Soviet expansionist" policy 497[30]) it is easy to see that that conclusion would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the search was to point out the obvious to TFD, who it appears needs to be lead around by the hand as he seems unable to perform a simple search. Every source I have used in the VC section is from academic publishers and historians. All I am quite sure were printed since the late 1990`s. TFD saying The majority of your sources are contemporaneous is quite simply stupid, it makes it appear he has not even looked at the sourcing used, just prefers to waste time making silly statements about founding fathers. If he does not at least try to focus I shall have little option but to ignore him. Now given the support shown here for my proposal, should I restore it? Or shall you go looking to have me blocked? Tentontunic (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that during the Cold War, the U.S. government tried to associate terrorism and Communism in the public mind, because they wanted to sell their war to both the American and Vietnamese people. You first Google source for example is from the U.S. embassy in Saigon in 1967, your second is from the U.S. State Department "Office of Media Services" in 1970. Incidentally, the war ended long ago, Vietnam is now a friend and we no longer call them terrorists. No reason why we should revive Cold War terminology. And the reference to the founding fathers who supported terrorism is apt - that does not mean that history books call them terrorists, merely that history books say they used terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's see:

1. Carol Winkler - Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. Good and reliable source. However, it does not support the statement "In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam". On this page (p17) the author states that (i) "terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam" (without adjective "Communist") and (ii) US administration "linked Communist and terrorism". The whole chapter in actuality is devoted to how the administration did that. Conclusion, despite the source is good, its interpretation is flawed;
2. Forest . Good source, however, it says nothing about Vietnam on the page 82. Moreover, it mentions Vietnam only 3 times[31], and not in a context of Communism. Conclusion despite the source is good, it is totally unrelated to the proposed text;
3. Nghia M. Good source, directly supports the proposed text
4. Michael Lee Lanning page 185. Good source. However, he does not state anything about Hue massacre. He refers to the opinion of the Pike, and devotes the page to the analysis of the question of who VC or NVA resorted to terror more frequently. The same piece of text discusses, btw, the Mai Lai massacre, and by omitting the fact that not only South Vietnamese government, but also US troop resorted to terror is a significant sine against neutrality.
5. T. Louise Brown in actuality cites Pike's "The Viet-Cong strategy of terror" (1970). Taking into account that the war still lasted during this time, the numerical estimates could be inaccurate.
6. Charles A. Krohn - no detailed reference has been provided. Could not verify
7. B. Rigal-Cellard. In actuality, the author doesn't state that. The author quotes the words of Senator James O. Eastland. The author neither confirms nor refutes the senator's words.

To summarise, out of 7 sources, one of them cannot be verified (incomplete ref), two of them directly support the proposed text (although one of these two cites an old source), two of them in actuality refer to the opinion of others, one of them has been misinterpreted, and one simply tells nothing about Vietcong. In addition, the information about Hue massacre has been taken out of context, because the source (Lanning) discusses and compares terror committed by both sides. Cannot say your work impressed me.

And, importantly, you totally ignored my post: as correctly made search demonstrates, "guerrilla" is much more common term than "terrorists" in a context of VC. Do you have anything to say in responce?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Yes actually.

1. Winkler, the chapter is titled vietnam and the communist terrorists. She also refers to the VC as terrorists. So the source certainly supports the content.
2. Forest I am unsure of what has happened here, I must have used the wrong reference. I had not [32] Page 82 as cited.
3. Lanning, were in the article does he state anything? Please reread the section.
4. Brown, what you think of numerical estimates are neither here nor there, we use what the sources say after all.
5. Krohn, why are you unable to verify this? I see the book used was not in the article, now it is.
6. Rigal-Cellard, again so what? He is quoting another person? What does this have to do with the content?

I am not trying to impress you, I am trying to expand an article. Your google search counts for naught as I have just learned. Tentontunic (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The chapter title "vietnam and the CTs" is about how the U.S. government used the term as part of a propaganda campaign. She was not endorsing the use of dishonest terminology and we should not endorse it either. TFD (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you can channel Carol Winkler, she calls the VC terrorists in the book. The VC were the ones who killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. That is the fact of the matter, and that is what she wrote of. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

She does not call them CTs and in fact the whole point of her article was how the U.S. used this terminology as part of a propaganda campaign. If you believe that they are generally called CTs then you need to present a source. However that is what the U.S. called them during the Cold War and the terminology was dropped after the U.S. persued detente, c. 1972. TFD (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. If you want to draw conclusions from the title, it is useful to remember that the title of the book as whole is " In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era.". In other words, it is not about terrorism, but about how the US presidents used this term.

Re 2. Exactly.

Re 3. The text proposed by you is as follows: "The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War. " The ref to Lanning implies that this statement belongs to him, which is not the case. The neutrality issues mentioned by me have been left unanswered by you.

Re 4. No major objections, just a comment that this source cites the old source that contains war time estimates.

Re 5. Yes, I checked. The source does confirm the numbers, however, it does not characterise this act as "terrorist". Interestingly, the Massacre at Huế article also does not use the term "terrorist" as a primary epithet. Therefore, we have POVFORK here.

Re 6. She quotes a politician that quotes another person. By contrast, you present that as an established fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And, much more important question. What are, in your opinion, the advantages of the version supported by you, and what information is missing from the current version?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First ref is fine, if you wish we can replace communist with Viet Cong, but you are simply splitting hairs regarding this. The text proposed by me is accurate to the source, in that The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War Does the reference support this or not? It is not attributed to Lanning at all, the content does not say he said this. Yes in confirms numbers, it also says further down the page VC terrorism. Just because the article on Huế does not mention terrorism does not make this a POV fork, we are reporting what the sources say, and the source called it one of the worst communist terrorist actions of the war. Your final point is a waste of time, historians use quotes from people all the time, are you saying the source is unreliable? If not then there is in fact no issue with it. As to my version, you will notice it has in fact far more support than yours, given you are the only person who seems to support it. The advantage of mine over yours is simple, it is well written. Your version is disjointed. I shall restore my version with a few modifications later on today. Tentontunic (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When historians quote people, they do not necessarily endorse their views. That is particularly true about a book whose subject is propaganda. Also, this article is about "Communist terrorism" and if the sources do not call them that then including them is synthesis. Vietcong do not meet the definition of CT that you yourself added to the lead of this article. TFD (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do not do that, because the arguments you use remind me WP:VOTE, which is not acceptable per policy. Your version has very serious neutrality issues, which have been outlined above, and can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. You apply "terrorism" as a single and primary term to the acts and the events that are being described as guerrilla warfare or revolutionary movement by most sources;
2. You take these events out of historical context, thereby presenting VC as the only political force that resorted to unprovoked violence in South Vietnam.
3. You deliberately omit any mention that the VC movement was a revolutionary movement against the extremely authoritarian regime in the society that had very long history of the usage of violence.

Please, be also advised that WP:3RR (in its 1RR version) is not the only rule that may inflict sanctions for its violation. Please, keep also in mind, that WP:V is not the only policy, so systematic violation of other policies, such as WP:NPOV is equally punishable. You have already had a rather long list of violations of this policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are. I do not apply terrorism to anything, the sources do. I take noting out of context, this article is on communist terrorism, hence it will include actions carried out by communists. I omit noting, the reasons for the VC attacks are of no importance to this article, this article is not about why they committed terrorism, it is about the fact that they did. Now given you are the lone voice against this then quite simply tough, your version has gotten no support at all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the ongoing discussion about this section on the NPOV noticeboard[33] (which was initiated not by me), the statement that I am "the only person who thinks there are neutrality issue", Taking into account that you made the post there[34] just 8 minutes after you made this post (and you posted there before (e.g. on 17 March 2011), '. I suggest you to stop that, because the longer it lasts the more evidences of your disruptive behaviour are being accumulated. All of that can be used against you in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attacks again, stop. And look at what I wrote, I said you are the only person who has commented HERE. Do not call me a liar again. And that is a question on weight, not neutrality. Tentontunic (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You have edited my post[35], which is highly inappropriate.

Re: "And look at what I wrote, I said you are the only person who has commented HERE." In actuality you wrote the following:

"Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are."

In other words, there was no "HERE" in your post. In reality you dare to claim that noone thinks there are neutrality issues in a situation when this concrete piece of your text is now being discussed on the WP:NPOVN [36]. Obviously, your statement "Given you are the only person who thinks there are neutrality issues then tough really. No other editor has said there are." is a blatant lie. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And your statement that your meant only this section is lie also, nothing in your post suggested that you separated these two discussions, and, taking into account that we participated in both, it was absolutely illogical to resort to such type argumentation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Forest, yes, you are right, for some reason your and my searches gave different results. I think, that is because different pages are available from your books.google.co.uk and my books.google.com. That is useful to know in future, thank you.
Interestingly, this source (page 81) describes VC, as well as other armed movements as armed insurgency, and separates different armed insurgencies onto three categories: one category (ETA, IRA, etc, used terrorism as a primary tool), others (Castro's "bearded ones") did not use it at all, and for the third category terrorism "is simply one weapon, one arrow in the quiver, at the disposal of armed insurgency"(p. 80-81, op. cit). This group, according to the authors, includes Viet Minh and Viet Cong. Therefore, according to the source courteously provided by you, VC should be described as revolutionaries who used terror, although not as a primary tool, and in that sense were different from IRA, ETA, and similar primarily terrorist organisations. Thank you for the source, I will use it for my future work on this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited your post to remove a personal attack, which I see you have restated. If you fail to grasp what I have written then perhaps you ought to say this is an ongoing discussion on the NPOV board, not call me a liar. You persistent attacks on my self leave no choice but to talk to an admin. Tentontunic (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, never edit the posts made by others. Re personal attacks, I said nothing about you as a contributor. However, despite the fact that in your real life you may be a crystal honest person, your contribution, concretely, two your claims that (i) I am the sole person who expressed concern about neutrality of your text, and (ii) in your previous post you meant only those editors who participated in this particular thread, are lie, and this lie is blatant. I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable to read that, but I have no more appropriate words to characterise these your contributions. Don't post lie in future, and I will have no reason to use this word again.

However, if you concede, clearly and unequivocally, that several users (TFD, Stephan Schulz, PrBeacon, J. Johnson ) believe that the text you have written, and the ideas you are trying to push are non-neutral, and that you never meant only this particular thread in your initial post, I will gladly remove all my negative characteristics of your recent posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

J. Johnson does not say the proposal is non neutral he says he believes terrorists is a loaded word and needs careful handling. Stephan Schulz done not say the content is not neutral, he is of the opinion that the source does not support the text. PR Beacon says it ought be used only with qualification. [37] I removed your personal attacks per WP:TPG if you do not understand something I have written then say so, do not accuse me of being a liar. This is your last warning, given the admin you went block shopping to told you not to call editors lairs on talk pages you really ought to heed his advice. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you no response to this Siebert? The fact that I did not in fact lie and that you are in fact wrong means you ought retract your allegations no? I intend to restore the proposed version above as it has received support. Your version has none and that is the end of this. Tentontunic (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidences that the discussion on the NPOVN demonstrated that the text that omits the references to the Cold war time propaganda as well as explanation of the reason why British Foreign office and British colonial authorities decided to avoid the terms "insurgents" or "guerrilla" and preferred to use initially "bandits" and then "communist terrorists" is more neutral than the current one. In addition, two reliable sources, in addition to those already provided, have been provided during this discussion, and they also confirm validity of this statement. If someone has doubts in that, they may go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Until such a time as you retract your allegations of my being a liar their shall be no further discussion between us. And you have yet to actually provide another source whic hbacks deerys claim that communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. I fully intend to remove your version which has no support and restore my proposal which has support. Tentontunic (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the request to provide a support as a proof that a reliable secondary source is reliable is absurd, such a proof has been provided. All needed sources have been abbed to the "Usage of the term" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is an artificial conflation here: based on an article on labels, the contention that the source states "communist terrorist" is only a label. "Bandit" was coined (after much consideration) initially as a purely anti-Communist label, however, this label/euphemism later backfired as it prevented the MCP from being referred to properly as what they were, i.e., Communist insurgents who were well armed, well trained, terrorists who showed no compunction in killing officials or civilians. (Those words being used by British officials appalled at the situation they found on the ground after being prepared to expect "bandits.") That the British at one time looked favorably upon the MCP (when they were fighting the Japanese), came up with propaganda term labeling them (just) a bunch of bandits, then graduated to the much more insidious Communists, is simply a matter of British labeling. Anyone can call anyone a name, I myself have been called many names. A name—a label—does not change one's Communist ideology or modify/molify terrorist acts committed against (in particular) civilian populations. Quite frankly, Paul Siebert's approach generally is inappropriate conflation of the finer points of the use of "Communist terrorist" in the context of geopolitical discourse versus "Communist terrorist" as a ideologically motivated person, group, regime, or state engaged in acts of terror. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters, you will probably be surprised to learn that the term "bandits" was coined not only (and probably not primarily) for anti-Communist reasons, but for political and economical ones. Concretely, by calling partisans "bandits" the authorities got an opportunity not to introduce martial law in Malaya. By attempting to reduce the partisan movement to just "banditry" and "terrorism" the authorities did not allowed insurance companies to raise insurance premia. With regard to "well armed, well trained, terrorists", let me point out that majority of contemporary sources prefer to call them "anti-colonial partisans" or "guerrilla", and, according to the contemporary views, there were no connection between them and the USSR or China. Regarding "well armed and well trained", they were armed and trained because during WWII they fought against the Axis on the Allied side. In connection to that, it is not clear why the same activity is interpreted as anti-Axis resistance and terrorism depending on against whom it is directed. Moreover, as a proponent of national-liberation movements in your own country of origin, you demonstrate double standards by calling other pro-independence movements "terrorists". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)